2. What is….
Experience-Based Training and Development
(EBTD) and Corporate Adventure Training
(CAT): Are forms of learning which employ
challenging experiences and adventurous
activities as vehicles for employees to
improve interpersonal and intrapersonal work
place skills. (Priest 1996)
Outdoor Management Development (OMD):
This term jointly describes a field which uses
outdoor activities to bring beneficial change
to organizations (Priest1996)
3. Background…
Corporate
Adventure Training: Become
popular in the late 80’s and early 90’s
Many different organization have tried
Corporate Adventure Training since then:
Military
Boeing
Korean
Multinational Corporation
Doctoral Programs
Etc.
4. Findings…
In the spring of 1989 Dan Garvey pointed out that skilled adventure educators
were only used to “run people through the ropes course” and have limited
input into the design of the larger program. He believes this to be the reason
participants sometimes walk away confused. For this reason he believes that
more experiential educators need to be included in the dialogue about the
use of adventure activities for corporate programing.
During the winter of 1993, Simon Priest, Aram Attarian, and Sabine Schubert
wrote an article summarizing past and present research trends in Experience
Based Training. They pointed out that the greatest concern for the
proponents of corporate adventure training lies in substantiating claims that
the training is valid and reliable.
Simon Priest and Mary Ann Lesperance completed a study examining the
longitudinal impact of Corporate Adventure Training programs and the
influence that follow up procedures can have on that longevity. Results
showed a 50% to 70% increase in the occurrence of ten team behaviors. It
was also found that after six months all improvement would be lost with out a
support system.
5. Findings Continued…
In August of 1995, Michael Gass and H.L. “Lee” Gillis
highlighted the benefits of solution focused
processing. In their description of Solution-focused
approaches to functional change, the authors point
out that solution-focused approaches center around
several principles:
Nurturing the development of solutions can reduce or eliminate
problems by taking a functional approach utilizing clients’ inner
resources.
It is easier and more beneficial to construct solutions rather than
eliminate problems.
It is easier to encourage clients to repeat already established
successful behavior patterns that it is to try to stop or change
existing problematic behavior.
6. Findings Continued…
In 1996, Simon Priest wrote; A Research Summary for
Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) and Experience-Based
Training and Development (EBTD). In his summary the
author highlighted the directions of past and present
research. In closing the author writes about four
recommended ethical guidelines for conducting research
on CAT and EBTD programs:
Ethical research operates with informed consent under a
“challenge by choice” philosophy, just like ethical adventure
programs
Researchers should protect subjects’ rights
Researchers should resist the temptation to over-generalize
The purpose of peer review or refereeing process, prior to publication
is scholarly or academic journals, is to draw attention to these
possible flaws and to either improve marginal studies or prevent poor
studies from getting published
7. Findings Continued…
In 1996, Simon Priest did a study to compare the effects of two programing
tools (group initiatives versus ropes courses) had on the development of
organizational trust. It was found that both group initiatives and ropes courses
were effective in improving overall trust worthiness toward or within an
organization and neither were found to be more effective than the other.
In 1997, Simon Priest and Michael Gass did a study together. The purpose of
their study was to test assumptions and models proposed by Gass & Gillis
(1995) with corporate groups, comparing problem-focuses and solutionfocused facilitation approaches in use with functional and dysfunctional
corporate groups. Results showed that all experimental groups experienced
gains in teamwork, the greatest change was found with the dysfunctional
group using solution-focus approach.
In 1997, Jon Maxwell wrote a article to address common complaints about
CAT programs. While doing so the author pointed out that corporate
adventure trainers must become as knowledgeable of meetings and key
team work processes—and as skillful in intervening in them to facilitate team
effectiveness—as they are currently in CAT activities
8. Findings Continued…
In 1998, Simon Priest did a study to determine whether program
setting (camp versus hotel) and program duration (five 1-day
sessions or a single 5-day session) had any impact on the
development of teamwork in a corporate adventure training
program. Results showed setting had no effect on the
development of teamwork and that several short programs appear
to provide slower but greater overall gains in teamwork.
In 1998, Simon Priest did a study to determine the role that physical
aspects of CAT programing played in the acquisition and
maintenance of trust as the integral part of teamwork. Results
showed that overall trustworthiness improved for both the more or
less physical groups. However, participation in more physical
activities led to greater development of a willingness to depend on
and to encourage others than did the participation in less physical
activities
9. Findings Continued…
In 1999, Simon Priest, Michael Gass and Karen Fitzpatrick did a study to
investigate the advantages as well as disadvantages of using experiential
programming and associated facilitation skills to train corporate managers to
facilitate their own group and individual processes in business settings. Their
findings supported the notion of self-facilitating corporate clients.
In 2006, Michael A. Gass and Simon Priest did a study that examined the
outcomes of using metaphors to enhance learning in the framing and
debriefing of teamwork issues for a corporate adventure training (CAT)
program. Results demonstrated that CAT programing can produce positive
changes in teamwork in corporate organizations, and that without follow-up
experiences such gains diminish over time with certain facilitation techniques.
Furthermore it was established the use of client-centered metaphoric
facilitation as an evidence-based practice.
In 2010, H. Skipton Leonard and Michael J. Marquardt did study on evidence
for the effectiveness of action learning. Their analysis of action learning
research lead them to conclude that there is a clear need for longitudinal
studies as well as quantitative studies in this area.
10. Future Research…
More longitudinal studies need to be done.
More quantitative studies need to be done.
More research needs to be done on the effect of
length of adventure programing.
More research needs to be done on the effect of
metaphoric facilitation styles.
More research needs to be done on the effects of
self facilitation.
11. Advantages
An adventure setting gives participants time away
from the office to learn from one another.
Being away from the office takes some people out of
their elements, and puts others in their element.
Behaviors demonstrated by individuals in an
adventure setting parallel the way they act at the
work place
Adventure programs offer concrete learning
experiences which are task orientated, just like work
12. Disadvantages
The
field of CAT lacks substantiating
research.
Participants
have a hard time retaining
information learned without refresher
programs
Sometimes
impossible
leaving a corporate setting is
13. References…
Gass, M., & Gillis, H. L. (1995). on the "Solution" Rather than the "Problem": Empowering Client Change in Adventure
Experiences. Journal Of Experiential Education, 18(2), 63-69.
Gass, M. A., & Priest, S. (2006). The Effectiveness of Metaphoric Facilitation Styles in Corporate Adventure Training
(CAT) Programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(1), 78-94. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Garvey, D. (1989). The Corporate Connection: From Bowlines to Bowties. Journal Of Experiential Education, 12(1),
13-15.
Leonard, H., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). The Evidence for the Effectiveness of Action Learning. Action Learning:
Research and Practice , 7(2), 121-136. Retrieved from EBSCHOhost.
Maxwell, J. (1997). Increasing Work Group Effectiveness: Combining Corporate Adventure Training with Traditional
Team Building Methods. Journal of Experiential Education, 20(1), 26-33. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Priest, S., & And, O. (1993). Conducting Research in Experience-Based Training and Development Programs: Pass
Keys to Locked Doors. Journal Of Experiential Education, 16(2), 11-20.
Priest, S., & Lesperance, M. (1994). Time Series Trends in Corporate Team Development. Journal Of Experiential
Education, 17(1), 34-39.
Priest, S. (1996). Developing Organizational Trust: Comparing the Effects of Ropes Courses and Group Initiatives.
Research Update. Journal Of Experiential Education, 19(1), 37-39.
Priest, S. (1996). A Research Summary for Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) and Experience-Based Training and
Development (EBTD). Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Priest, S., & Gass, M. (1997). An Examination of "Problem-Solving" Versus "Solution-Focused" Facilitation Styles in a
Corporate Setting. Journal Of Experiential Education, 20(1), 34-39.
Priest, S. (1998). Physical Challenge and the Development of Trust through Corporate Adventure Training.
Research Update. Journal of Experiential Education, 21(1), 31-34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Priest, S. (1998). The Effect of Program Setting and Duration on Corporate Team Development. Journal of
Experiential Education, 21(2), 111-12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Priest, S., Gass, M., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1999). Training Corporate Managers To Facilitate: The Next Generation of
Facilitating Experiential Methodologies?. Journal Of Experiential Education, 22(1), 50-53.
