| dc.description.abstract | The concept outdoor team building implies a set of consecutive learning experience activities that are mainly conducted in the outdoors with the aim of positively influencing the behaviour of the participant (McEvoy & Buller, 1997:209). According to Wagner et al. (1991:53) this form of team building mainly comprises of centre-based team building programs and wilderness-based team building programs. During CBTB the participants live and eat indoors while the participation in structured team building activities takes place outdoors. In contrast to this, the participants in wilderness-based team building live outdoors and take part in strenuous activities such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, orientation, camping, canoeing and sailing. In the corporate world there is currently a tendency to make use of CBTB to increase organizational effectiveness (Buller et al., 1991:58; Irvine & Wilson, 1994:25; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4; DuFrene et al., 1999:24; lngram & Desombre, 1999:16; Salas et al., 1999:309-310; WiIliams et al., 2003:45). Notwithstanding the increasing popularity of these programs, there exists much scepticism concerning the real value of CBTB (Gall, 1987:58; Wagner & Roland, 1992:61; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4). The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness. According to Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001:3) the most innovative and comprehensive results of the dynamic nature of outdoor team building programs have been found in the wilderness or a type of wilderness environment, Ewert en McAvoy (2000:15) are of the opinion that the participation in activities in the wilderness can have a significant impact on the individual as well as the group. The test subject is identified by means of an availability sample and is randomly divided ahead of time into a control group as well as two separate experimental groups who participated in the CBTB (Venterskroon, Vredefort Dome) and the wilderness expedition (Central Drakensberg). This study is executed in the form of a quantitative pre-test post-test design (Thomas & Nelson, 2001:321-322). To measure personal effectiveness use is made of the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) with a Cronbach Alpha-value of between 0,79 and 0,93 (Richards et al., 2002:1-4). The instrument focuses on psychological and behavioural aspects that are key components of personal effectiveness (Richards et al., 2002:1). The ROPELOC consist of 45 questions and is made up of seven main components of which three consist of various underlying subcomponents. The difference can be determined with regard to the main components as well as the underlying subcomponents. For the measuring of group effectiveness use was made of an improved version of Herselman’s (1998:149) group effectiveness questionnaire. It was aimed with this questionnaire to determine the effect of CBTB and the wilderness expedition on group effectiveness, as well as which advantages, if any, it has for the individual. This questionnaire consists of open and closed items on group aspects as well as individual aspects, to determine the participants’ attitude with regard to certain variables before and after exposure to the CBTB and the wilderness expedition. The results of this study showed that both experimental groups (CBTB and wilderness expedition) brought about successful change. With reference to personal effectiveness the paired t-tests showed that the CBTB lead to more change with regard to the main components as well as the subcomponents than the wilderness expedition. This change took place with regard to personal ability and beliefs, organizational skills, overall effectiveness, self-efficacy, time management and the coping with change. With regard to group effectiveness the wilderness expedition lead to more change than the CBTB with reference to group cohesion, leadership development, attitude change, success experience, self-concept, self-confidence and dealing with criticism. To determine whether there was a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, use was made of a covariance analysis. The results of these tests showed that with regard to personal effectiveness there was only one practically significant intergroup difference, namely stress management, and that with regard to group effectiveness two significant intergroup differences were found, namely creativity and group moral. In all of these cases the CBTB exhibited better. On the basis of these results the assumption that CBTB is more effective than a wilderness expedition, for the improvement of personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, cannot be made. It is recommended that CBTB be given preference if the outcomes of the program is personal effectiveness and wilderness expedition be used to improve group effectiveness. | |
