Inputs and Outcomes of Outdoor Management Development: Of Design, Dogma and Dissonance
| Author | Philip J. Jones,Cliff Oswick |
| Published date | 01 December 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00515.x |
| Date | 01 December 2007 |
Inputs and Outcomes of Outdoor
Management Development: Of Design,
Dogma and Dissonance
Philip J. Jones and Cliff Oswick
Management Centre, Ken Edwards Building, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester,
LE1 7RH, UK
Email: p.jones@le.ac.uk [Jones]; c.oswick@le.ac.uk [Oswick]
Although it is now a multi-million pound international industry, there is continuing
scepticism about the benefits of Outdoor Management Development (OMD). This
study investigates the impact of participation in an archetypal example of OMD on a
cohort of junior managers (n 519). Participants reported changes in a variety of
attitudes including, their opinions of themselves, team-working and the theoretical
frameworks used to underpin the programme. Analysis of individuals’ accounts found
associations between participation in particular forms of outdoor training activities and
changes in certain categories of attitude. Cognitive dissonance theory is used as a
framework to explain these changes. More specifically, we contend that task selection
and review-style choices made by providers and sponsors significantly influenced the
reactions, sense-making processes and training outcomes reported by participants. This
study challenges the design of contemporary OMD programmes that privileges a linear,
incremental view of development where one starts with simple tasks of short duration
and gradually progresses to longer and more complex activities.
Introduction
In the past 25 years the use of the outdoors for
management development (OMD) has grown
into a multi-million pound international indus-
try. Although methodologically robust empirical
research into OMD has increased significantly
over the past decade, a number of problems
remain; not least because the term ‘OMD’ can be
used to describe anything from an afternoon of
activities on a hotel lawn to a month of outdoor
adventure training in the Scottish wilderness. It
has been hypothesized that confusing the differ-
ent types or classes of OMD may have prevented
the identification of any associated benefits and
liabilities (Dainty and Lucas, 1992; Jones and
Oswick, 1993; Wagner, Baldwin and Roland,
1991). Heterogeneity of practice together with a
lack of detail in the reporting of studies has made
this claim difficult to test.
OMD research often focuses upon training
outcomes and neglects the underlying mechan-
isms by which these effects are elicited (Burke and
Collins, 2004a, p. 678). According to Hodgkinson
such ‘A-theoretical empirical studies, however
well executed, do not typically yield enduring
contributions to the academic enterprise or policy
and practice’ (2005, p. 2).
As conceptual framework s have been devel-
oped, a number of studies have taken a po sitivist,
confirmatory approach to OMD: testing hypoth-
eses generated through exte nsive analyses of the
literature (Burke and Co llins, 2004b; Hamilton
and Cooper, 2001; Ibbetson an d Newell, 1996;
Keller and Olson, 2000; Lu cas, 1992; Mazany,
Francis and Sumich, 1995; Ng, 2001). These
have often produced equivoc al results and
have generally failed to s upport the predicted
relationships, indicating that our theoretical
understanding of OMD may be insufficient to
British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, 327–341 (2007)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00515.x
r2007 British Academy of Management
To continue reading
Request your trial