The document discusses the evolution of outdoor training and teambuilding activities. It argues that while such activities were initially effective, their impact did not truly transfer to the workplace. It proposes bringing experiential learning indoors and fully integrating it into business issues to better align organizational emotions with goals. The Cube event is presented as an example where large groups address strategic challenges through creative exercises, defining actions with buy-in across all levels.

1. …Published in Venture Magazine May 2003
see http://www.venturemagazine.co.uk/
INDOORS...
...THE NEW OUTDOORS
Stuart Hardy asks if outdoor training is just the blind leading the blindfolded?
As a consulting child born of the teambuilding euphoria of the 80s where do I
go now? I’ve tossed them into the quivering outstretched arms of their
colleagues, trekked them through the Sahara, crossed every mythical
minefield and psycho-dramaed them to a point of no return, and still the one
ring eludes me!
Why did we do it all? They asked us to I guess. In those wonderfully naive
early days we just re-badged all the activities inspired by Kurt Hahn from
adventure to training - and people loved it. Unfortunately, unbeknown to all
those best-intentioned personnel managers, they loved it for the same
reasons people always had, there was nothing new in there, the great
outdoors was, and is, simply a brilliant medium for exploration, both physical
and personal. With a little bit of re-jigging and the odd review thrown in for
good measure, white-water rafting became teambuilding, and orienteering
became a problem solving journey and before we new it, leaders were
developed and personal powers unleashed. Oh Kurt, if only it had remained
so simple!
Gradually from the depths of HR a new and deadly virus entered the system,
our clients had climbed every mountain, been psychometrically profiled down
to their DNA string and collected enough symbolic karabiners on their waist
belts to warrant the occasional hip replacement and then, damn them,
someone said why? And worse still, the killer strain emerged called
measurable results.
Panic ensued amongst ruffled cagoules in high places and the emphasis
miraculously shifted to focus on business transfer, as if somehow the
responsibility for the outcome of the experience could be handed back to the
client organisation. However the damage had been done. Stripped of its
mysterious powers outdoor training had, in some darkened board rooms,
even been referred to as a jolly – was this to be a killer blow or could outdoor
training emerge triumphant, and somehow effective?

2. Having spent years trying to transfer these uniquely wonderful but somewhat
random experiences to the workplace, and yet to be confronted with a tidal
wave of calls for validation, one obvious solution seemed to be to turn it
around, and transfer the workplace experience to the outdoor environment.
Bingo - the next generation of training was born; simulations and metaphoric
exercises seemed to hold the key, as customers were confronted with
opportunities not challenges, through complex scenarios designed to mirror
modern working environments. With practice, performances could be
remarkable; some management groups would put a Camel Trophy team to
shame, as they exercised their MBA honed intellects on a range of exercises,
sensitively engineered in harmony with their corporate issues. Equally,
weaker performances were readily examined in a spirit of ownership, and
empathy, with constructive feedback the new religion. However the virus was
still in the system and mutating fast, as clients questioned why these fine
performances are not mirrored in the workplace in spite of calls for
accountability and greater commitment.
A sense of unease is even starting to develop among more enlightened
providers as they begin to question whether it is the context of their beloved
outdoor environment itself that is the inhibitor, and it is not the medium of re-
enforcement it has always been seen to be! There is no doubt in the mind of
the challenged delegate that the fear of falling, on an abseiling exercise, is
real in the immediate sense, but is it real in the work sense. The problem is
that the reality of the outdoor environment may be equally powerful (or more
so) than that of the workplace, but the contextual elements that contribute to
its make-up are completely different, which of course is why it has always
been attractive as a recreational medium; something indeed to take our minds
off work.
The development of performance and the enhancement of personal
contribution in a work context can only therefore be legitimately addressed in
that context where it is so immediate, where the pressures generated by that
environment are felt not removed. To simply recreate scenarios that simulate
work-type issues even if there are consequences of failure is not enough,
because those consequences are different in the real-world and our levels of
contribution and quality of performance will change as a result. We used to
talk of time-outs, opportunities for reflection, open-space, and removing
people from the pressures of work to allow time for development of groups
and individuals. But what if there could be no dividing line, nothing to transfer
across - put simply, such interventions would be work. Having once watched
22,000 people physically, and in a few cases mentally, take that extra step at
a stunning location far removed from their workplace, I am convinced that
subsequently the improved levels of customer service did not justify such a
vast investment, and I have my pal J D Powers to back me up as to the lack
of transfer on that occasion.
So what now? Napoleon, bless him, who has occasionally been cited as the
founder of ropes-courses, realised that he could get his soldiers to perform
highly effectively, through what he perceived as conditioning rather than what
we might like to call teambuilding, and the regimented marching of troops is

3. testament to the enduring power of large group conditioning. In such a context
there is great clarity of purpose, strong leadership, common goals down to the
last centimetre, and indeed a sense of participation in something greater than
individual contribution – I’m sure the organiser of Hitler’s rallies would agree.
Clearly by contrast the average worker would certainly like to think, even
though this may not always be true, that they have more freedom of choice
about the nature and intensity of their contribution than a soldier, even though
we secretly admire their devotion to duty. I always remember the conversation
I had with a director of a Mumbai based company who described his company
as consisting of 50 employees and 250 workers - hhuuum! By contrast,
companies that wish to maximise the potential of the human capital within
their organisations, need to consider intrinsically how to create environments
where the choice to contribute is firstly, there, and secondly, considered to
matter in the greater scheme of things. So, perish the thought, are we starting
to talk about managing the emotions of our people, some of whom we might
not even personally like?
In order to be effective we need to consider those emotions on an
organisational level just as Napoleon did, as a way of satisfying the needs of
the individual in harmony with the aspirations of the organisation, we just need
to build in the choice factor, instead of fear of court-martial. The alignment of
such corporate emotions will have a huge impact on company identity, buy-in
to strategic change, culture-development and ultimately brand, and cannot be
ignored in this current arena of the fast eating the slow, we sell what we are.
So why does the new religion of part experiential learning, part simulation-
type experience not suffice, particularly as we know the outdoor environment
can be so emotive. Typically such experiences fail because the choices being
made, as we have already noted, are not perceived to be real in the work
sense. Providers, ever keen to adapt, have tried to bridge this application gap
by bolting together the experiential element with the business-part as I often
hear it referred to, and we have all experienced the classic indoor-outdoor
combination. Unfortunately I believe that rather than addressing the issue of
aligning corporate emotions with business issues this just continues to
reinforce to notion that they are somehow separate, with dire consequences
in the long term. To be effective the emotions of the organisation need to be
addressed through their business issues, not alongside, so what if we commit
the unthinkable, and bring all the ‘lipsmackingmotvationalexperiential’
elements of the outdoors, indoors, and truly integrate them into the business,
yes, the ring is in my grasp now.
So as the dust settles on a post apocalyptic teambuilding world, its time for
the Doctor Moreau’s of HR to emerge, scalpels glinting – the era of the
engineered workforce is upon us. But, is there something dark and sinister at
work here, or are we simply trying to make workforces feel a part of their
organisational aspirations, by elevating them up the decision making food
chain?
Key to the success of such an approach is that it has to be legitimate,
contributions must be real, and outcomes measurable, otherwise we fall into

4. the trap of those that raft-built before us. Any slight perception on the part of
employees, that it is mere stage managed trickery on the part of top
management, will catastrophically back-fire! So in real terms we are talking
about events in organisations - events that align the emotions of large groups
of people behind current initiatives - events that are uniquely powerful,
integrated and fast. Such an experience, whether over one day or a period of
time should leave the organisation emotionally changed afterwards, with all
the benefits of buy-in and ownership firmly in place through changed business
practices that impact on a daily level. The days of the guys from Milton
Keynes, (sorry Milton Keynes) dusting off the cave-dust, and marching their
hangovers back to the office with the battle cry: ”we need to communicate
better” have finally died a well deserved death!
So have we come full circle? Is the indoors the new outdoor? I think in a way
they are one and the same, we have just never used either medium as
effectively as we could. Both mediums have their strengths, which have been
milked in their own right over the years and I have to say I will miss those
days of sheep jokes and challenge by choice. Our clients have forced us to
become wiser, and Business Performance Programs such as The Cube
represent the dawn of a new era of a truly holistic approach to improving the
performance of a workforce - above all with their consent.
Stuart Hardy designs and delivers uniquely creative activities for large
numbers of people in blue chip organisations around the world. Visit www.art-
of-management.com
The Cube event
Stuart Hardy’s radical Cube event has a proven track record in supporting
changes, and is perfect example of how such aspirations can be achieved in
an era of cost-control and post incentive cynicism.
The Cube is an event that has been used to address a range of strategic
issues and in particular how to engage entire workforces in processes which
have hitherto been the preserve of top-management. In its infancy the original
Cube design was born out of a client’s desire to create an integrated response
to changes in the tobacco industry on the part of both manufacturers and
wholesalers. Not surprisingly key themes were participation, networking,
contribution, but most of all a radically new emotional sense that whispered:
‘yes, we are in this together!’ Typically such issues had been addressed by
each camp producing responses to what they perceived would be the
responses of the other. Naturally this would be a chicken and the egg
situation, with large amounts of alcohol consumed to dull the pain of endless
PowerPoint presentations, and absolutely zero sense of joint ownership
created, as various historical cliques sniped at each other in the bar.
By contrast the Cube event was about to change their lives, from the moment
top-brass from both sectors stood up and said: ‘This is what the future holds -
what do you all think we should do about it? Surely it was a trick? And hang
on, I can’t do that, I’m not a strategist and, and I’m not allowed to!’
Stage right, enter our old friend Mr Outdoor. The process starts by engaging
everyone in a creative experiential process that the 80s told us works, and
verily – it does. Everyone is invited to produce huge paintings. Sub groups are

5. defined, roles issued and before long delegates from all parts of the country
are wearing silly suits and wielding paint brushes in the production of
wonderfully naive, but insightful, images that summarise their group’s
perceptions of the reality that is their work. Comfort-zones are challenged,
and hierarchical feathers ruffled in the great tradition of experiential work, until
each group of 20 people has produced their personal montage with borders
that interface with their fellow groups. While the spirit of engagement and
contribution is high delegates are challenged to give meaning to their cerebral
incarnations, and to prioritise the key challenges that they believe the
organisation faces on a pragmatic level. Agreement is sort across hierarchical
divides and group output finally down-chunked to a level that every individual
can identify with. Finally action steps and measures are defined and
presented back as the painted panels are assembled into a giant cube in front
of the whole group of 250 delegates, as a symbolic manifestation of their
corporate view, and not just another top down vision.
The results are staggering. Within the space of a few hours this truly
integrated approach provides unique insights into a networked view of the
company landscape and the challenges that are perceived at every level in
the workforce. Each person is offered the choice to make contributions to their
future, within the boundaries of defined strategy, and with the proviso of
consensus seeking. Surprisingly some might say, contribution is realistic, and
action setting typically personal and pragmatic, with a true sense of occasion
being generated by the large scale of the process. Output can be monitored
and feedback generated to create a sense of momentum in a process where
turning back is not an option.

6. defined, roles issued and before long delegates from all parts of the country
are wearing silly suits and wielding paint brushes in the production of
wonderfully naive, but insightful, images that summarise their group’s
perceptions of the reality that is their work. Comfort-zones are challenged,
and hierarchical feathers ruffled in the great tradition of experiential work, until
each group of 20 people has produced their personal montage with borders
that interface with their fellow groups. While the spirit of engagement and
contribution is high delegates are challenged to give meaning to their cerebral
incarnations, and to prioritise the key challenges that they believe the
organisation faces on a pragmatic level. Agreement is sort across hierarchical
divides and group output finally down-chunked to a level that every individual
can identify with. Finally action steps and measures are defined and
presented back as the painted panels are assembled into a giant cube in front
of the whole group of 250 delegates, as a symbolic manifestation of their
corporate view, and not just another top down vision.
The results are staggering. Within the space of a few hours this truly
integrated approach provides unique insights into a networked view of the
company landscape and the challenges that are perceived at every level in
the workforce. Each person is offered the choice to make contributions to their
future, within the boundaries of defined strategy, and with the proviso of
consensus seeking. Surprisingly some might say, contribution is realistic, and
action setting typically personal and pragmatic, with a true sense of occasion
being generated by the large scale of the process. Output can be monitored
and feedback generated to create a sense of momentum in a process where
turning back is not an option.