…Published in Venture Magazine May 2003

see http://www.venturemagazine.co.uk/

INDOORS......THE NEW OUTDOORSStuart 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?

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

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

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 eventStuart 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

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.