This document compares the impact of competitive versus non-competitive outdoor management development programs. It discusses a previous study that evaluated a competitive program and found those on losing teams felt they learned less. The program was then changed to a non-competitive format. A new evaluation found a more positive impact for all participants. The document also reviews literature comparing the effects of competitive versus cooperative goals, finding cooperation generally leads to better achievement and performance, especially on interdependent tasks.

1. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
58
A comparison of a competitive
and non-competitive outdoor
management development
programme
Adrian Ibbetson
Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe Campus, Crewe, UK, and
Sue Newell
Warwick Business School, Coventry, UK
Keywords Competition, Evaluation, Outdoor development, Team building, Training
Abstract This paper compares the immediate impact of an outdoor management development
programme run in two different formats. The original OMD programme which was evaluated had
a competitive format with individuals participating in teams on a variety of outdoor challenges in
order to develop personal team-working skills. On each activity the teams were awarded points
depending on how successful they were judged to have been so that one team “won” and one team
“lost”. Evaluation of this programme indicated that those in losing teams felt they had learned less
from the experience compared to those in winning teams. In consequence, the format of the
programme was changed so that the competition between the teams was abolished. Evaluation
results indicated a much more positive impact for all participants. These results are discussed in
terms of how the different programme formats encouraged different types of review processes.
Introduction
Outdoor management development
Increasing numbers of companies are using the outdoors in their training and
development programmes (IRS, 1992b). Such programmes are typically referred
to as outdoor management development (OMD). The Industrial Relations
Review and Report (1992b) goes on to describe OMD as a “powerful tool” which
“must be handled with care” for both the organisation’s and the employee’s
sake. The supposed “power” of OMD is a quality which is attached to this kind
of training and development, much more so than any other kind of
developmental activity. Yet there is a paucity of thorough evaluation studies of
OMD programmes. Jones and Oswick (1993) found that out of 45 studies which
looked at the outcomes of OMD, 53 per cent had been conducted by providers.
This poses problems of systematic bias (Smith, 1990). Moreover, a large
proportion of the evaluations were conducted at a superficial level, with the
post-test “happiness sheet” being most common (IRS, 1992b).
This evident lack of evaluation is not unique to this form of training and
development. Based on a survey of training in 103 companies the IRS (1992a)
survey concluded that the benefits of evaluating training are increasingly
appreciated by employers, but only a minority currently attempt to cost and
Personnel Review,
Vol. 28 No. 1/2, 1999, pp. 58-76,
© MCB University Press, 0048-3486
Received August 1997
Revised/Accepted
October 1997

2. Management
development
programmes
59
assess the impact of training on anything like a systematic basis. There are a
few exceptions to this lack of evaluation, and for companies which have put the
time and resources into evaluation the benefits have been clear (Bickerstaff,
1993; Easterby-Smith and Mackness, 1992; Fitz-enz, 1994). These benefits arise
because evaluation highlights where training and development programmes
can have a positive pay-off in terms of the companies’ “bottom-line”. This is
useful for those who work in the training and HRM areas, as it helps to justify
their outlay of resources. It can also identify weaknesses in particular training
and development programmes that can be modified to improve the future
impact. The case study presented in this paper provides just such an example.
OMD tends to be dealt with as a unitary concept (Jones and Oswick, 1993)
but it is actually characterised by diversity (Ibbetson et al., in review). Thus,
while all OMD would involve some activity carried out in the outdoors, which
would be followed by a review or debriefing of that activity to establish what
has been learned, the amount and type of this activity and of the debriefing
process can vary widely. For example, some OMD programmes use traditional
outdoor pursuit activities such as abseiling and canoeing to encourage a sense
of personal achievement which, it is presumed, will transfer to other situations.
Other OMD programmes use problem-solving exercises such as the “spider’s
web” (see Methodology section), which are presumed to encourage the
development of transferable skills such as creative problem solving and team-
working. Such diversity gives rise to very different types of provision, which
makes systematic evaluation of OMD programmes problematic.
The OMD programme that was the focus of the authors’ previous research
(Ibbetson and Newell, 1996) used both traditional outdoor pursuits activities
and more-focused problem-solving activities. Moreover, the particular
programme revolved around a competitive format (this will be referred to later
as study 1). While the majority of providers do not focus their programmes
around competition, the fact that one of the authors, through the previous
research (Ibbetson and Newell, 1995), was asked to be involved in a debate on
BBC Radio Scotland contrasting the benefits of competitive and non-
competitive OMD programmes, with two respective providers, suggests that
some competitive programmes exist, even if they are in the minority.
Furthermore, the authors are currently evaluating a competitive programme,
which has developmental objectives, that is run for a large multinational
company by several providers of OMD. Telephone interviews by one of the
authors also suggest that some providers may use competitive activities, within
a generally co-operative format, in order to contrast the resulting group
processes against those involved in non-competitive, cooperative activities.
The impact of competition
The competitive aspect of the previously researched programme (Ibbetson and
Newell, 1996) (study 1), was designed at the request of the sponsors, as they saw
the element of competition to metaphorically reflect the competitive nature of
the business environment. As above, a strong belief was held that the

3. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
60
competitive element increased motivation to participate in, and learn from, the
activities. However, Kohn (1986a, 1986b, 1987) would not agree with this
premiss. In his book No Contest – The Case against Competition (1986b), Kohn
challenges the assumptions concerning competition and success and
productivity; the idea that “competition brings out the best in us”. Kohn is a
staunch opponent of competition and therefore advocates cooperative goal
structures. Indeed, he suggests that, “superior performance not only does not
require competition; it usually seems to require its absence” (Kohn, 1986b, p. 47).
Most of the research which has investigated different goal structures has
focused on educational contexts. The most comprehensive review has been
conducted by Johnson et al. (1981); they reviewed 122 studies comparing the
relative effectiveness of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal
structures in promoting achievement and productivity. The studies covered a
large variety of North American educational contexts from language and
reading to physical education. Four types of goal structure were differentiated:
(1) cooperation;
(2) cooperation with intergroup competition;
(3) interpersonal competition; and
(4) individualistic effort.
The 286 findings which these studies generated were meta-analysed. The
results indicated that, in terms of achievement, there was no real difference
between cooperation and cooperation with intergroup competition. Both
cooperation and cooperation with intergroup competition were superior in
promoting achievement, when compared to individual competition and
individualistic goal structures. However, contrasting the conditions against one
another, arbitrarily setting the individualistic goal structure to zero, produced
the following effect sizes: cooperation = 0.73, cooperation with intergroup
competition = 0.56, and competition = 0.09 (Johnson et al., 1981). Thus
suggesting that cooperation without intergroup competition is superior to
cooperation with intergroup competition and that both these cooperative goal
structures are superior to competitive and individualistic goals structures in
promoting achievement.
Interestingly, an examination of possible mediating variables tended to
suggest that, the more interdependent the task (i.e. one that requires more
teamwork), the greater the superiority of cooperative structures over
competitive and individualistic goal structures, in promoting achievement and
productivity. In other words, the more the group is required to work together in
order to produce a group product the more effective cooperative structures are
in promoting the attainment of these goals. Furthermore, although based on a
small number of studies, a comparison of cooperation without and cooperation
with intergroup competition, suggested that the former was superior in
promoting achievement and productivity when the task is more
interdependent.

4. Management
development
programmes
61
One limitation of the educational context is that it traditionally attempts to
quantify attainment and performance (e.g. the number of problems solved, the
amount of information recalled, etc.) (Kohn, 1986b). Kohn (1986b) argues that
this underestimates the destructive effect of competition. Indeed, when one
considers the “quality” aspect of attainment and performance, competitive goal
structures fare even worse in comparison to cooperative ones (Kohn, 1986b). For
example, Kohn (1986b) cites Whittemore (1924), who demonstrated that
individuals worked faster at a basic mechanical task, but that the quality of
their work was poorer, under competitive conditions; Pepitone (1980), who
stated that the complexity of products constructed under cooperative
conditions was significantly greater than those constructed under competitive
conditions; and Adams (1973), who observed that creative problem solving was
hampered by competition, in a study of undergraduates.
In an organisational context, Blau (1954) compared two groups of
interviewers in an employment agency. One group worked under fierce
competition to fill openings, whereas the other group worked cooperatively. The
competitive group were concerned about their own productivity and therefore
hoarded job notifications, rather than posting them so that everyone could see
them, as they were supposed to. The group that worked cooperatively informed
each other of possible vacancies and ended up filling significantly more
vacancies than the competitive group.
Competitive versus non-competitive OMD
As stated previously, a prior study (study 1) (Ibbetson and Newell, 1996) had
evaluated outcomes to an OMD programme that had a competitive format.
Individuals were assigned to a team for the two and a half day OMD
programme and the teams (four teams per course) participated in a variety of
outdoor challenge events. At the end of each activity teams were scored in
terms of how successful they had been in achieving the task objectives. At the
end of each day and at the end of the programme, scores for the events were
totalled to indicate which team had “won” and which had “lost”. That is, there
was cooperation within teams but competition between teams. The element of
competition was only included, at the request of the client, to increase
motivation within the teams. There were no prizes for winning and the objective
of the programme was to develop the teamworking skills of all the participants,
from an individual perspective, in order that they would be better able to work
in teams in the future. The findings suggested that these objectives were not
being satisfied for a large proportion of the participants. The position in which
the teams finished in the competition significantly mediated outcomes.
Individuals in teams that did well in the competition had, on average,
significantly increased positive perceptions of the development programme,
whereas individuals in teams that did poorly in the competition exhibited, on
average, significantly less positive perceptions of the experience.
On the basis of this evaluation, this annual OMD programme was modified
for the next cohort of participants. Rather than competition, the emphasis was

5. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
62
placed on co-operation. Therefore previously, participants had cooperated
within their team but had competed against other teams (competitive
programme format). However, the programme format was changed so that
there was still cooperation within each team but there was no competition
between teams (non-competitive format). Thus, a very similar group of
participants engaged in the same activities within randomly assigned teams in
the two formats, but the running competition between the teams was
abandoned under the non-competitive format. The aim of this study was to
establish whether a non-competitive programme format (study 2) would better
meet the stated objectives than a competitive format (as in study 1).
Methodology
Sixty-one MBA students and 56 students on a Master’s course in manufacturing
and mechanical engineering, both at a major English university, attended a two-
and-a-half day residential OMD programme (study 2). The participants were
similar, in terms of average age (27.5 years) and years of work experience (three
to six years), to those in study 1. The course was designed to develop a
heightened awareness of teamworking issues and skills, from an individual
perspective. This was because, as with study 1, due to the OMD programme
coming at the end of the students’ course of study, the functional development
of teams per se was not a primary objective. Students attended the course in
groups of approximately 30 people. Four courses ran concurrently; two with the
MBA students and two with the manufacturing and mechanical engineers. As
with study 1, the same activities, format and staff (facilitators) were used to
deliver the programmes; however, each course did have a different convener
(member of staff) from the respective sponsors. Before embarking on the course
each cohort of 30 was randomly divided into four smaller teams of seven to
eight individuals (four teams per course; therefore n = 16 for the current study).
During the two-and-a-half day programme these four teams participated in a
series of micro and macro problem-solving activities in a variety of outdoor
settings. The micro activities were relatively short tasks of about 20-30 minutes’
duration. One such task was the spider’s web; it involves a group strategically
passing themselves through a rope web constructed of different sized holes at
varying heights from the ground. This is a versatile activity which can be
constructed around different metaphors (Gass and Dobkin, 1992) and therefore
related to the different realities of the participants via the review process. The
macro activities were conducted on a larger scale, using the local topology, and
were between 45 minutes to two hours in duration. These activities were
constructed around more complex multi-stage problems which, to a varying
extent, involved group navigation, either on foot or on water. In study 1, teams
were directly assessed on how successful they had been in completing each task
and, therefore, a running competition had been staged between the teams.
Unlike study 1, the study 2 programme was non-competitive.
The same dependent measures, as study 1, were used to evaluate reactions to
the development programme, any learning achieved via the programme and

6. Management
development
programmes
63
self-perceptions of behavioural change. The personal benefits questionnaire,
developed by the authors, was used to investigate perceptions pertaining to
how personally beneficial individuals believed the programme to be in terms of
improving their own understanding and skill of working in teams. The overall
concept of personal benefits derived from the experience comprised four sub-
scales, which were based on both the literature and the specific objectives of the
programme. The questionnaire included six items concerning task issues (task
sub-scale) and six items concerning maintenance issues (maintenance sub-
scale), in accordance with Kormanski and Mozenter’s (1987) model of team-
working skills. These items related to individual beliefs about personal abilities
to engage in activities such as functioning as a leader, making decisions,
planning and problem solving, and communicating with others, listening to
others and encouraging and supporting others, respectively. These two scales
therefore measured how far individuals expected to improve (Time 1), and felt
they had improved (Time 2), their personal competence for working in teams. It
also included four items relating to personal beliefs about the future
instrumental benefits of the course, in terms of getting jobs (usefulness sub-
scale), and whether the course would be enjoyable (enjoyment sub-scale).
The questionnaire was administered twice. First, approximately two hours
before the programme began (Time 1) and asked participants what they
expected to gain from the programme (e.g. “As an outcome of the OMD
programme I expect to – improve my problem-solving ability” (task sub-scale);
“improve my ability to listen to others” (maintenance sub-scale); “improve my
chances of getting a job” (usefulness sub-scale); and “enjoy myself” (enjoyment
sub-scale)). The same questionnaire was administered approximately two hours
after the programme had been completed (Time 2) but the wording was
changed in order to ask participants what they actually felt that they had
gained from the experience (e.g. “As an outcome of the OMD programme I feel I
have improved my problem-solving ability” etc.). Individuals responded to the
items on a seven-point Likert scale, using a continuum from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. The responses were summed to give a total index score, with
higher scores indicating more positive perceptions. The sub-scales consist of
different numbers of items, thus using summated totals makes comparison
problematic. Therefore the total sub-scale score was divided by the number of
items within that sub-scale in order to obtain a comparable mean item score. In
this way, it was possible to assess how far expectations moderated the impact
of the experience and how far beliefs about the personal benefits to be derived
from the course were modified as a result of the actual experience. This was
done by calculating the difference in an individual’s scores on this questionnaire
from Time 1 to Time 2. Positive or negative scores would indicate if the
individual had found the experience to be more or less personally beneficial
than she/he had expected it to be.
The second questionnaire, the team development indicator (TDI) developed
by Bronson (1990), was used to measure perceptions of team effectiveness. As in
study 1, the medium version of the TDI, consisting of 25 items (e.g. I believe

7. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
64
everyone in my team listens to what others say), was used and the items were
summed to give a total index score. This gave a global measure of how
effectively individuals thought that their teams were working together; higher
scores indicated more positive perceptions. Again this instrument was
administered twice. Once approximately one hour after the very first set of
micro challenges (a set of four short 20-30 minute challenges) in which the
teams were involved (Time 1) and then approximately one hour after the
program had been completed (Time 2), as in study 1. Again, the difference score
between Time 1 and Time 2 was calculated, as it provided a measure of how far
an individual’s perceptions of his/her team’s functioning had changed as a
result of the actual experience. Positive or negative scores would indicate
whether the individual had perceived that his/her team had progressed or
regressed in terms of effective dynamics and performance as a result of the
programme. Individuals completed both questionnaires independently.
Results
Dependent variables
The data from the two cohorts, competitive (study 1) (n = 157) and non-
competitive (study 2) (n = 117), were aggregated and then the two instruments
were factor analysed (n = 274). The personal benefits questionnaire produced a
four factor structure which corresponded very closely, with only minor
changes, to the factor structure produced previously in study 1 (Ibbetson and
Newell, 1996). The four factors, with Eigenvalues greater than one,
corresponded to the four sub-scales which were the basis of the questionnaire’s
design and explained 65.5 per cent of the variance. The alpha coefficients for the
four sub-scales were good, ranging from 0.68-0.85; as in study 1 they were used
in the subsequent analysis. Analysis of the team effectiveness questionnaire
(TDI) again produced similar results to those previously found in study 1
(Ibbetson and Newell, 1996). The internal consistency was good (α = 0.90).
Factor analysis did produce five factors but they did not correspond to those
predicted and they differed from those extracted in study 1 (Ibbetson and
Newell, 1996). Therefore, for this research, as in previous research (Ibbetson,
1993; Ibbetson and Newell, 1996; Priest, 1998a; 1998b; 1993c; Priest and
Lesperance, 1995; Smith and Priest, in press), the items were summed to give a
total index score pertaining to the individual’s perceptions of his/her team’s
effectiveness.
Personal benefits
The aggregated data pertaining to the perceptions of personal benefits for the
competitive (n = 157) and non-competitive (n = 117) cohorts, is presented in
Table I. For the competitive cohort there was little overall change in perceptions
of personal benefits, from Time 1 to Time 2, for the group as a whole. Therefore,
although the aggregate perception of personal benefits was positive at both
Time 1 and Time 2, the neutral point of the scale being represented by a score
of 64, the average perception of benefit the group thought it derived from the

8. Management
development
programmes
65
programme did not surpass its initial expectation. However, for the non-
competitive cohort, there was a significant positive overall change in
perceptions of personal benefits (t = 4.59, p < 0.01), from Time 1 to Time 2, for
the group as a whole. Therefore the group as a whole thought that it had
derived more benefits from the development programme than it had initially
expected.
The comparison between the two programme formats (competitive, study 1;
non-competitive, study 2) is illustrated by Figure 1. The slight, non-significant
increase in perceptions of personal benefits for the participants of the
competitive programme can be contrasted against the significant positive
increase for the cohort that participated in the non-competitive programme.
Repeated measures analysis of variance was performed on the data for the
combined cohorts (n = 274). There was a significant main effect for change over
time, from Time 1 to Time 2, in perceptions of personal benefits for the sample
as a whole (F = 9.46, p < 0.05) (Figure 1). More importantly, the interaction
between change in perceptions of personal benefits over time and the format of
the programme (competitive or non-competitive) was significant (F = 4.92,
p < 0.05). Therefore, on average, participants in the non-competitive
programme reported significantly greater increases in perceptions of personal
benefits than those who participated in the competitive programme.
Competitive Non-competitive
Mean score SD Mean score SD
Time 1 79.4 12.1 78.0 12.1
Time 2 80.1 14.3 83.5 12.7
Difference 0.7 14.1 5.4 13.3
(t = 0.65, p = 0.52) (t = 4.59, p < 0.01)
Table I.
Pre- and post-mean
total index scores for
the perceptions of
personal benefits and
the difference across
time, by programme
format
Figure 1.
Pre- and post-mean total
index scores for the
perceptions of personal
benefits by programme
format
Key

9. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
66
A break-down of the four factors of the personal benefits questionnaire is
provided in Tables II and III, for the competitive and non-competitive formats,
respectively. Table II shows that, for the competitive programme, the only sub-
scale for which the mean item scores changed significantly, from Time 1 to
Time 2, was the enjoyment factor (t = 5.74, p < 0.01). Participants in the
competitive programme, as a whole, had enjoyed the programme more than
they initially thought they would. There were no other significant changes.
Indeed, the task and usefulness sub-scales show slight decreases in mean item
scores.
However, for the non-competitive programme, only the usefulness sub-scale
does not yield a significant difference in mean item scores from Time 1 to Time
2 (Table III). The task (t = 2.64, p < 0.01), the maintenance (t = 2.57, p < 0.01) and
the enjoyment (t = 5.35, p < 0.01) sub-scales all exhibit significant increases in
mean item scores from Time 1 to Time 2. Therefore participants in the non-
competitive programme, on average, thought that their task and maintenance
teamworking skills had improved significantly more than they had expected
and that they had enjoyed the programme more than they initially thought they
would. The group, as a whole, did tend to believe that the programme would be
more useful than they had initially thought; however, this difference was not
statistically significant (Table III).
Again the comparison is made between the competitive and non-competitive
programme formats in Figure 2. The difference between Time 1 and Time 2, in
terms of positive improvements in mean item scores, is greater on all four
Task Maintenance Usefulness Enjoyment
Mean score SD Mean score SD Mean score SD Mean score SD
Time 1 4.9 0.9 5.0 0.9 4.5 1.4 5.6 1.0
Time 2 4.8 1.0 5.1 1.0 4.4 1.5 6.0 0.9
Difference –0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 –0.1 1.3 0.4 1.0
(t = 0.07, p = 0.95) (t = 0.53, p = 0.60) (t = 0.97, p = 0.33) (t = 5.74, p < 0.01)
Table II.
Pre- and post-mean
index scores for the
sub-scales of the
perceptions of
personal benefits
questionnaire and the
difference across time,
for the competitive
programme format
Task Maintenance Usefulness Enjoyment
Mean score SD Mean score SD Mean score SD Mean score SD
Time 1 4.7 0.9 5.0 0.9 4.5 1.4 5.4 0.9
Time 2 5.0 1.0 5.3 1.0 4.8 1.2 6.1 0.9
Difference 0.3 1.1 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.4 0.7 1.0
(t = 2.64, p = 0.01) (t = 2.57, p = 0.01) (t = 1.11, p = 0.27) (t = 5.35, p < 0.01)
Table III.
Pre- and post-mean
index scores for the
sub-scales of the
perceptions of
personal benefits
questionnaire and the
difference across time,
for the non-competitive
programme format

10. Management
development
programmes
67
sub-scales of the personal benefits questionnaire for the non-competitive format
than the competitive format. Indeed, the mean index scores on the task and
usefulness sub-scales decrease, from Time 1 to Time 2, for the competitive
programme. Visually the comparisons of both the task and usefulness sub-
scales suggest that there is an interaction between change over time and
programme format. However, repeated measures analysis of variance provides
evidence that there is only a significant interaction, between change over time
and programme format, on the task sub-scale (F = 4.14, p < 0.05). The standard
deviation of the mean item scores for the usefulness sub-scale is quite large in
comparison with the actual average difference from Time 1 to Time 2 (Table III).
Team effectiveness
In terms of perceptions of how effectively participants thought that their teams
were working together, there is little change, from Time 1 to Time 2, for either
programme format (Table IV). The aggregate data for the competitive format
suggests that participants thought that, on the whole, their teams were working
slightly less well at the end of the programme (Time 2) than at the beginning
(Time 1). The converse seems to be true for the non-competitive format, with
Figure 2.
Pre- and post-mean item
scores for the sub-scales
of the perceptions of
personal benefits
questionnaire by
programme format
Task
Usefulness
Maintenance
Enjoyment
Key Key
Key
Key

11. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
68
participants reporting that, on average, they thought that their teams were
working slightly better at the end of the programme (Time 2) than at the
beginning (Time 1). However, neither difference approaches statistical
significance (Table IV).
Variation within the data
In study 1, the variables’ preferred learning style and preferred team role were
used in an attempt to investigate whether such potential variables mediated
outcomes, as measured by the dependent variables. However, these variables
did not help to explain any significant portion of the variance, although their
operationalisation, in terms of the questionnaires used, may have been poor
(Ibbetson and Newell, 1996). However, two variables did explain a significant
proportion of the variance; weather and position in the competition.
The weather varied tremendously across the different courses of the
competitive programme in study 1. One course experienced very poor,
extremely wet weather, one experienced very good, sunny weather and the
other three courses experienced mixed weather conditions. The weather was
therefore categorised into three conditions; poor, mixed and good. The
aggregated data showed that, on the whole, those teams that participated in the
course that experienced very poor weather exhibited negative changes in their
perceptions of both personal benefits and team effectiveness derived from the
development programme. On the other hand, teams that participated in the
courses that experienced mixed and good weather conditions demonstrated
positive changes in perceptions on both the dependent variables (Ibbetson and
Newell, 1996) (Figure 3).
For the competitive programme (study 1) the variable “position in the
competition” significantly affected both the perceptions of personal benefits
and team effectiveness. Those teams that did well during the programme
(finished first or second) demonstrated positive differences in both perceptions
of personal benefit and team effectiveness. However, the converse was true for
those teams that did poorly (finished third or fourth). The interactions between
both changes in perceptions of personal benefits and changes in perceptions of
team effectiveness, across time, and “position in the competition” were
significant (F = 4.79, p < 0.01 and F = 5.57, p < 0.01 respectively) (Ibbetson and
Newell, 1996) (Figure 4).
Competitive Non-competitive
Mean score SD Mean score SD
Time 1 98.9 11.3 98.2 10.5
Time 2 98.6 15.2 99.1 11.8
Difference –0.4 15.9 0.9 16.4
(t = 0.27, p = 0.79) (t = 0.82, p < 0.41)
Table IV.
Pre- and post-mean
total index scores
for the perceptions of
team effectiveness
and the difference
across time, by
programme format

12. Management
development
programmes
69
Figure 3.
Changes in perceptions
by weather experienced
Poor
Mixed
Good
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
IndexScore
Time 1 Time 2
IndexScore
Time 1 Time 2
Time
Poor
Mixed
Good
102
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
IndexScore
Time 1 Time 2
Time
Graph Showing Differences in Perceptions of Personal
Benefits of the Training by the Weather Experienced
Graph Showing Differences in Perceptions of Team Effectiveness
as a result of the Training by the Weather Experienced
Key
Key

13. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
70
Figure 4.
Changes in perceptions
by position in the
competition
First
Second
Third
Fourth
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
IndexScore
Time 1 Time 2
IndexScore
Time 1 Time 2
Time
106
104
102
100
98
96
94
92
IndexScore
Time 1 Time 2
Time
Key
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Key
Graph Showing the Changes in Perceptions of Personal
Benefits of the Training by ‘Position in the Competition’
Graph Showing the Changes in Perceptions of Team Effectiveness
as a result of the Training by ‘Position in the Competition’

14. Management
development
programmes
71
Owing to the fact that the current programme was non-competitive, the
variable “position in the competition” was not available to help explain any of
the variation in the data. Furthermore, when the courses were run for the non-
competitive programme the weather was quite homogeneous; therefore the
aspect of weather, as in study 1, was not available to help explain any of the
variance either. Table V shows that even though the aggregate scores for
perceptions of personal benefits increase significantly for the non-competitive
cohort there were still some teams that reported a collective negative
experience. Likewise, in terms of perceptions of team effectiveness, half the
teams, to a varying extent, reported that they thought they were working less
well at the end of the programme than they were at the beginning (Table V).
Therefore, there is variation in the current data that remains unexplained.
An interesting final note is that for the competitive format in study 1, the
differences in perceptions of personal benefits and team effectiveness were
significantly correlated (r = 0.24, p < 0.01) (Ibbetson and Newell, 1996).
Whereas for the current non-competitive format, the differences in perceptions
of personal benefits and team effectiveness were not significantly correlated
(Table V).
Discussion and conclusions
Comparison of the aggregate data from the competitive and non-competitive
programmes suggests that the non-competitive format (study 2) better met the
developmental objectives than the competitive format (study 1). There were
Personal benefits Team effectiveness
Team Mean score SD Mean score SD
1 11.1 14.1 –1.9 5.9
2 3.4 12.2 4.8 38.3
3 13.7 11.7 –7.0 6.5
4 –3.9 11.5 –8.6 13.9
5 –5.6 6.6 1.8 8.3
6 8.4 15.2 –4.0 11.0
7 3.2 5.8 –4.3 42.6
8 11.5 9.8 4.1 8.0
9 –2.6 19.9 3.6 9.5
10 –4.2 7.5 9.7 4.5
11 8.6 17.3 –6.0 9.4
12 10.5 4.0 14.3 6.3
13 3.7 16.7 6.7 9.8
14 6.9 12.4 1.2 9.6
15 15.7 10.4 –3.0 7.4
16 7.4 6.7 –0.6 7.2
Note:
Correlation (r = –0.17, p = 0.86)
Table V.
Mean difference scores
(from Time 1 to Time 2)
for perceptions of
personal benefits and
team effectiveness
by team, for
non-competitive
programme

15. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
72
marked positive differences in perceptions of personal benefits derived from the
programme. The objective had been to attempt to heighten awareness of
teamworking issues, from an individual perspective, in order that individuals
would be better prepared to work in teams in the future. The evidence suggests
that this objective had been better met by the non-competitive programme
format, especially in terms of a perceived improvement in the “task” oriented
aspects of teamworking such as problem solving, planning, making decisions
(Kormanski and Mozenter, 1987).
Previous research (Johnson et al., 1981) has highlighted the paucity of
evidence comparing goal structures involving cooperation and cooperation
with intergroup competition. The results of this research concur with the
evidence previously reported by Johnson et al. (1981). The cooperative goal
structure (non-competitive programme) produced a more successful
programme than the cooperative programme with intergroup competition
(competitive programme), in terms of the participants, on average, reporting to
have had a more positive and productive experience. This in turn meant that
the clients’ objectives were also better met. Furthermore, the outcomes
produced by the competitive programme (study 1) would tend to lend support
to Kohn’s (1986b) arguments concerning the destructive impact of competition,
as related to success and productivity.
This study, which provides evidence of positive programme modification,
was only possible through systematic evaluation. This OMD programme is a
regular annual event and therefore the original competitive format, which was
the subject of the initial evaluation (study 1), had run for several years. The
process of evaluation was able to suggest that this competitive format did not
provide the assumed positive developmental experience for all the participants.
Therefore, modifications were made to the programme and, by following the
evaluation through, the current findings suggest that the modified format
better meets the original objectives. An interesting point for discussion is that
the competitive element was “believed” to be an important element of the
programme and therefore, even in light of some quite compelling evidence from
study 1 (Ibbetson and Newell, 1996), a considerable amount of energy was
required to effect changes in the programme format. Indeed, Kohn (1986b)
refers to competition as “the number one obsession” and describes it as a
“cultural addiction”. It is perhaps only now with the evidence from the
comparative results, that some of the sponsors are truly convinced that the
programme changes were positive. This particular process of change has
implications, lessons if one prefers, for providers, clients and researchers alike
(Newell and Ibbetson, 1995a, 1995b).
The fact that for the competitive format differences in perceptions of
personal benefits were significantly correlated to differences in perceptions of
team effectiveness, whereas for the non-competitive format they were not, can
possibly be linked to the focus of the activity review or debrief encouraged by
the different programme formats. Wagner et al. (1991) describe debriefing, or
reviewing, as “a qualitative discussion period that allows participants to

16. Management
development
programmes
73
analyse their efforts to solve problems and act cohesively as a team” (p. 54).
From this perspective, it is not the activity which is important, but the way in
which the experience is harnessed to encourage self and/or group development
(Dainty and Lucas, 1992). Debriefing is thus an important part of OMD, serving
to uncover the metaphors between the activity and the reality of the workplace.
Without it experiences run the risk of being recreational rather than
educational, a corporate holiday (Pecham, 1993). The process of review itself is
not homogeneous. The focus of review can be pedagogic or anagogic (Tuson,
1994). A pedagogic style is outcome focused, whereas an anagogic style is
process focused. Pedagogic review concentrates on whether a group was
successful at a particular task and what changes could have been made in order
to have done that task more successfully. Therefore, a pedagogic style may not
readily raise issues pertaining to individual learning. An anagogic style is
concerned more about the group process behind solving a problem, than the
technicalities of that particular task; in other words, it explores the outcomes of
individual and group behaviour and then facilitates a generic search for ways
of performing more effectively, in all situations, in the future (Tuson, 1994). In
contrast to the pedagogic approach, anagogic reviewing techniques may be
better able to raise issues concerning individual learning.
The competitive format (study 1) had placed a heavy emphasis on
comparative performance and so the team’s performance, and therefore its
position in the competition, was an important outcome. The result of this was
that the review tended to be heavily outcome-focused or pedagogic. Success
tended to be defined by individuals in terms of how well their team had done in
the competition (Ibbetson and Newell, 1996). Therefore, on average, individuals
whose teams had done well in the competition tended to think that the
experience had been personally beneficial, whereas those individuals who had
participated in teams that had not done well in the competition tended to think
that the exercise had not been worthwhile. In other words, the individual
experience tended to be contingent upon the team experience as defined by the
standing in the competition.
For the non-competitive programme differences in personal benefits were not
correlated with differences in perceptions of team effectiveness. Therefore, some
individuals who had reported positive changes in personal benefits derived
from the programme had actually reported that they thought their team was
working less well at the end of the programme than at the beginning.
Conversely, some individuals who had reported that they thought that their
team was working better at the end of the programme than at the beginning
had actually reported that they perceived that they had derived less personal
benefit than expected from the programme. Therefore, the individual
experience did not seem to be directly contingent upon the team experience.
Owing to position in the competition not being relevant to the non-competitive
programme format (study 2), more importance may have been placed on
facilitating the team process than the team outcome, in other words a more
anagogic style of review was encouraged. In this way, negative team

17. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
74
experiences, because they did not lead to failure in a competition, could be
turned around via the review so that individuals could perhaps learn valuable
lessons from them. In the same way, individuals participating in teams that
effectively worked together in order to solve the problems that had been set
were perhaps more discerning about the benefits accrued from the experience,
as successful performance did not lead to any artificial status being concurred
from a running competition. Essentially the change in format from competitive
to non-competitive encouraged a different type of review which might be the
key variable which explains the different outcomes. In the present study,
however, the style of review was not the original focus of the comparison.
Rather, the style changed as an outcome of the change in the programme
format. What is clearly needed is further research specifically focusing on
different styles of review to systematically check the relevance of this variable.
Most importantly this needs to be done while holding programme format
constant, that is comparing a pedagogic with an anagogic style of review within
a non-competitive programme.
There was little change for either programme, competitive or non-
competitive, in terms of perceptions of team effectiveness. This perhaps tends
to make sense as the facilitation of the development programmes was geared
towards an understanding of teamworking issues and skills, from an individual
perspective. Team development per se was not a major objective. This was due
to the fact that the development programme was designed to be a culmination
of the students’ programme of study, helping to put theory into practice. The
teams would therefore not be functional beyond the end of the programme. This
meant that there were limitations in terms of the experimental design. Perhaps
the most well-used framework for evaluating training and development
programmes is that provided by Kirkpatrick (1967) who identifies four levels of
evaluation – learner reactions, achieved learning, job application (i.e. transfer of
learning) and observable business results. Only the immediate effects of the
programmes could be investigated here. This is a limiting factor, as only some
of Kirkpatrick’s (1967) levels of evaluation could be operationalised (reactions
and perceptions of learning). In order to be able to investigate measures of
behavioural change (back in the work environment) and organisational results
(changes to the “bottom-line”) a more longitudinal research design is needed.
The authors’ subsequent projects, therefore, are attempting to investigate the
effects of transfer of learning from OMD programmes to the workplace.
It has previously been noted (Ibbetson and Newell, 1996) that aggregating
data from OMD programmes can mask the variation within the data. The
authors’ previous research attempted to investigate whether variables at the
individual level, preferred learning style, and at the team level, preferred team
role, mediated outcomes. Neither variable elucidated any significant portion of
the variance. This may, however, have been a function of the poor
operationalisation of these variables, in terms of the questionnaires used to
measure them (Ibbetson and Newell, 1996). For the competitive programme the
weather experienced on different courses significantly mediated outcomes. This

18. Management
development
programmes
75
was not the case for the non-competitive programme as the extremes in weather
conditions experienced during the competitive programme did not prevail.
However, it may be a variable which could be considered for future comparisons
across courses. The other variable which significantly mediated outcomes, for
the competitive programme, was “position in the competition”. However, while
this variable was obviously not available for the non-competitive programme,
there remained unexplained variance at the individual and team level. The
experience was not uniform but no variables were available to help explain the
divergent experiences that were found. Future research could further
investigate what variables mediate outcomes to OMD programmes.
In conclusion, this case study details the role evaluation has played in
identifying whether a particular OMD programme met its stated objectives and
how the results have been employed to affect positive change. By definition, this
case study is not meant to be representative of OMD as a whole. However, this
systematic evaluation project has benefited all parties involved. Future research
which is more longitudinal and attempts to investigate behavioural change and
“bottom-line” results, could potentially provide the justification which HRD
departments are constantly looking for. At worst, they could provide the
information and impetus for change, which would at least communicate that
meeting objectives and providing value for money are taken seriously.
References
Adams, J.C. (1973), “Effects of competition and open receptivity on creative productivity”,
Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 16-17.
Bickerstaff, G. (1993), “Measuring gains from training”, Personnel Management, Vol. 25 No. 11,
pp. 48-51.
Blau, P. (1954), “Cooperation and competition in a bureaucracy”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 59, pp. 530-5.
Bronson, J. (1990), Team Development Indicator, Performance Dynamics Group, Mountain View,
CA.
Dainty, P. and Lucas, D. (1992), “Clarifying the confusion: a practical framework for evaluating
outdoor development programmes for managers”, Management Education and Development,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 106-22.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Mackness, J. (1992), “Completing the cycle of evaluation”, Personnel
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 42-5.
Fitz-enz, J. (1994), “Yes. You can weigh training’s value”, Training, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 54-8.
Gass, M. and Dobkin, C. (1992), Book of Metaphors, AEE, Boulder, CO.
Ibbetson, A.B. (1993), “Team building: the relative effectiveness of an adventure-based
experiential approach”, unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia,
Canada.
Ibbetson, A.B. and Newell, S. (1995), “Winner takes all: an evaluation of adventure-based
management training”, paper presented at British Psychological Society Conference,
Occupational Psychology Division, Warwick, England.
Ibbetson, A.B. and Newell, S. (1996), “Winner takes all: an evaluation of adventure-based
management training”, Journal of Management Learning, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 163-85.
Ibbetson, A.B., Newell, S. and Donnison, P. (in review), “Outdoor management development:
towards a typology”, Human Resource Management Journal.

19. Personnel
Review
28,1/2
76
Industrial Relations Services (1992a), “Training evaluation: an IRS survey”, Industrial Relations
Review and Report, Vol. 512, pp. 2-12.
Industrial Relations Services (1992b), “The role of outdoor-based development: a survey of 120
employers”, Employee Development Bulletin 34, Industrial Relations Review and Report,
Vol. 522, pp. 2-17.
Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D. and Skon, L. (1981), “Effects of cooperative,
competitive and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 89, pp. 47-62.
Jones, P.J. and Oswick, C. (1993), “Outcomes of outdoor management development: articles of
faith?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 10-18.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1967), “Evaluation of training”, in Craig, R.L. and Bitten, L.R. (Eds), Training
and Development Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kohn, A. (1986a), “How to succeed without even vying”, Psychology Today, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 22-4.
Kohn, A. (1986b), No contest – The case against competition, Houghton Miffin Co., Boston, MA.
Kohn, A. (1987), “It’s hard to get left out of a pair”, Psychology Today, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 52-7.
Kormanski, C. and Mozenter, A. (1987), “A new model of team building: a technology for today
and tomorrow”, in Pfeiffer, J.W. (Ed.), The 1987 Annual: Developing Human Resources,
University Associates, San Diego, CA.
Newell, S. and Ibbetson, A.B. (1995a), “Evaluation matters”, Practical Training, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 22-4.
Newell, S. and Ibbetson, A.B. (1995b), “Evaluating outdoor management development
programmes: the key to successful training”, Network, Spring, pp. 11-13.
Pecham, M. (1993), “Management development and the ‘outdoors’ – exploring the myth (Part
one)”, Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 17-18.
Pepitone, E.A. (1980), Children in Cooperation and Competition: Toward a Developmental
Psychology, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Priest, S. (1998a), “A comparison of metaphoric debriefing and isomorphic framing in corporate
adventure training programmes”, Journal of Experiential Education, (under review).
Priest, S. (1998b), “Organisational teambuilding: experiential versus classroom”, Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, (in press).
Priest, S. (1998c), “The influence of instructor type on corporate adventure training program
effectiveness”, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, (in press).
Priest, S. and Lesperance, M.A. (1995), “Time series trends and the effect of follow-up procedures
on team development during adventure training for corporations”, Journal of Experiential
Education, Vol. 17, pp. 34-9.
Smith, A. (1990), “Evaluation of management training – subjectivity and the individual”, Journal
of European Industrial Relations, Vol. 14, pp. 12-15.
Smith, R.P. and Priest, S. (in press), “Team development from a corporate adventure training
program and barriers to workplace transference”, Journal of Adventure Education and
Outdoor Leadership.
Tuson, M. (1994), Outdoor Training for Employee Effectiveness, IPM, London.
Wagner, R.J., Baldwin, T.T. and Roland, C.C. (1991), “Outdoor training: revolution or fad?”,
Training and Development Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 50-65.
Whittemore, I.C. (1924), “The influence of competition on performance: an experimental study”,
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 234-54.