Summary of Findings (click on the number that interests you)

Experience-based training and development (EBTD) programming are mostly utilized to improve teamwork. Quantitative and qualitative evidence, both objective and subjective, suggest that these programs can be effective, and may be a better choice for building teams than the usual classroom program (#9). However, without program follow-up, any acquisition of teamwork may not be maintained over time (#3). Unsupported gains in teamwork often fail to transfer to the workplace and return to baseline values in about six months (#22). Barriers to the transfer of learning include: not doing team building with intact units, not starting with executives and cascading the effect to other levels, and not providing time, tasks or resources to practice teamwork on the job (#2).

Other than safety, the single most important indicator of program quality is facilitation. Partnerships of company trainers with EBTD trainers seem to provide the best combination (#10).

Study #9 - Experiential learning about teamwork was more effective than the classroom.

REFERENCE: Priest, S. (in press). Organizational Team Building: Experiential versus classroom. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership.

PURPOSE: To compare classroom and experiential learning techniques in their potential to influence teamwork development for intact work units of an organization.

DESIGN: Three equivalent intact work units responsible for separate areas of research and development in different regions around the country: one control group and two experimental groups (n=42 each). One experimental group received the experiential program, while the other received the classroom program. The control group received no team building program of any kind.

TREATMENT: The experiential program was a two day residential CAT course with the first day of group initiative tasks followed by a second day of outdoor pursuits. The classroom session was also two days long and residential in nature, with a series of indoor lectures and simulation exercises. The two programs cost a similar amount and were held in the same location on the same weekend.

COMPANY: British pharmaceutical company. English was the primary language.

SUBJECTS: Groups were composed of 1 director, 7 managers and 34 R&D employees

INSTRUMENT: The medium version of the Team Development Inventory (TDI-m) with established face validity, equivalent reliability and construct validity.

MEASUREMENT: The TDI-m was administered ten times: three months, one month and a week before programs began; at the start and finish of each program; and a week, a month, three months, six months and a year after the programs ended.

ANALYSIS: TDI-m mean index scores were subjected to ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc tests seeking differences across the three groups and over the ten test times.

FINDINGS: Although all groups had 42 members, not every member completed all ten tests. Due to company downsizing, attrition and new hirings over the fifteen month study period, final group sizes ranged from 33 to 40. As shown in the following graph teamwork for the control group did not change over the study period, indicating that changes to the other two experimental groups were likely due to the type of treatment they received rather than to any environmental or business influences in effect at the time.

No significant changes in teamwork levels occurred during the three tests leading up to the programs, indicating that the groups were relatively stable and equal in their teamwork. On the initial day of the programs, immediately before any training had taken place, the experiential group had a significant drop in teamwork. This dip can be attributed to pre group anxiety (PGA), which is typical of people involved in adventure programs as they become nervous about impending challenges and so often under-respond their abilities. On the last day, immediately after all training had been completed, both groups showed significant increases in teamwork, likely as a result of the two programs. The experiential group increased by a significantly greater amount than the classroom group. Apparently, both programs were effective in improving the teamwork of these two groups, but the experiential program seemed to cause greater gains than the classroom program. One week later, teamwork levels for the classroom group returned to original baseline levels and stayed there for the rest of the test times. However, the experiential group's teamwork slowly returned toward original levels. After one year, their teamwork was still elevated at levels significantly above baseline. From these outcomes, the retention of the classroom learning appeared to be limited to approximately seven days, while the experiential learning remained with the group for more than a year.

CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the classroom program was able to increase measures of teamwork from about 45% to 55%, while the experiential program brought about acquisitions of a further 25% (on a 0%&emdash;100% scale). The classroom program showed short lived learning, while gains from the experiential program lasted much longer. Overall, the experiential approach was far more effective than the classroom approach to developing teamwork.

Study #3 - Follow-up procedures have a significant impact on transfer of learning.

REFERENCE: Priest, S. & Lesperance, M. A. (1994). Time Series Trend Analysis in corporate team development. Journal of Experiential Education, 17(1), 34-39.

PURPOSE: Two parts: the first determined time series changes in team behaviors during a CAT program, and the second examined the transfer influence of three different follow-up procedures (FP) on the retention of those changes.

DESIGN: One control group (n=20), which did not receive any training, and three experimental groups (n=20, 15 and 20) which received the CAT program treatment and various follow-up procedures (no FP, FP and self-facilitating).

TREATMENT: An intensive 48 hour residential CAT program (conducted over 3 days) with morning classroom lectures and afternoon/evening group initiative activities.

COMPANY: Canadian financial institution and bank. English was the primary language.

SUBJECTS: Upper management (vice-president, directors and area managers) from intact work units (computing systems/data analysis or financial risk management).

INSTRUMENT: The short version of the Team Development Inventory (TDI-s) with established face validity, equivalent reliability and construct validity.

MEASUREMENT: Subjects were tested nine times during the CAT program (usually at meal times) and at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after the program.

ANALYSIS: Repeated measures ANOVA seeking changes for one group in individual TDI items over the 48 hour CAT program and longitudinal changes for all four groups in summed TDI scores (representing overall team behavior) during the follow-up period. Scheffe Tests were used for post hoc analyses.

FINDINGS: The four groups were relatively equivalent in the type of parent company,
organizational functions, hierarchical structure, and scores on the TDI measured prior to the 48 hour residential CAT program. After the program, significant increases were evident for all ten items on the TDI for all experimental groups, but not for the control group, indicating that the CAT program brought about positive changes in teamwork. Looking within the program, significant increases occurred between lunch and dinner measurements, and between dinner and night measurements, indicating the group initiative activities made a positive contribution to team development. Although no changes were noted for the classroom component, subjects commented that the practical afternoon sessions were made more effective by participating in the conceptual morning sessions.

The graph above shows the changes which the groups experienced after the CAT program. All three experimental groups experienced an immediate, but slight drop in teamwork (measured two weeks later) which was attributed to the well-known "Post Group Euphoria" effect common to many adventure experiences. In relation to the three different follow-ups, the group not receiving any supportive procedures, reverted to baseline measures by the end of six months. After the same time period, the group involved with strategies such as team meetings, refresher training, social gatherings, staff luncheons, and coaching sub-teams, maintained the levels of their team behaviors. Lastly, the self-facilitating group was able to increase the levels of their team behaviors, building on successes and learning from setbacks at work, by the techniques of funnelling and guided reflection. The point about transfer or longevity of learning is driven home by this longitudinal research which suggests that any teamwork improvements from CAT may be lost after six months without support in the form of follow-up procedures

CONCLUSIONS: The three groups in these research studies improved from 50% to 70%
occurrence for the ten team behaviors as a result of participating in a 48 hour CAT program spread over three days. Furthermore, and after an initial post program drop to realistic levels of about 65% for all three groups, one group without follow-up support dropped back to 50% over six months, while a second group with support remained steady at 60% to 65% during the same period, and a third group increased to almost 80% occurrence through self-facilitated support over the same time.

Study #22 - Adventure programs can impact the bottom line, but without follow-up procedures they can fall short of expectations.

REFERENCE: Bramwell, K., Forrester, S., Houle, B., LaRocque, J., Villeneuve, L. & Priest, S. (1997). One shot wonders don't work: A causal-comparative case study. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 14(2), 15-17.

PURPOSE: To identify the longitudinal impacts of adventure training on corporations.

DESIGN: Three part survey (demographics, expectations or benefits, and behavioral change) given to 72, followed by three part interview (highlight experiences, changes to financial bottom line, and behavioral changes) given to 24.

TREATMENT: Single hotel-based group initiative program approximately one year ago.

COMPANY: Canadian retail corporation. English was the primary language.

SUBJECTS: Survey 72 and interview 24 employees from the distribution division.

INSTRUMENT: Face-to-face interviews, preceded by a survey of open-ended questions (changes in self, co-workers, department, or company since participation).

MEASUREMENT: After survey analysis, interview subjects were purposefully selected on the basis of strong opinions and uniquely positive or negative survey responses.

ANALYSIS: Interview data were analyzed by "Nudist" and included member checks and a "Devil's Advocate" to corroborate the data content and its interpretations.

FINDINGS: Subjects represented a 33% sample of 15 males and 9 females. Their mean (standard deviation) age was 39.6 (8.6) years and they had been with the company for an average of 10.3 (7.6) years. Their job roles included (in order of hierarchy): one divisional vice president, three directors, fourteen managers, two supervisors, one consultant, one administrative assistant, and two support staff. Average age and experience typified all company-wide employees and the sample was proportionate across gender and position. Since little discussion and lots of rumors preceded the program, they were not sure what to expect beforehand. Afterwards, they were pleased with the experience and those who were initially resistant, had become supportive.

Survey question 1: what do YOU do differently at work as a result of your participation?
Summary of responses 1: valued and listened to the opinions of others much more, were more likely to ask for help, were more supportive, and became more of team oriented when involved in work projects.

Survey question 2: what do your CO-WORKERS do differently at work as a result of their participation? Summary of responses 2: had a greater sense of teamwork and had improved their communication skills.

Survey question 3: what does your DIVISION do differently at work as a result of their participation? Summary of responses 3: more team oriented, better communication, and higher performance standards.

Survey question 4: what changes occurred at work as a result of your COMPANY'S participation? Summary of responses 4: closer to incorporating teamwork and employee empowerment into work ethic.

IMPACT ON THE BOTTOM LINE or HOW THE COMPANY SAVED MONEY:

Indirectly, we saved money in terms of saving time. We sped up a lot of our. We now looked to see if communication processes were breaking down and why. From that we came up with a new way of doing something, and this probably resulted in cost savings.

One subject described such a case where a warehouse worker brought up an idea for changing the way goods were stored on forklift pallets. This change was estimated to have saved over $100,000 in the first year alone: more than enough to pay for all the training programs needed. This worker would not have brought up the idea without new confidence from the adventure training and without managers becoming receptive to ideas from workers as a result of their participation. Although this proprietary information cannot be published here, another more common and public example can be shared:

The department had been waiting for someone to order their supplies, when in fact these supplies had already existed and instead of both ordering 1000 quantities of each, the two departments worked together on the order and split it. That was a direct cost savings to the company. Whereas, before, we wouldn't have thought to phone the other department because we didn't know or want to know each other.

Despite the benefits elucidated above, three subjects noted that these CHANGES WERE SHORT LIVED:

The respect we gained for one another was great, but after awhile it was business as usual and we grew apart again. Unless you work with those people on a regular basis, it just fades away.

Changes in the workplace only lasted for several months, then behaviors went back to the way they were.

Things were better for six months, but with no upper management support, things went back to normal.

SUBJECTS KNEW that the lack of follow-up procedures was to blame for the lack of transfer:

I think that with this kind of exercise, or with any kind of training exercise, you have to do follow-up on a regular basis: whether it is one year, nine months or eighteen months.

I think the program needs to be structured in such a way that you go and do the two or three day program and then come back nine months later,É and this encourages the commitment of the senior management to maintain the new spirit as well.

CONCLUSIONS: The adventure training program described here is exemplary of most such programs. Its outcomes are typical for the kinds of benefits these programs derive. Subjects reactions, initially unsure or resistant, become supportive and they are changed by the experience. The absence of follow-up and its impact on loss of learning and behavioral change is, sadly, just as routine. The employees of this corporation differed from most consumers by being well informed customers: they knew what was effective and what was not.

Study #2 - For team building programs to be effectively utilized back at the office, they
should be conducted on intact work units, rather than random samplings, and
resources should be dedicated to encourage practice of team behaviors.

REFERENCE: Smith, R. & Priest, S. (in press). Barriers to transference from Corporate Adventure Training to the Workplace. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively establish the efficacy of a CAT program for team building and to qualitatively determine the barriers which inhibit transfer at work.

DESIGN: Quantitative survey of CAT program effectiveness followed by qualitative interviews to identify barriers to transfer of learning. Subjects (n=60) were randomly selected and assigned to 5 groups of twelve. A 25% sub-sample of 15 subjects was purposely chosen for the interviews, with proportionate representation of 3 from each group (including advocates and skeptics alike).

TREATMENT: A one day CAT program, with ten group initiatives/team building activities (trolleys, line-ups, all aboard, trust triads, trust falls, spider web, team triangle, cantilever, nitro crossing and traffic jam) through which the five groups (A thru E) rotated. COMPANY: Canadian commercial distribution firm. English was the primary language.

SUBJECTS: Middle management executives randomly placed in the five groups (A&emdash;E).

INSTRUMENT: Quantitative: the medium version of the Team Development Inventory (TDI-m) with established face validity, equivalent reliability and construct validity. Qualitative: open ended, half-hour long, tape recorded interviews.

MEASUREMENT: The TDI-m was given during the orientation session (before), lunch break (during) and closure session (after the CAT program). Interviews were held a month later asking about demographics, program highlights, learning applications, barriers to transfer and strategies for overcoming the barriers.

ANALYSIS: Quantitative data (TDI-m index scores) were subjected to two-way ANOVA seeking differences across the five groups (A&emdash;E) and three testing times (before, during and after). Post hoc analyses were conducted using Scheffe Tests. Qualitative data were analyzed for content, and common responses or patterns were reported as subject trends or tendencies in behavior.

FINDINGS: The following graph shows the overall changes which occurred for 53 subjects (88% attendance) in the five groups over the one day CAT program.

The 5 groups showed significant improvement on all 25 items of the TDI-m indicating that the CAT program was effective in building functional teams from random individuals. Although the five groups started with different perceptions of teamwork and evolved at different rates, by the end of the day they were relatively equivalent in their levels of teamwork. The varying rates of increase were attributed to the styles of the groups' respective facilitators.

Fourteen subjects (7 male and 7 female) participated in the interviews. With a range of 5 to 10 years of experience in this company, subjects commonly responded that their CAT highlight was learning that they could accomplish more than initially anticipated. They gained an awareness of cooperation, trust, conflict and communication, noted the importance of keeping everyone involved in a project, and recognized their own role in contributing to a team task. Subjects provided examples of applying new learning at work, but mentioned two principle barriers to transference: lack of participation by all employees in CAT and lack of time for practicing new learning. In short, they attempted to practice functional team behaviors, but ran into resistance and opposition from co-workers who had not experienced the CAT program. In order to overcome these barriers, they suggested involving everyone in CAT and providing time and other resources for practicing team behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS: A one day CAT program was deemed successful at creating a 22&emdash;41% gain in teamwork (as measured on the TDI-m 100 point scale) for the five random groups. Unfortunately, since the subjects did not remain together back at the office, any improvements were lost in the face of resistance. Training more employees in intact units would permit the changes to be retained for longer.

Study #10 - Combined staff of adventure facilitators paired with corporate trainers appear to provide the best organizational team building outcomes in CAT programs.

REFERENCE: Priest, S. (in press). The influence of instructor type on CAT program effectiveness. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership.

PURPOSE: To determine which instructor type was most impactive and what influence they could exert on the development of teamwork in a CAT program.

DESIGN: Instructors are typically of two types: adventure facilitators and corporate trainers. Generally speaking, the former are outdoor pursuits leaders who have developed their expertise working with organizational clients. They bring an intimate knowledge of the activities, learning objectives and safety issues to bear on the CAT program. The latter tend to be human resource consultants who have developed an ability to work within the adventure medium. They bring an understanding of the company's business and the background of the individual clients. One instructor type comes from the adventure profession, while the other comes from the corporate world. Three of four groups received the residential CAT program, with a different facilitator or trainer combination. The fourth group served as a control. The first experimental group (n=24) had 2 adventure facilitators from the CAT provider. The second group (n=21) had 2 corporate trainers from the parent company. The third (n=26) was joint, with a combination of one from each.

TREATMENT: The four day residential CAT program contained diagnostic goal setting and socialization exercises on day one, group initiative tasks designed to generate team building in specific items (communication, cooperation, trust, etc.) on days two and three, and a ropes course followed by action planning on day four. No long term follow-up procedures were introduced. However, groups did meet to discuss their action planning progress one month later.

COMPANY: European energy resources corporation. English was the primary language.

SUBJECTS: Four intact work units of similar size and equivalent structure and function.

INSTRUMENT: The medium version of the Team Development Inventory (TDI-m) with established face validity, equivalent reliability and construct validity.

MEASUREMENT: Teamwork was measured six times: 2 weeks prior, day one (before), day four (after), 2 weeks later, 2 months later, and six months later.

ANALYSIS: TDI-m mean index scores were subjected to ANOVA and Scheffe Tests seeking differences across the four groups and over the six test times.

FINDINGS: Teamwork for the control group did not change significantly over the study period, indicating that changes to the other three groups were likely due to the CAT programs they received rather than any other factors in play at the time. Measures of teamwork by the TDI-m before the CAT program were not found to differ from the levels two weeks earlier. This outcome indicates that stable baseline levels of teamwork were present prior to the program.

Levels of teamwork rose significantly after the CAT program for all three experimental groups and then began to steadily decline in the six months following the program completion. While teamwork increased after the CAT program, one group rose to significantly higher levels than the other two. The group with a joint team of instructors (1 adventure facilitator combined with 1 corporate trainer) achieved higher levels of teamwork than either of the other two groups. Furthermore, the higher levels of teamwork were maintained above those of the other groups over the six month study period. Apparently, the joint team was significantly more effective than any other. Shared knowledge, from two disparate cultures, provided the best program.

CONCLUSIONS: The CAT program increased measures of teamwork from baseline levels of 35% up to levels of 65% (on a 100 point scale). The group receiving a joint team of instructors obtained teamwork levels of approximately 10% (on the same scale) higher than the groups with only one type of instructor. These elevated levels were maintained higher than the other groups' levels over the six month study period. From these outcomes, the conclusion was reached that joint instructional teams were more effective than instructional teams of either adventure facilitators or corporate trainers alone.