Measuring the Impact of Outdoor Management Development- a Literature Review Essay Example

risk-taking, challenge, teamwork, problem solving, self-confidence, and trust. OMD consists of structured exercises undertaken outdoors by groups of participants, requiring risk-taking, problem-solving, and teamwork. Debriefing sessions allow participants to analyze their experiences and share their learning with their OMD colleagues. OMD is designed to facilitate participant behavior change through carefully sequenced and integrated experiential learning activities primarily conducted in the outdoors. These activities can range from river rafting and rock climbing to solving team challenges.

The activities in this program are crucial for learning, particularly when participants are blindfolded. However, the most important elements of the program are the design, facilitation, and debriefing of these activities (McEvoy, Buller, 1997).

The Outdoor Management Development (OMD) training employs various interventions based on experiential learning theory. These interventions utilize structured tasks and exercises that serve as metaphors and isomorphs of managerial and organizational processes. The training takes place outdoors and involves physical exertion. It is commonly used as a component of broader manager training and development programs, with the goal of improving organizational functioning by transferring the learned skills from OMD to the workplace (Jones, Oswick, 2007). The foundation of OMD lies in experiential learning. According to David Kolb's model, there are four stages in the learning cycle: concrete experience, observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts, and testing in new situations. Experiential learning expands our collection of reliable experiences that can help us adapt to challenging situations. To learn through experience, we need a concrete experience that is brief enough to be analyzed thoroughly, contains sufficient detail for learning purposes, and holds meaning for the group analyzing it.

In an Outdoor Management Development (OMD) program, participants engage in concrete experiences

through training exercises, outdoor adventure activities, and team-building games. These experiential learning activities are then processed through group discussions and debriefing sessions, which allow participants to learn from even seemingly mundane events. According to Dainty and Lucas (1992), the outdoors is a highly effective medium for developing self-awareness and awareness of others. They explain that individuals' behavior is often clearly visible during outdoor development programs.

According to Long and Galagan (1984, 1987), it is no longer possible to hide behind organizational and educational norms in a setting where they no longer exist. The principle states that outdoor activities and environments offer opportunities that lack traditional norms. In order for norms to be present, participants must have prior experience with the activity or environment. Ideally, the activity or environment should be new to the participants. OMD is sometimes employed with intact work teams, and other times with groups of individuals from different parts of an organization.

The choice of OMD programme depends on the goals of the programme. These goals include personal development, managerial development, team development, and organization development. Dendle (1989) surveyed managers, providers, and government agencies to study the impact of outdoor management development programmes. A total of ninety-five companies responded to the questionnaire. Among the benefits of outdoor development, the top three chosen were personal development, team development, and leadership development. OMD programmes can be classified into two major types: low impact and high impact.

Low-impact programs typically implement measures with minimal physical risk, usually involving an entire work group. On the other hand, high-impact programs opt for initiatives that are perceived to carry a higher level of risk and may focus on individual participation. Richard

Wagner and Christopher (1992) examined a specific type of program called OMD, commonly utilized by organizations in recent times. This program is a one-day, team-focused initiative with low-impact characteristics.

The text discusses the focus and outcomes of programs that aim to enhance the effectiveness of a group or team in the workplace. The researchers examined six organizations that had implemented over 80 OMD programs, training more than 1,200 employees. To assess the impact of these programs, the researchers analyzed participant feedback, supervisory reports, and conducted interviews with managers who were not the immediate supervisors. The evaluation encompassed individual behaviors (such as self-esteem, locus of control, and confidence in peers) and group behaviors (including cohesiveness, clarity, homogeneity, problem-solving, and overall group dynamics). The findings revealed a significant enhancement in the overall functioning of work groups following their participation in an OMD program.

In contrast, there were no significant changes in individual behavior following an outdoor-based program. This highlights that low-impact OMD programs effectively enhance group process and interaction skills. However, it is important to note that the outcomes may differ if evaluating a high impact OMD program. Effective OMD programs possess certain characteristics to facilitate optimal learning transfer. These include being based on a thorough needs analysis and custom-designed to meet the specific requirements of the client, while aligning with the organization's vision and business strategy. Additionally, they have clearly articulated overarching learning goals and offer individuals the opportunity to set personal goals. Adequate preparation ensures that participants arrive with realistic expectations and an understanding of the underlying conceptual frameworks. Moreover, a strong emphasis is placed on ensuring the safety of participants, both physically and psychologically.In an OMD,

outdoor events are carefully selected and organized, with each event followed by a thorough debriefing discussion. These activities are designed to be multi-task oriented. The facilitators possess the necessary experience to design and implement a program consistent with adult learning theory (Knowles, 1990). They lead debriefings that help participants focus on the applicable learning achieved in each event, acknowledge valuable participant contributions, and exemplify effective interpersonal behavior taught in the program. Moreover, multiple arrangements are made for learning to be transferred back to the workplace, including the use of learning contracts and follow-up (McEvoy, Buller). Various factors can influence the effectiveness of an OMD, such as whether the program is conducted with intact or non-intact work groups, voluntary or mandatory participation, gender composition of the group, presence of the group's supervisor during the program, training program design and activity selection, facilitators, and the implementation of follow-up programs.

Measuring the Impact (learning and transfer of management skills) of an OMDAnecdotal case study evidence provided by program developers is inadequate. The most "objective" evidence to data for OMD effectiveness comes from a small number of studies using self-report data collected before and after training. McEvoy and Buller (1991) reported improvements in self-rated job performance for 47 managers after a week-long OMD program. Wagner and Weigand (1993) reported similar improvements for a group of 16 managers using measures of group communication, team spirit, interpersonal relations, and group effectiveness. After a one-day OMD program in which 358 employees participated, Baldwin, Wagner, and Roland (1991) found self-reported improvements in questionnaire data dealing with group effectiveness and individual problem solving (hut not in other areas).

Wagner and Roland (1992) conducted an evaluation of

80 one-day OMD programs, with approximately 1,200 employees participating. The evaluation relied on self-report questionnaires collected before and after the training to gather data. Overall, the training appeared to have a positive impact on group outcomes such as group awareness and effectiveness but had no effect on individual outcomes like self-esteem.

The research findings lack strong evidence due to the absence of control groups, which could have provided alternative explanations for the observed effects. Additionally, relying solely on self-reports raises doubts about the objectivity and validity of the measures.

The study also lacks multiple dependent variables and a model of training effectiveness, making it difficult to determine how and why the training may be influencing outcomes.

Dendle's study (1989) emphasizes the need for further research into how learning from outdoor experiences translates to the workplace.

Kirk (1986) highlights the importance of establishing careful connections between outdoor tasks and the workplace for supporters of Outdoor Management Development (OMD). This is because the learning environment is different from a work setting. However, when managers return to work after OMD, they often face pressure to revert back to their previous behaviors, which hinders the reinforcement of their learning due to insufficient support.

Bank (1994) describes OMD as a powerful tool for enhancing self-awareness and awareness of others by providing insight into one's "real" behavior. McEvoy and Buller (1997) identify ten features of OMD that contribute to superior learning outcomes. While other development approaches may possess some of these features, OMD encompasses all of them, leading to better development. The ten features include emotional intensity, psychological safety, consequentiality, enhanced self-confidence, use of metaphors, unpredictability, experiencing peak performance, multiple knowledge/skill types, developing the whole person,

and focus on transfer.

Nevertheless, Dainty and Lucas (1992) acknowledged that outdoor development is frequently misunderstood rather than effectively controlled. They proceeded to identify three factors contributing to this: 1) The scarcity of critical literature on the subject 2) Insufficient research conducted in this field and 3) The lack of evaluative frameworks. People hold diverse perspectives regarding the efficacy of outdoor development programs.

The Kirkpatrick’s four-level framework (1994) for evaluating a training program emphasizes the importance of identifying and measuring the outcomes of the training. The framework consists of four levels:
- Level 1 - Reactions, which focuses on trainee satisfaction;
- Level 2 - Learning, which focuses on acquiring knowledge, skills, and attributes;
- Level 3 - Behavior, which focuses on improving job-related behavior;
- Level 4 - Results, which focuses on the business results achieved by trainees.

According to the framework, higher-level outcomes should only be measured if positive changes occur at lower levels. It also suggests that changes at higher levels are more valuable than those at lower levels. Evaluating outcomes at each level requires sufficient evidence rather than mere proof. However, there is currently a lack of convincing evidence due to factors such as product variability, incoherent marketing strategies, and a shortage of research data. Consequently, decisions regarding outdoor management development programs often rely on faith or personal experiences.

The given model is deemed unsuitable for evaluating an OMD, thus necessitating further work to ensure effective assessment and development of Outdoor Management Development modules. In conclusion, this paper aims to comprehend the term OMD and its diverse dimensions. The primary objectives of an OMD include personal development, managerial development, team development, and

organizational development. For an OMD to have a significant impact on participants and promote learning transfer to the workplace, it must possess specific characteristics as outlined in the paper. Theoretical research suggests that an OMD is more conducive to development compared to other learning methods due to its reliance on experiential learning and incorporation of the ten factors identified by McEvoy and Buller (1997).

However, the assessment of OMD continues to rely on personal experiences, as there is insufficient concrete evidence.