|
Catinate: A Research Update #1
HIGHLIGHT:
Corporate adventure training can be an effective means of
developing teams.
REFERENCE
Bronson, J., Gibson, S., Kichar, R.& Priest, S.(1992).
Evaluation of team development in a corporate adventure training
program. Journal of Experiential Education,15(2),50-54.
PURPOSE:
To identify changes in teamwork resulting from a CAT program.
DESIGN:
One control group (n=11), which did not receive any training, and
one experimental group (n=17), which received the CAT program .
TREATMENT:
Three day residential CAT program with typical challenge/ropes
course events and group initiative activities.
COMPANY:
American Aerospace Engineering. English was the primary language.
SUBJECTS:
Managers from two intact work units (with equivalent levels of
responsibility or function), which were cluster sampled from
within all company divisions.
INSTRUMENT:
The short version of the Team Development Inventory (TDI-s) with
established face validity, equivalent reliability and construct
validity.
MEASUREMENTS:
Subjects were pre tested during diagnostic meetings at least one
month before the program start and post tested during follow-up
meetings at least two months after the program finish.
ANALYSIS:
Two-way ANOVA, seeking differences between groups and over time,
with post hoc t-tests to determine precise differences.
FINDINGS:
Eight of the ten item statements on the TDI showed positive
changes for the group which received treatment and no changes for
the one that did not. Therefore, and in the opinion of its
members, the group having received adventure training improved in
all aspects of team development except two. Excerpted comments
from subjects helped to explain some of the findings:
We were sharing an example the other day. When we looked at what
we were asked to do, it was very clear that it was impossible as
individuals. Even with five or six of us, it looked impossible.
But then, doing the training exercises, when you start trusting
each other and relying on the other one's strength - and
listening, you know - it was really exciting to see what could be
done. And that feeling has carried over. We are able to talk to
each other now, not as strangers. It's more like, "We're all
part of this team and we know each other." These things have
made my job easier and hopefully, their job easier in dealing
with me. I think there were some real bridges built. Phone calls
get returned now.... There's quite a bit of a reduction in the
finger pointing, even in the way we bring problems to one
another. I was about the lowest level of manager that
participated in the training. The rest of them were high level
managers,...right up to the VP level. Since that time I have
developed a much more comfortable feeling dealing with these
upper managers.
Table of mean TDI scores for both groups (control and
experiment) and over both tests (pre and post). Each asterisk
indicates significant differences among means.
| TDI item |
TEST |
Control |
Experiment |
| understanding and commitment to goals |
Pre
Post |
3.09
3.27 |
2.94
3.59* |
| concern and interest in one another |
Pre
Post |
2.91
2.72 |
2.82
3.71* |
| acknowledgement and confrontation of conflict |
Pre
Post |
3.27
3.27 |
3.00
3.35 |
| listening with sensitivity and understanding |
Pre
Post |
2.64
2.73 |
2.71
3.59* |
| prompt decision making and solution
initiation |
Pre
Post |
2.91
3.09 |
3.00
3.59* |
| recognize and respect individual differences |
Pre
Post |
2.46
2.46 |
2.65
3.35* |
| high standards for own and team's performance |
Pre
Post |
3.64
3.73 |
3.41
4.00* |
| look to each other for help on resolving
challenges |
Pre
Post |
3.46
3.64 |
3.29
3.53* |
| recognition and reward of team efforts |
Pre
Post |
2.54
2.36 |
2.77
3.53 |
| encourage and receive feedback |
Pre
Post |
3.18
3.09 |
2.82
3.71* |
CONCLUSIONS:
Overall, no changes in the control group, coupled with
increases in the experimental group, suggested that
improved team development did occur for this latter
intact work unit as a result of the CAT program. Since
these groups were cluster sampled from all company groups
involved in the corporate adventure training program, a
similar impact may be generalized to these other groups
in the company. However, generalization of findings
beyond this particular program or company studied is not
recommended.
CAUTION:
Consumers of this research are encouraged not to
overgeneralize these results. Since design flaws are
inherent to the process of studying this type of training
and development, no study will be perfect. Therefore,
readers must realize that one project alone does not
entail widespread proof, it merely indicates that the
outcomes expressed were observed under the conditions
noted. Further work is always warranted, especially
replication and extension to other circumstances. To this
end, companies interested in utilizing these results may
have an obligation to support research by funding such
studies and by giving researchers limited access to their
employees and programs.
|
|
