running head: high ropes course and leadership …

Running Head: HIGH ROPES COURSE AND LEADERSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS 1

A Phenomenological Inquiry: In the Context of Organizational Development, How Does

Experiential Teambuilding in the Form of a High ROPES Course, Contribute to Positive

Leadership Development, and How Can it be Improved?

A Research Paper

Presented to

The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School

__________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master of Arts in

Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy

__________________________

Katherine T. Whitnah

Adler Graduate School

HIGH ROPES COURSE AND LEADERSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS 2

Abstract

Organizations have been using High ROPES Courses as a teambuilding intervention for over thirty

years. The purpose of this study was to research the needs of today’s organizations and identify

how courses are delivering teambuilding programs that satisfy those needs. Programs currently

offered to organizations may be beneficial to positive leadership development as they are.

However, after making modifications based on recent leadership data and theory, program results

could be enhanced. To find answers, data was gathered from historical and current research in the

area of organizational development and teambuilding, and then used to create a tool in which to

measure the effectiveness of programs in relation to today’s organizational needs. Initial program

enhancements were implemented and tested for validity. In the end, results and recommendations

on how to use High ROPES Courses as an effective teambuilding intervention in the field of

Organizational Development were reported.

HIGH ROPES AND LEADERSHIP 3

Table of Contents

Abstract

List of Tables

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Research Question

Hypothesis

Questions

Key Words

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership Development

Teambuilding

High Ropes Courses

Summary

Conclusion

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Overview

Description of Methodology

Design of the Study

Variables

Population and Samples

Instrumentation

Validity and Reliability

Data Collection


CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Assumptions and Limitations

Research Question Analysis

Summary of Results

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Context

Readiness

Learning Integration

Summary

Recommendations for Further Study

REFERENCES

APPENDIX


List of Tables

Table 1. Program Components: Control Group

Table 2. Pre and Post Leadership Assessment Data

Table 3. Development Readiness Assessment Questions

Table 4. Data Challenging Action and Debrief Assessment Data

Table 5. Environment Assessment


Chapter 1: Introduction

High ROPES Courses are contributing to positive leadership development on a basic level;

however, this study revealed leadership development is enhanced by incorporating new

methodology in the areas of organizational context, readiness, and learning integration into

traditional programs. Foundational learning was derived from both Alfred Adler and Peter Senge.

After reviewing additional literature, an instrument to measure the effectiveness of a teambuilding

program was created. Next, both traditional and experimental programs were measured for

leadership effectiveness against program criteria. Finally, areas for improvement were identified

for teambuilding on a High ROPES Course within the context of Organizational Development and

recommended enhancements were provided for future application.

Research Question

Despite the obvious connections between experiential teambuilding and positive leadership

development, there is a gap between expected outcomes and actual results. It is recommended that

High ROPES Courses and organizations review assumptions related to the developmental process,

align traditional programming with evolving research methodology, and evaluate the result of their

teambuilding investment. Information gathered will either improve future events or justify current

programming as sufficient in the area of leadership development within the context of

organizations. To measure the current state of leadership development programs on a High ROPES

Course against the needs of organizations, the following question must be asked: A

Phenomenological Inquiry: In the context of organizational development, how does experiential

teambuilding in the form of a High ROPES Course, contribute to positive leadership development,

and how can it be improved?

Hypothesis

High ROPES Courses are contributing to organizational development by utilizing


traditional methods of experiential learning. However, leadership development could be enhanced

and accelerated by applying new methodology to traditional programs.

Questions

1. During the traditional event, which program components referenced in the review

of literature were observed?

2. During the traditional event, which program components referenced in the review

of literature were missing?

3. Based on the results of the traditional event, how was the experimental

leadership development program enhanced?

4. How did the results of the traditional event compare to the results of the

experimental event?

Key Words

High ROPES Course, Teambuilding, Experiential Learning, Organizational Development, Self-

Awareness, Learning Organization, Readiness and Learning Integration.

Chapter 2. Literature Review

In order to evaluate High ROPES Course programming, the needs of organizations and

their employees must be investigated. The following review of literature contains information

regarding the current need for teambuilding within the context of organizational development. The

researcher explores both the historical and current application of a traditional High ROPES Course

program. Throughout the review, Adlerian Psychology provides a foundation for human

development theory. Current learning organization theory from Peter Senge and other leading

development experts give additional insights that narrows the gap between effective developmental

programs and their evolving requirements for the future.


Leadership Development

Rothwell and Sullivan (2005) support the Greek Philosopher Heraclitus when he says,

“There is nothing permanent but change (p. 10). In their book, Practicing Organizational

Development, they reflect on the past forty years and how leaders and consultants have been

intervening to help organizations and their employees make sense of our societal transformation.

Events that take place in an environment create changes for organizations and their culture. They

attribute the advances in technology, financial restraints, increased market competition, the

importance of human knowledge and creativity, and the incredible speed at which change is

occurring to the need for ongoing development. The responsibility to adapt and respond to these

rapid, systemic changes rests on leaders. Current leaders must have the ability to modify their

mindset and beliefs in order for an organization to adapt and survive (Rothwell & Sullivan, 2005).

Leadership defined and acquired. Leadership is defined as, “…the process of inducing

others to take action toward a common goal” (Locke, Kirkpatrick, Wheeler, Schneider, Niles,

Holdstein, Welsh, & Chan, 1991, p. 2). David Day, author of Leadership Development: A Review

in Context, makes a clear distinction between two forms of development in this area. “Leader

development” describes an individual leader. In order to accomplish development related goals, the

leader must develop certain skills. Being self-motivated, self-regulating and having a strong sense

of self-awareness are listed as key competencies. On a larger scale, “leadership development” is all

about relationships. This is much more difficult than being an individual leader. One must have

“interpersonal competence” and understand the concept of social-awareness and their presence

within an organization (2001).

There has been much discussion regarding whether leader and leadership abilities are an

innate gift or a skill that people acquire. In 2003, research from the Academy of Management,

Learning, and Education reported innate personality characteristics do give individuals an


advantage, but anybody has the ability to become a leader (Doh, 2003; Senge, 2006). Leadership

skills incorporate both spoken and unspoken components. Strategy and vision are easy to teach,

however, building relationships and having confidence requires a higher level of commitment for

successful development (Doh, 2003). “Some of these tacit dimensions may be conveyed through

experiential teaching…but the bottom line is leadership can be taught” (Doh, 2003, p. 60).

Avolio and Hanna (2008) confirmed these findings by summarizing past research and

evaluating genetic data to confirm leadership is the direct result of experiences. “Emerging leaders

are encouraged to focus on their development and gain as many experiences leading as possible”

(George, Mclean, & Graig, 2008, p. xiv). Reading a book or journal, attending a seminar, taking a

course or studying at a school of higher education are options. There are leadership theorists,

educators, mentors, consultants, and executive coaches with years of experience and assessment

tools that are willing to help those who want to help themselves. Although beneficial, there is little

hard evidence that supports these activities as being independently effective (Day, 2001).

“Effective leadership development is less about which specific practices are endorsed than about

consistent and intentional implementation” (Day, 2001, p. 606).

Leader development. Self-Awareness is the, “…the ability to recognize and understand

your moods, emotions, and drives as well as your effect on others” (George et al., 2008, p. 50).

Self-aware people understand how their emotions affect them personally, while at the same time,

how their moods and behavior affect other people and the system in which they operate. Being

self-confident and having a high level of self-esteem are characteristics of a self-aware individual.

Listening to personal thoughts, coping with change, responding with sincerity, exuding optimism,

managing anxiety, and speaking assertively are all examples of self-aware behavior (White, 2008).

Leaders with strong self-awareness are not critical or unrealistically hopeful. They understand their

biases and know what triggers an emotional response (Thomas, 2008). When unaware of personal


reactions and their effect on others, it is difficult to work with, or manage people (Kets De Vries,

2001).

The Self-Awareness Theory, by Duval and Wicklund (1972), discusses how by focusing

attention on the self, individuals have opportunities to measure their thoughts and behavior

against their ethical standards and values. Where do thoughts and behaviors originate?

According to Alfred Adler, founder of Individual Psychology (1870-1937), until the age of

seven, individuals are in the process of creating a story about their life. Memories of events and

conversations form perceptions about the world that act as a frame-of-reference for children as

they grow up. These perceptions influence choices and behavior. The pictures in the story

create a vision of perfection from the first six years of life. They lay the foundation of

personality and a life goal emerges (Corey, 2009, p. 100-101).

As life continues, Adler explains how humans consciously search for meaning, create goals,

and strive for superiority. Repeated actions form habits and a way of thinking and living emerges.

These repetitive thoughts and actions form a “lifestyle” (Corey, 2009, p. 101). When thoughts of

imperfection (in Adlerian terms, “inferiority”) occur, the innate life goal of perfection (or

“superiority”) creates the need for humans to compensate and realign their personality with their

goal (Corey, 2009, p. 98-99). In alignment with the Self-Awareness Theory, Adler believed, “Once

we become aware of the patterns of our lives, we have the opportunity to modify assumptions that

are not useful and make changes. We can reframe childhood experiences and consciously create a

new style of life” (Corey, p. 101). With self-awareness, strengths and weaknesses emerge, but

what we choose to do with them is more important than their source (Corey, 2009, p. 99).

Leadership development. In addition to individual awareness, leaders must also develop a

social awareness within the organization. Being able to consider feelings, relate to alternative

perspectives, or read people’s reactions is essential (White, 2008). Adler observed individual


progression in a team setting and the development of “…increased interconnectedness and

cohesion… the group becomes an agent of change because of the improved interpersonal

relationships among members and the emergence of hope” (Corey, 2009, p. 118). As individuals in

the group watch one and other identify areas of opportunity and grow, the group begins to

understand that, “…if they hope to change, they need to set tasks for themselves, apply group

lessons to daily life and take steps in finding solutions to their problems” (Corey, 2009, p. 118).

Through leadership development, individuals understand how they fit into and contribute to

their team and organization. Building relationships within teams is a critical activity that Peter

Senge highlights as “lacking” in the modern workplace (Senge, 2006, p. 221). It is essentials

because as time passes, individuals and their groups develop habits or routines that are no longer

useful. When challenged, Adler says people within the group become defensive about the routines

to protect individual self-esteem. Because of their hierarchical nature, problems are often blamed

on others rather than being seen as “joint creations.” It is the individual’s responsibility to take part

in discovering how routines have been created and how each person is sustaining the useless

activity (Senge, 2006, p. 249).

When groups identify thoughts or behaviors that they do not want, they need an opportunity

to talk about them. In order to do this, those involved must agree to engage in a respectful dialogue

where individual perceptions are shared openly in the presence of a facilitator who acts as an

anchor for context. Challenges must incorporate risk that the group must decide to take together.

In an environment of learning, this shared exposure allows the groups to see each other as equals,

suspend assumptions, and create a safe place for weaknesses to be revealed, challenged, and

developed (Senge, 2006; Corey, 2009). A playful environment encourages people to try new ideas

and, through the process of reflection, they decide if they want to incorporate them into how the

team functions in the future (Senge, 2006). When people have a chance to confront their


weaknesses and unproductive habits, they have an opportunity to learn and modify goals (Corey, p.

118).

Organizational leader and leadership development. Effective leadership development

requires a shift of mind. The difference between past and current leaders is their ability to see

themselves as part of a system that supports development for individuals, teams and their

organization. As the founder for the Society of Organizational Learning and Author of The Fifth

Discipline, Peter Senge, Ph.D. knows, “The organizations that will truly excel in the future will be

the organizations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels

in the organization” (Senge, 2006, p. 4).

Senge’s Learning Organization Theory categorizes leadership data into a system

incorporating five disciplines vital to the learning and development process. The first discipline,

Personal Mastery, is the foundation and the spirit of the learning organization. Just as Adler

described the human need for superiority in terms of individual striving, Senge describes personal

mastery as a, “special level of proficiency” (Senge, 2006, p. 7). It is, “…the discipline of

continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing

patience, and of seeing reality objectively” (Senge, 2006, p. 7). Senge believes the ability for an

organization to learn depends on the ability for the people with the organization to learn. He wrote,

“The critical moment comes when people realize that this learning organization work is about each

one of us (Senge, 2006, p. 7).

The second discipline incorporates the social dimension of learning within an organization.

“When teams are truly learning, not only are they producing extraordinary results, but the

individual members are growing more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise” (Senge, 2006,

p. 9). During team learning, the group has an opportunity to gain awareness that cannot be exposed

through individual practice. Active groups create ineffective patterns of behavior that undercut


their purpose and distract from productive development. Team learning brings these behaviors to

the surface and allows the group to make choices about future behaviors. Senge believes when

destructive behaviors emerge with a creative spirit, that they have the ability to accelerate learning.

He says, “Team learning is vital because teams, not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit

in modern organizations. This is where the rubber meets the road; unless teams can learn, the

organization cannot learn” (Senge, 2006, p. 10).

The third discipline in a learning organization focuses on, “…deeply ingrained assumptions,

generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we

take action” (Senge, 2006, p. 8). These beliefs are identified as Mental Models. The process of

understanding an individual’s mental models begins with self- awareness, or the conscious

exploration of the less conscious thoughts and behavior. After discovering their innate purpose,

each are tested for validity. Senge explains how ideas are exposed through “learningful

conversations” that are mixed with “inquiry and advocacy, where people expose their own thinking

effectively and make that thinking open to the influence of others” (Senge, 2006, p. 8-9).

Although not always obvious, due to time and distance, actions are connected and have an

influence on their system. The first three disciplines explain how individual thought is exposed in

both the individual and social realm; in addition, people must learn how problems and

opportunities relate to the bigger system in which they function. Leaders, themselves, are a part of

the system in which actions take place. Because of this, they do not have the full perspective and

only see pieces of an entire picture. It is difficult to understand the pattern of happenings that cause

irritation to the system and easy to become discouraged by underlying problems that are never

solved. Systems thinking, the fourth discipline provides a view that allows leaders to see the big-

picture of their organization and find useful ways to make effective changes (Senge, 2006).

Senge’s final discipline, Shared Vision, describes the goal-oriented focus of leadership


development within an organization. A shared vision is not the vision of a top leader that he or she

shares with their organization with mandated support. Rather, it is a genuine vision with goal-

related behavior that guides the current organization toward a desired future existence. When a

shared vision is created and embraced by an organization, employees are naturally motivated and

engaged. Because of having a shared vision, an atmosphere of continuous growth and learning is

created that stems from an innate desire to reach a shared goal. The shared vision encourages

individuals to develop personal mastery, while at the same time, committing them to a higher

agenda. If individuals were not aligned by a shared vision, their personal agendas would create

division and disorder (Senge, 2006).

When systems thinking, mental models, shared vision, team learning and personal mastery

are fused into an organic (as opposed to linear) system, organizations have the ability to,

“…continually enhance their capacity to realize their highest aspirations” (Senge, 2006, p. 6).

When leaders and the organizations in which they work adopt this theory, continuous leadership

development abounds and change is welcome. From the learning organization perspective, there is

a responsibility to improve on an individual level while also working with others, in every

discipline, to enhance the organization as a whole (Senge, 2006).

Teambuilding

Teambuilding is under the umbrella of Organizational Development and is a form of

experiential education that allows individuals and teams to develop through shared experiences and

discussion. Simon Priest and Karl Rohnke, authors of, 101 of the Best Corporate Team-Building

Activities, describe teambuilding as “…the purposeful use of active experience to enhance

organizational change through employee learning” (2000, p. 5). Usually, teambuilding events are

led by a facilitator and designed with enhanced difficulty as the program progresses. One of the

benefits of teambuilding is the common experience shared by the group. Members are not asked to


remember a situation; they take part in an activity, observe, and derive learning from the shared

experience. Teambuilding is a standard intervention that happens indoors, outdoors, or a

combination of the two (Kriek, 2007). A few indoor options include paper and pencil exercises,

role-playing, simulations, or T-group exercises (Hornyak, 2004). High ROPES Courses and

wilderness expeditions are examples of outdoor experiential teambuilding.

Experiential learning theory. The theory surrounding experiential learning focuses on

individuals actively participating in their learning, rather than listening passively to an instructor

(Meyer, 2003, p. 353). “…the emphasis and goal within experiential education is toward

monitoring the individual’s growth and the development of self-awareness” (Joplin, 1981, p. 21).

The actions may take place at a team, but the learning comes from the individual’s perception of

their experience.

Laura Joplin, creator of the Five-Stage Model of Experiential Learning explains,

“Experiential education is based on the assumption that all knowing must begin with the

individual’s relationship to the topic…therefore, to learn, we must investigate those relationships”

(Joplin, 1981, p. 19). Some educators believe any learning resulting from direct experience may be

considered experiential, (Hornyak, 2004, p. 465) however, Joplin disagrees. She says experience

alone does not result in learning; it is the “reflection process” that transforms experience into

experiential education (Joplin, 1981, p. 15). Joplin’s model outlines the responsibilities of the

facilitator and describes an “action-reflection” cycle, as an ongoing process of learning where new

development builds upon past learning (Joplin, 1981).

Briefly stated, the five-stage model is organized around a central, hurricane-like cycle,

which is illustrated, as challenging action. It is preceded by a focus and followed by a

debrief. Encompassing all is the environment of support and feedback. The five stages are

one complete cycle, where completion of the fifth stage is concurrent with commencing the


first stage of the following cycle. (Joplin, 1981, p. 17)

Figure 1. Joplin Five-Stage Model of Experiential Learning (Joplin, 1981, p. 17).

In the first stage, focus is brought to the individual or team by describing the action that is

to follow. Next, challenging action takes place. Here, “the learner in a stressful or jeopardy-like

situation where he is unable to avoid the problem presented, often in an unfamiliar environment

requiring new skills or the use of new knowledge” (Joplin, 1981, p. 17). Support from others in the

group gives the participant the encouragement needed to continue, while feedback provides the

information necessary for progress; both are present throughout the experience. During a debrief

(also described as the reflection process), participants discuss what was experienced and learned.

One difference between traditional education and experiential education is that facilitators, rather

than teachers, are part of the learning. Facilitators do not dictate beliefs; they provide an

experience and lead discussions that reflect on the shared experience (Joplin, 1981).

A consultant’s perspective on teambuilding. The future of leader development needs

to “…focus more broadly, beyond the leader-centric approach to the shared leadership capacity

of organizational members” (Riggio, 2008, p. 386). W. Gibbs Dyer, a professor at Brigham

Young University, teaches teambuilding consultants how in order to be effective, one must

understand the context of a team and how members interact (2005, p. 405). For example, what

goal, purpose, or function does the group have within the organization? What behaviors are


required within that function for success? What is the leadership structure of the team and

company? There must also be an appropriate number of participants to solve the problem and

successfully complete the task. Consultants learn to be aware of the individual personalities that

make up the team and where they are in terms of development.

According to Dyer, before teambuilding begins, a clear goal must be associated with the

need for the event. Understanding constrictive barriers and key issues the team has about their

function is essential. Common barriers that are addressed during teambuilding activities are

communication, decision-making, and conflict (2005, p. 407-410). Teambuilding is not helpful

when a manager or high-level executive tells the team how to improve; the participants must draw

conclusions on their own. “Teams that recognize they have a need to improve their performance

will respond better to teambuilding activities than teams that feel they are forced to do

teambuilding by their superiors” (p. 410). The process of uncovering these barriers and issues

happens prior to the event through interviews or questionnaires. It can also happen at the beginning

of the teambuilding session in the form of a team diagnostic meeting.

A team diagnostic meeting begins with the consultant meeting with the team to identify

those issues and problems that are affecting group performance. To start the team

discussing issues and to categorize the data, I often ask team members to list things that the

team should stop doing, start doing, and continue doing to improve performance. After the

three lists are generated, the team members can then begin to identify the most significant

concerns facing them. The team then develops a plan of action to solve its problems.

(Dyer, 2005, pp. 413)

If the teambuilding actions are not measured against a theory, then processing is extremely

difficult. Effective teams are aware of their conduct, observe their actions and processes.

Consultants take time prior to the action portion of the event to teach the group relevant knowledge


(Dyer, 2005, p. 115). During the program, individuals and teams make development commitments

as they progress. Research on teambuilding suggests, “…teams that do a one-time teambuilding

session but fail to create any follow-up activities to reinforce what they have learned quickly

regress to their previous behaviors” (Dyer, 2005, p. 416). Successful learning happens when

organizations meet incrementally with individuals and teams to reinforce what was learned during

the teambuilding session and modify goals for the future (Dyer, 2005).

Emerging development research. Avolio and Hanna completed a study entitled,

Developmental Readiness, Accelerating Leader Development. Described are the absence of

leadership developmental theory and the process of accelerating leader development. They

suggest, “Leaders with higher levels of developmental readiness, in the right context, will be better

able to reflect upon and make meaning out of events, challenges, and/or opportunities that can

stimulate and accelerate positive leader development” (2008, p. 332). It could also be said that

leadership is a process and those who in the right state of mind at the right time will succeed.

In Figure 1, a dotted line shows the cyclical movement of developmental experiences through

time. It also shows how as the individual’s readiness develops, so does the climate of the

organization. In other words, as a leader develops, the atmosphere around them becomes more

beneficial to organizational development as a whole (Avolio et al., 2008).


Figure 2. Model of Leader and Organizational Developmental Readiness (Avolio et al., 2008).

Within the process, there are certain events that contribute to the individual’s learning

potential called “Trigger events” (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). The level of leader-readiness will

determine if the trigger event will or will not contribute to development. If the leader is ready,

there will be action and reflection. If the leader is not ready, the event will be a missed opportunity

for development (Avolio & Hanna, 2008). These trigger events result in feelings of disequilibrium

and heightened self-awareness that allows leaders to alter pre-existing thoughts and behavior

(Avolio & Luthans, 2006). Avolio and Hanna believe these events are critical because it is difficult

to change thought patterns once they are formed. They argue that, “If properly interpreted and

processed, such trigger events are expected to stimulate further leader development, as well as

produce perhaps a new way of approaching a particular leadership issue, opportunity, challenge, or

problem” (p. 335).

Learning goal orientation, developmental efficacy, self-awareness, leader complexity and

meta-cognitive abilities are identified as the five concepts used to assess developmental readiness.

Of these five concepts, self-awareness is considered a, “key theme… that leaders must develop”

(Riggio, 2008, p. 338). Avolio and Hanna agreed by reporting, “Higher levels of self-awareness

can enhance the leader’s ability to make meaning of relevant trigger events and how they contribute

to the individual becoming a more effective leader” (p. 338).

High ROPES Courses

A Repetitive Obstacle Performance Evaluation System, otherwise known as a High ROPES

Course (or challenge course), is an outdoor, experiential teambuilding program that gives

participants the opportunity to take risks is a safe environment. Ropes, cables, and poles were

originally blended together by George Hebert, an officer in the French Navy, to create a series of

mental, physical, and emotional challenges for the purpose of exercise and training. Because much


of the training took place on ships, many high ropes course activities resemble the rigging

associated with sailing. Over time, some courses evolved from a military training instrument to a

character-building intervention (Rohnke, 1995).

The evolution of ROPES. Outward Bound School adapted the course for outdoor

adventure learning and supplemented actual rope with high-level safety features. Now, the

confidence-building exercises are based on perceived risk, rather than actual risk, and the

participant’s ability to move past the illusion of personal boundaries. The challenge-by-choice

philosophy associated with experiential learning focuses less on coerced action and more on

exploration based on personal choice. Emphasis on the acceptance of the challenge is more

important than the quality of the performance (Rohnke, 1995). Karl Rohnke has been engaged with

challenge course design since the 1968. He knows that climbing a pole may not look impressive

when described on paper, but when encountered by an individual in the atmosphere of a supportive

team, the pole can leave a lasting impression. The reward that comes from reaching a tough goal

translates into leadership development, and that exceeds the simplicity of the actual event (Rohnke,

1995).

ROPES courses have been growing in popularity with organizations since the 1980’s and

continue to be one of the most common teambuilding interventions used today (Rohnke, 1995).

“Considering the number of challenge courses currently being installed each year around the

world, there’s no doubt that this unique challenge vehicle has esstabled itself as a universally

recognized and effective curriculum tool for learning” (Rohnke, 1995, p. 352). By participating in

a ROPES Course, both teams and individuals have the opportunity to learn and develop. Low

challenge course activities are associated with teambuilding while high activities are designed for

self-assessment in the areas of risk taking and leadership development (Miner, 1999).

Although the feeling 25 years ago was that ROPES course participation was primarily for


young people who needed a rite of passage challenge, today’s ROPES courses offer a

dynamic educational medium for anyone who is interested in stretching personal limits,

working intensely as a team and rediscovering the joy of playful participation. (Rohnke,

1995, pp. 352)

Program strategies and design. Todd Miner, Executive Director of Cornell Outdoor

Education, knows that when designing a teambuilding event one size does not fit all. Doing an

assessment first makes programs more effective. The facilitator, consultant, and organization plan

the event together. The desired outcomes of the group and their budget create guidelines for the

program design. When finished, goals, framing session(s), activities, sequencing of events,

debriefing strategy, evaluation method, and safety requirements, are included on the finished

outline (Miner, 1999). When incorporated into a larger program, ROPES courses act as a fun and

effective leadership development component and less of a fleeting thrill (Rohnke, 1995).

“[Individuals] learn that conflict can be humane, trust is essential, the challenge of communication

is worth the effort and that they can make a difference in their own lives through healthy, exciting,

and meaningful relationships with others” (Rohnke, p. 3).

The Complete ROPES Course Manual outlines three common strategies for positive

program results. First, courses can be used as a diagnostic tool for a group that is trying to identify

issues. Second, if assessments have already been complete, courses can be a functional

intervention that encourages the group to work toward solutions. The third strategy results in a

“personal vision” that evolves from learning what is possible in the group and transferring learning

to participant’s personal lives. Other common themes include working on “teambuilding,

communication, problem-solving, decision making, and other organizational development

concepts” (Rohnke, Rogers, Wall & Tait, 2007).

Traditionally, ROPES courses incorporate four different yet connected activities. To get


started, the facilitator guides the group into a socializing game, intended to introduce the members

of the group to each other and the facilitator. Next, there is a problem solving initiative that lays a

foundation of trust and cooperation. As they progress, the group will take part in a low ROPES

element near the ground. These challenges get the group to work together in a safe low-risk

environment. Trust continues to grow and the group bonds as they experience failure and success

together. Finally, the group will encounter a high ROPES course element. These elements are

constructed anywhere from twenty, to over forty feet, in the air. Climbers wear a harness and use

rock-climbing equipment to experience perceived risk while on belay. To catch participants when

they jump or fall the team utilizes a safety system (Rohnke, 1995).

A good facilitator is the key to a successful program and knows the program structure

surrounding this event is what leads to development, not just the (climbing) structure alone

(Rohnke, 1995). To see results, participants must be motivated to engage in the process and the

facilitator must be capable of guiding the adventure (Rohnke et al., 2007). Facilitators assume the

activities they incorporate that lead up to the High ROPES Course have built a foundation of trust,

which makes risk-taking behavior possible (Wolfe & Samdahl, 2005). They are most involved

before the activity in the areas of “framing” the event, or telling the participants what is going to

happen, before the action takes place. This strategy has been proven as a successful program

enhancement because it gives the participants a framework where they can organize their thoughts

and behaviors (Miner, 1999). Facilitation is also important after the event in the form of debriefing

or processing. He or she is trained to be aware of what is happening during each event, as well as

what happens during the program as a whole (Miner). It is the facilitator’s job to connect learning

from the outdoors to the ongoing process of leadership development. If the learning is lost, the

goal has not been attained (Meyer & Hornyak, 2004).

ROPES research. Kaplan and Talbot (1983) discovered that combining experiential


education with the outdoors has many beneficial effects related to self-concept (p. 194). John

Miles, a contributor to The Theory of Experiential Education, describes nature’s ability to let

people relax, release the desire for control, and pay more attention to their surroundings and

themselves (1995, p. 47). A Recent study in the Journal of Experiential Education Research

(Karen, Furman, Sibthorp, & Gookin, 2008) discusses beneficial outdoor program elements such

as; longer programs, smaller groups, collective learning and the fact that individuals must

accommodate the aspirations of others. The same study reported leadership skills were the most

prominent interpersonal skills learned through outdoor adventure.

ROPES courses promote active engagements in learning where participants experience real

emotions in an environment that encourages new patterns of thinking. They create a setting for

people to experiment with new ideas and introduce new problem- solving techniques, while at the

same time, boosting interpersonal trust and awareness (Hornyak, 2004). Recent meta-analysis

findings (Gillis & Speelman, 2008) indicate ropes courses are, “…an effective tool for impacting a

variety of educational and psychological constructs with a variety of participants” (p. 127). Also

noted, they are effective in developmental and educational situations, but most beneficial when

used in a therapeutic setting with families and groups. Self-esteem (the concept of self-worth) is

one of the most prominent results of high- ropes activities; however, the same study revealed self-

efficacy (the ability to reach a goal) was the result twice as often.

Despite the popularity of ROPES courses, there remains a lack of research confirming the

assumed benefits of quality programs (Kriek, 2007). Research results from challenge courses were

usually collected using a pre and post-assessments that measured different variables at different

intervals of time. One of the main concerns about the validity of the research is the lack of detail

describing the nature of the activities used in the study. Future research needs to describe events in

depth such as facilitator training, elements used, the amount of time allotted for completion and


length of the study. This will make improvements to programming comparable (Wolfe &

Samdahl, 2005).

Organizational concerns include expensive program costs, participant safety, and liability

risks. Being time consuming, not having the support needed by management and the shortcomings

of the facilitator are common complaints. It is also important to note that, educators and

researchers have no “universally accepted theory” or “model of learning” to follow when guiding a

teambuilding experience (Karen et al., 2008, p. 203). Many organizations question the lasting

effects of teambuilding activities, specifically; how learning is translated into modified thinking

and behavior after the event. It is common for participants and facilitators see the event as a

success, but often the metaphorical learning is difficult to transfer to the real life. This is a valid

concern that has been researched in the area of leadership development on ROPES courses.

Statistically significant studies reveal teambuilding as being beneficial over time also reveal

outcomes are reduced with the passage of time. It was also noted that groups that had did not

incorporate follow-up learning resorted to pre-intervention levels of behavior (Karen et al., p.

203). However, when activities are combined with follow-up action, the team learning can last

three times as long.

Summary

Leadership is not a personality style; it is a learned set of skills attained through

development opportunities that are integrated to a lifestyle of learning. A variety of specific

leadership practices are helpful, but the strategy or context in which they are implemented is most

important. In order to be effective, unspoken dimensions must be challenged experientially and

incorporated into an ongoing development plan. In alignment with organizational needs, a High

ROPES Course is based on the Experiential Learning Theory, in which individuals have a goal

related to self-awareness development through active experiences in a team setting. Rather than


absorbing knowledge from an instructor, awareness is established through lively experimentation.

The event allows participants to suspend assumptions and create a level playing field with a shared

experience that reveals destructive behaviors with a playful spirit proven to accelerate learning.

In isolation, High ROPES Courses lack the foundation of a leadership development theory

that integrates learning into an ongoing structure. Because actions that are not measured against a

theory make processing a teambuilding event impossible (Dyer, 2005), a prevailing theory is

required to create necessary levels of readiness and integration of a teambuilding event on a High

Ropes Course. Peter Senge’s Learning Organization Theory is an example of systemized thinking

that provides the foundation and strategy necessary for learning. Systems thinking creates a big-

picture perspective where leaders are aware of themselves, their impact on relationships with team

members, and the overall developmental strategy of the organization. A learning organization

encourages growing through personal mastery and engaging in the open dialogues of mental

models. In addition, it requires behaving in alignment with a shared vision, and participation in

team learning activities.

Before the high ROPES course. To reach the necessary stage of reflection and derive

meaning from an event, individuals and teams within an organization must be prepared in advance

for the action-related development that is to come (Avolio & Hanna, 2008). In preparation, the

organization must prepare individual participants, create readiness within the team, and plan a

program that will capitalize on the developmental moments. Research suggests individuals

complete assessments or questionnaires that reveal strengths, weaknesses, and areas of

improvement before taking part in a teambuilding event (Dyer, 2005). It is important to note, the

information alone does not change individual behavior. Rather, it is the active choices surrounding

the information that result in development.

As self-awareness grows, so does the ability for individuals to make meaning from related


events (Avolio & Hanna, 2008). On an individual level, people are the source of personally

constructed mental models grounded on perceptions of reality from childhood experiences that

influence personal choices and behavior. Thoughts and actions are a mixture of heredity and

environment that emerge naturally and are difficult to alter without intentional modification. As

stated in the Self-Awareness theory and supported by Adlerian psychology, individuals seeking

development must first be able to focus on their thoughts and behavior, set goals and measure their

reactions against value-oriented standards. If people do not have personal expectations for

themselves, they will be incapable of identifying useless activity because there is not a goal in

which to measure action against. During a teambuilding event, skills that were once only read

about on paper are put into action, reflected upon, and if perceived as beneficial, absorbed into

individual mental models. As they continue to learn throughout life, goal-related thoughts and

behaviors are continually modified and the leader’s personal assumptions and lifestyle intentionally

reframed (Corey, 2009).

Leaders also need to develop socially and understand how their emotions and behavior

influences other people and the organization in which they work. As time passes in organizations,

active groups create ineffective behaviors that distract from purposeful behaviors and goals. Adler

describes these behaviors as defensive routines that protect individual self- esteem. A team

diagnostic meeting is encouraged by consultants prior to a teambuilding event where the group

becomes familiar with individual personalities that make up the team and where they are in terms

of leadership development. At the meeting, individuals can openly discuss successful behaviors,

perceived barriers to learning, key issues related to job function, and obstacles affecting the team’s

performance. They review assessment data, identify concerns, and create goals, both together and

individually. If there is knowledge that will help the group bring focus to their upcoming

challenge, relevant theories and strategies are also discussed.


Program cost, safety of participants, the amount of time consumed, and lack of support by

management are common organizational complaints related to program design sited in previous

research. From a systemic perspective, these negative program attributions do not belong to the

High ROPES Course alone, they are shared by the organization. When an event is embraced by the

system, individuals and teams are fully supported by management who design well-planned and

integrated programs capable of sustaining the learning that results. Consultants suggest doing

initial needs assessment to assure program effectiveness. The assessment identifies the purpose of

the teambuilding event, leadership structure, development stage, number of people involved, and

function of the participants (Dyer, 2005). The shared vision of the organization is also integrated

into learning to make certain participants understand how activities relate to their overall goals.

When planning is finished a complete outline describes organizational goals, framing, activities,

sequencing of events, the debrief strategy, evaluation method, and safety requirements. Because an

event is collectively designed by the organization and the facilitator, it is likely to deliver lasting

value rather than becoming a memory from a fleeting thrill.

An experienced facilitator is cited as being the key to program success yet commonly

reported as lacking the level of training required to deliver organization-related programs. Poor

facilitators believe the climbing structure results in learning, when in reality; the structure of the

program is where leadership development takes place. A well-trained facilitator ensures the safety

of participants, manages conflict, and molds dysfunctional behavior into opportunities for learning.

Rather than dictating wisdom, the facilitator takes part in the learning process by acting as a guide,

not an educator. He or she is aware of what is happening during each event as well as what is

happening during the program as a whole (Miner, 1999).

During the ROPES event. High ROPES Courses are a commonly used teambuilding

intervention proven to increase leadership skills by creating the illusion of risk and challenging


personal boundaries. They are composed of three cyclical movements that progress in difficulty

and are repeated throughout the team experience; focus, challenging action and debrief. During the

focus stage, attention is brought to the group by describing the challenging action that is to follow.

Participants are prepared for the adventure and motivated to engage in the process. Each person is

instructed to monitoring personal growth and development of self-awareness while creating the

necessary atmosphere of continuous support and feedback. They understand accepting the

challenge is more important than the accomplishment of the task and that in order to be successful

the group must choose to accept the risk together. Effective teams are aware of their conduct while

at the same time, are observing their actions and processes (Dyer, 2005). When the framing session

is finished, participants understand how their physical actions will take place as a team, but their

learning will come from individual perception of the experience.

During the challenging action stage, ROPES courses incorporate four different yet

connected activities accompanied by positive attitude toward growth and change. During each

component of challenging action, teams are given a problem that is unfamiliar and impossible to

complete on their own. First, a socializing game followed by a problem solving initiative creates a

foundation of trust that makes future risk-taking behavior possible. Individual strengths are

combined with new skills in the area of communication, problem solving, decision-making, and

conflict resolution, to overcome their obstacle. Ineffective behaviors that are difficult to change

once they are formed surface by capitalizing on complications that trigger emotional responses.

Participants are encouraged to try new ideas, reflect on the results of their behavior, and then decide

if they want to adopt the idea or reject it as a team. Next, a low ROPES element builds momentum

while challenging the group as they become increasingly connected. The last event of the day is a

high ROPES course where fear and personal limitations are confronted. Individuals still require a

team to accomplish their goal, but the activity is acting as a self- assessment in the areas of risk-


taking and leadership abilities. Participants are encouraged by watching others reach their personal

goals while seemingly impossible tasks are transformed into achievement.

Challenging events are critical to leadership development and must be properly interpreted

to stimulate further leader development (Avolio and Hanna, 2008). As Joplin (1981) described, the

experience alone does not create learning, the process of reflection transforms an experience into

education. For this reason, the debrief stage happens after each challenging action and again at the

end of the full event to summarize learning that occurs throughout the day. Those involved share

individual perceptions of the activity and evaluate the actions of the group. The facilitator anchors

the discussion in the proper context and ensures goal-oriented movement in an atmosphere of

respect.

Psychology of the event. Humans have a natural desire for development and use feelings

of inferiority to fuel learning opportunities that lead them to pursue increasingly higher levels of

learning. Team learning generates a supportive environment where groups unearth ineffective

behavior at both a personal, and a group level. Rather than concentrating on the past happenings,

time and energy is centered in the present moment and in preparation for future movement and

activity. Actions and emotional responses are created while a state of heightened self-awareness

allows leaders to rethink and make choices about existing behaviors. Individuals challenge

thoughts of Adlerian inferiority and become aware of patterns. If they are behaving in a way that

does not align with their personal expectations, there is a negative effect. Adler describes how this

“imperfection” naturally motivates humans to compensate for shortcomings and encourages

development. Once individuals see reality objectively, they can either continue with thoughts of

superiority or recognize imperfections and compensate to realign personality with modified life

goals (Corey, 2009). When internalized thought are based on new knowledge, new behavior

results in what Senge (2006) describes as, “Personal Mastery.”


Teambuilding helps those involved understand how rather than seeing others as the

problem, individuals are all part of the creation and maintenance of the problem. After mental

models are identified, individuals have an opportunity to expose their thinking to others and gain

awareness that is impossible to develop independently. This setting is difficult to create, but

necessary for people searching to understand others feelings and reactions. Participants engage in

“learningful conversation” mixed with inquiry and advocacy that expose individual perceptions and

test them for validity (Senge, 2006). Actions are translated into discoveries and assigned meaning

in relation to team and individual goals. As they move forward together, the group comes to

understand that change happens when positive solutions to their negative behavior patterns are

applied to daily situations.

After the high ROPES course. When participants complete a High ROPES Course,

organizations often question the lasting developmental effects of their teambuilding investment. It

is common for them to speculate how outdoor learning is transferred from the adventure course to

the office or notice modifications made to thinking and behavior. In alignment with this concern,

research confirmed learning that is not supported by management slowly dissipates and eventually

returns to pre-program levels (Dyer, 2005). On the other hand, research also confirms when

learning is properly integrated into a systemic strategy and reinforced; organizations capitalize on

sustained results that last up to three times as long. Programs designed to incorporate post-event

meetings grounded in theory increase learning retention. During these meetings, individuals and

teams make developmental commitments derived from the outdoor experience and transfer what

was learned from the event into organizational improvements. With a combination of time and

accountability, employees, teams and the organization will eventually meet their created goals.

When that happens, an outdoor experience on a High ROPES Course is transformed into

organizational development.


Conclusion

In the same way that naturally occurring events create changes for an organization, an

organization has the ability to create a teambuilding event that contributes to a culture of dynamic

leaders who naturally adapt and respond to change. Events are part of a system of holistic

development that contributes to learning on a personal and social level simultaneously. Before an

adventure on a High ROPES Course begins, the organization, teams, and individuals involved

identify a context, a foundation of learning, on which to build their leadership skills and are ready

for the action that is to come.

Well-planned programs are delivered by capable facilitators who guide learning rather than

dictate results. Participants encounter an experiential succession of events encompassing focus,

challenging action and reflection. During the event, thoughts and behaviors are identified,

confronted, and transformed through discussion in the atmosphere of feedback and support. After

the event is complete, proper integration ensures learning is transferred from the challenge course

to the office. As a result, organizations attain their goal of an inspired climate of learning that

delivers ongoing and possibly accelerated, leadership development for individuals, teams, and the

organization as a whole.

Chapter 3. Methodology

Overview

Courses that offer developmental programs to organization appear to promote a one-time

learning event rather than a systemic intervention. The characteristics necessary for experiential

learning are present in traditional High ROPES Course methodology, but they do not satisfy the

outcomes associated with leadership development within an organization. When measured against

organizational theory, including the psychology of Alfred Adler, and the Learning Organization

theory of Peter Senge, High ROPES programs fail to incorporate the foundation required for


learning and the diagnostic assessments necessary for measured change. When organizations are

seeking opportunities for learning, High ROPES Courses must be prepared to speak to evidence

that validates their programs and aligns learning opportunities with current organizational needs. In

order to measure positive leadership development in relationship to a High ROPES Course

program, outcomes must be evaluated against necessary program criteria, modified, and tested for

validity.

Description of Methodology

The following research was reviewed and conducted from a phenomenological perspective.

The goal was to gain understanding form the point-of-view of a teambuilding consultant searching

for the best way to incorporate positive leadership development programs into an organizational

context. In this case, it was more important to measure personal perceptions of a High ROPES

Course than to be objective. Because the material provided is subjective, the reader is encouraged

to relate information to their personal experience and generate constructive criticism regarding the

study and results. This type of inquiry does not assume that the event context or the participant

information is universal, but rather shares creative insight based on genuine curiosity and

recommendations from available data and personal intuition (Remenyi, Williams, Money, &

Schwartz, 1998).

Design of the Study

During the review of literature, program components that were linked to positive leadership

development outcomes emerged. Based on the information a tool was created to identify which

event components have been integrated by a High ROPES Course, and which are absent. Next, the

tool was used to evaluate a traditional event (see Table 1: Program Components; Control Group).

Components that were either present or missing were identified. At the end of the event, learning

outcomes were evaluated to serve as a baseline for measureable change. After the first event, the


researcher designed a new program for the experimental group that was based on the missing

components sited during the traditional event. The same tool was used to evaluate movement

between the control and experimental programs in the context of positive leadership development

within an organization. At the end of the event, experimental learning outcomes were again

evaluated and compared to the control group results.

Variables

The difference between the control group and the experimental group was the influence of

missing, yet necessary, qualities of positive leadership development programming described in the

review of literature. The control group experienced only the components of a traditional event.

After identifying the missing components of a positive leadership development during the initial

event, pre-event and post-event meetings were designed and delivered to the experimental group in

addition to their traditional challenge course experience. The variables that were added to the pre-

event session incorporated an organizational context and readiness. The post-event session focused

on integrating the learning that resulted from the event back into the organizational development

context.

Population and Samples

The control group consisted of twelve people, a mixture of men and women between the

ages of 22 and 24, recently hired by a major commodities corporation located in the Midwest. They

completed undergraduate degrees in engineering and were training for work in their field- of-study.

This group contracted and planned the High ROPES Course event independently. The

experimental group was comprised of eight college students, both men and women between the

ages of 19 and 22, proactively participating in leadership initiatives in addition to their

undergraduate studies at a private Midwestern college. As members of a Campus Activity Board,

these students commonly work in teams to plan events executed by the group as a whole. This


group was invited to participate in the current research study and was assisted in planning their

event.

Instrumentation

Separately, two groups of individuals in the process of leadership development joined a

facilitator at a High ROPES Course for a traditional program, first one group and then the other.

Before each event, participants voluntarily completed a survey with written questions. After the

survey, only the experimental group took part in a learning program. Next, both groups

participated in four different activities. First, the facilitator guided the group in a socializing game.

Next, there was a problem solving initiative. As they progressed, they took part in a low ROPES

challenge at ground level. Finally, the group encountered a high ROPES course element wearing

necessary safety equipment. The program was processed by the facilitator with a debrief session.

For the experimental group, there was additional time allotted for a follow up learning session.

Finally, all participants voluntarily completed a written survey with questions related to the High

ROPES Course event, results and perceptions.

Validity and Reliability

The researcher and the groups utilized the same High ROPES Course. Research groups

both included a mixture of young professionals seeking leadership development in an

organizational setting. Groups were led by two different facilitators; however, each completed the

same necessary training, worked for the same manager, and incorporated the same traditional

program design. Both the control group and the experimental group finished identical assessments

creating a foundation for result comparison. The primary difference between the control group and

the experimental event was the injection of pre and post-learning sessions for the experimental

group.


Data Collection

The researcher began by creating a tool (see Table 1: Program Components; Control Group)

in which to measure program components linked to positive leadership development outcomes.

Next, the tool was used to evaluate a traditional High ROPES Course event and identify which

components were observed and which were absent. Information was collected throughout the

entirety of both the control and experimental group events. Responses to pre- event surveys, active

observation of High ROPES Course activities and post-event surveys created the majority of the

data collected. Information that pertained to the planning of the event, program execution, and

follow-up activities was noted. The researcher also briefly interviewed facilitators after the

programs were complete to gather background information and program data.

The control group. Before arriving at the High ROPES Course, the control group’s event

was scheduled by a leadership coordinator within the organization. She registered a group of 50

people for a teambuilding session and completed the necessary paperwork. A packet describing

what to expect and how to incorporate the experience into future discussion was delivered. The

climbing structures were reserved in advance, but the program outline was planned about a half-

hour prior to participant arrival by the facilitators, independent of the group coordinator.

The lead facilitator had a degree in Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Education. His

training incorporated apprenticing experienced facilitators and utilized a hands-on approach. Most

of his 11-year-experience was in the area of youth group development and High ROPES Direction.

When planning the program he did not use a theory or model; he relied on intuition. He referenced

using a facilitator manual created by the course as a resource for overall program design, but did

not use this book when planning the current program. A group needs assessment had been

completed by the organization. However, the documents that described group goals, background

information, experience, components related to program curriculum, and group limitations could


not be found on the day of the event and was not used to design the program. When asked if the

program outline was related to the goals of the group, he responded, “I think so, but I don’t know.”

Before the large group separated into smaller groups, the lead facilitator did a brief

introduction that framed the plan for the day and details pertaining to the retreat center. He also

asked one of the small groups to complete a survey provided by the researcher. After that, a large

group game called “Steal My Wooky” brought all of the participants and facilitators together to

break the ice and create an atmosphere of inclusion and fun. Next, the large group was divided into

smaller groups. The researcher continued to observe the lead facilitator, a co- facilitator, and their

group of 12 participants as they played a game focused on learning names. After a playing a game

called “Warp-speed” the group had successfully worked together to solve a group-related challenge

on the ground. During the next 5 minutes, the facilitator debriefed the group on the events that had

happened up until that point and framed the challenge that was to come. He integrated the

“Challenge-by-Choice” philosophy into the discussion and introduced the group to the actual High

ROPES Course structure.

In preparation for their final challenge, the group was equipped with safety harnesses and

helmets. After application, each was inspected for proper use and effectiveness. As a group, the

participants received instruction on climbing guidelines and how to use sling lines that would

eventually attach them to the ROPES Course located over 30 feet in the air. After a simple test to

assure understanding, the group assumed their position on belay, the system used to support each

climber as they ascended a telephone pole. One at a time the group climbed the structure and was

attached to the safety wires of the challenge course. Each person was again checked for proper

equipment functioning and support. After being attached to the wires, the participant assumed

responsibility for transferring wires under the supervision of the facilitator. At this point, the

challenge became less group-oriented and more individual focused. Participants could choose their


route based on their desire for challenge and risk.

The facilitator, located at the top of the telephone pole, and the co-facilitator on the ground

verbally assisted with sling line transfers and gave suggestions for rope and cable obstacle

completion as the participants moved from platform to platform. The participants finished the

challenge course by taking one big step off a platform into the air for a zip-line descent that

returned them safely to the ground. After everybody had finished, the group discussed that specific

event and the day’s activities as a whole for about 10 minutes. They removed their safety gear and

completed a post-event survey provided by the researcher. The group coordinator also completed a

post-event survey provided by the High Ropes Course. The actual program was completed in 3

hours with the addition of fifteen minutes before and after the event to complete the research-

related surveys.

When interviewing the lead facilitator after the program, the researcher asked if the group

goals had been attained. The facilitator assumed the participants had reached their goals because

they appeared to be satisfied. When questioned about learning integration, he described how some

groups set up meetings to define a strategy, but this group had not. In response to questions about

how the High ROPES Course measures the results of their programming, the facilitator referred to

the post event survey completed by the organizational coordinator. The researcher attained this

document and made the following observations. The coordinator was satisfied by watching the

participants take risks, share feedback, and give support. She noted the benefits of mixing high and

low rope course initiatives but suggested the course continue to develop a more “corporate”

program designed for adults. Overall, her expectations were met and she would like to return in the

future.

Program development. After the first event, the program elements were assessed by the

researcher using the tool created to identity program components related to positive leadership


development during a High ROPES Course event (see Table 1. Program Components; Control

Group). In alignment with the results, the researcher designed new program supplements for the

experimental group based on the missing components sited during the traditional event. The

variables that were added to the pre-event session incorporated organizational context and

readiness. The post-event session focused on integrating the learning that resulted from the event

into the organizational context. It is important to note, the researcher did lead the supplemental

programming components, but did not interfere with the facilitators planning of the traditional

challenge course segment.

The experimental group. In preparation for the experimental group, the researcher

completed all necessary, pre-event documents prior to arriving for the event. Paperwork was

submitted that described goals related to improved interpersonal relationships, trust, cooperation,

communication, self-awareness, other-awareness, system-awareness, and leadership skills. An

overall, inspired leader capable of accelerated development was cited as a goal for the group. The

researcher discovered this group of eight college students was goal-oriented and leadership focused

and had participated in teambuilding events in the past and had no special physical limitations.

The lead facilitator had a history as a camp counselor. He had been working at the High

ROPES Course for four years but involved with camps for much longer. He specialized in

primitive living and gained most of his experience as an apprentice to other ROPES facilitators. He

did not have any traditional schooling but had read outdoor learning books for inspiration. When

asked about the paperwork that had been submitted for the team, he reported he had not seen any of

the documents and was unaware of their goals but he was prepared to “read” the group. He

described how a “good” facilitator should be able to use what is around him and come up with a

whole day of facilitation on the spot. He also mentioned using a facilitator manual created by the

course as a resource for program design, but did not need the book to plan this program.


The group started their adventure with paperwork. While working with the researcher, they

completed a pre-event survey and medical forms. Next, an outline of events was shared and the

experimental learning session began. The first hour included introductions, ground rules, and goal

identification. As a group, their goal was, “To leave with a newfound commitment to each other

and the people they serve by openly communicating and collaborating, without personal judgment.”

Next, the researcher shared leadership development theory based on the Learning Organization of

Peter Senge and the psychological development theory of Alfred Adler.

After the leaders understood the context of their event, they identified their place in their

system and reviewed the organization’s shared vision. Next, the researcher enhanced their

readiness by helping individuals identify their mental models. Discussion topics incorporated

conversations about values, ethical standards as well as personality strengths and weaknesses. After

bringing personal awareness to the surface, it was complimented by team awareness. As a group,

the students made lists of actions they could start doing, stop doing, and continue doing to improve

their leadership performance. They identified their most significant concerns and created a plan-of-

action to get where they wanted to go. As the final segment to the learning session, the researcher

framed the challenging action that was to come outdoors. It was suggested they observe individual

perceptions, actions of the team, and think about how both relates to their organization.

From this point, the facilitator for the High ROPES Course took the lead. He introduced

himself and the upcoming events. The group went outdoors and learned how to play a game called,

“A What?” As the participants stood in a circle and passed object with entertaining names in

opposing directions they began to relax. By the end of the game, the chaos inflicted by the

facilitator had left them hysterically laughing, doubled-over, and gasping for air. After the ice was

broken, they accepted a group challenge that involved moving a tent pole from chest- height, down.

After a few tries, their tent pole no longer moved toward the sky, but rather found the way to the


ground. As the facilitator debriefed the group, the importance of communication and teamwork

emerged.

Taking what they had learned with them, they moved to a small platform located in the

woods. They were instructed to find a way to get the entire group on the platform and stay off the

ground for three seconds. After they mastered the task, they were taken to a smaller platform. As

the group became more skilled and the platforms shrank, they discussed how they did not think

they were going to be able to master the larger platform, but noticed how far they had come. To

celebrate, they squeezed themselves together onto the smallest platform and sang the loud version

of their school fight song. At this point, the facilitator noticed they were a high- functioning group

that quickly overcame challenges through strong communication, teamwork, trust, and support.

With high spirits, the group again debriefed and moved on to their final element.

What is a “Leap of Faith?” It is a thirty foot-pole standing in the middle of a field. At the

top of the pole is a spinning disk. Along with harnesses and helmets, the participants were given

another challenge-by-choice opportunity to climb the pole, stand on the disk, and then leap toward

a rope that was just out of the reach of each unbalanced jumper. As a group, each climber was

supported, both physically and metaphorically, by the rest of the climbers on belay. The facilitator

guided the experience while holding an additional safety rope. After another equipment check,

each participant could climb as high as he or she wanted, but was encouraged to challenge

limitations and move past perceived boundaries. When finished, the facilitator again debriefed the

group on their most recent experience, and discussed all of the activities they had done that day, as

a whole.

After a break, the participants returned to the researcher for the last learning segment of the

day. The program challenges were recalled and learning was shared. The messages delivered by

the researcher revolved around the question of, “Now that you know, what you will do


differently?” This question was applied to what they had learned about themselves, the team, and

their organization. Each made development commitments that would transfer learning from

experience into their ongoing plan for leadership. Accountability teams were formed and meetings

were scheduled to reinforce thought and behavior modification. Before leaving, the group

completed their post-event surveys. The researcher was not offered a post-event survey from the

High ROPES Course.

After the program ended, the researcher completed a brief interview with the lead facilitator

whom had not taken part in either the pre or post event learning sessions. When asked if he thought

the group had attained their goal, he was unsure. When asked about learning integration, he

described how the learning that takes place on a High ROPES Course is simple, so transferring

learning such as communication and trust should be easy; the group was in charge of what they got

out of it, but he set them up for success. In response to questions about how the High ROPES

Course measures the results of their programming, the facilitator mentioned the post event survey,

but knew it was often overlooked.

Chapter 4. Presentation and Analysis of Data

The purpose of the research was to discover if traditional High ROPES Course programs

were producing positive leadership development using traditional methodology and if they could

benefit by adapting to the current needs of organizations. In order to qualify the positive leadership

development of a High ROPES Course program, observed outcomes were evaluated against

program criteria from historical research. These elements were compiled into an instrument in

which to measure the effectiveness of a challenge course program. During the controlled group

event, components described in the literature were either confirmed or sited as missing from

traditional programming (see Table 1: Program Components; Control Group). If the program

component was missing, it was added through supplementary programming delivered by the


researcher to the experimental group. Assessments were used to quantify and measure change

between the traditional and the experimental event.

Assumptions and Limitations

This study was an introduction to the possible enhancements available to teambuilding

leaders and organizations seeking a holistic leadership programming based on experiential learning.

The researcher is confident findings will be useful, but also recognizes the assumptions and

limitations associated with such work. Because Adlerian Psychology and High ROPES Course

Facilitation are areas of professional interests of the researcher, the interpretation of the experience

and the results reflect personal perceptions and frame-of-reference. Other areas of personal

interpretation encompass the tool created for measurement, the delivery of the learning program

and data collection. Due to monetary restrictions, the researcher assumes the relatively small

sample accurately represents the experience of the participants. Without the ability to repeat the

experimental program for additional validity, the results from one experimental program were used

to calculate initial results with plans for deeper discovery through continued investigation in the

future.

Two different high ROPES course events and two different facilitators were used during

this study. The participants in the control group were all engineers; the participants in the

experimental group were more varied. The organizations participating in the study did not

describe information related to participant preparation or post program outcomes. Therefore, the

researcher assumed readiness and integration were not associated with the participant experience,

aside from what was included in the experimental program. Please keep in mind the High ROPES

Course experiences used in this study is being generalized and used as an example. In reality,

each course operates independently and has individualized learning applications.


Research Question Analysis

A Phenomenological Inquiry: In the context of organizational development, how does

experiential teambuilding in the form of a High ROPES Course, contribute to positive leadership

development, and how can it be improved?

Hypothesis. High ROPES Courses are contributing to organizational development by

utilizing traditional methods of experiential learning. However, leadership development could be

enhanced and possibly accelerated by applying new methodology to traditional programs.

Conclusion. High ROPES Courses are contributing to organizational development by

utilizing traditional methods of experiential learning during teambuilding events. However,

leadership development can be enhanced and accelerated by integrating new methodology such as

organizational context, participant readiness, and learning integration into traditional programs.

These holistic enhancements deliver a focused process of learning for the participants and a

detailed, outcome-based plan for those facilitating the event. In addition, programs are goal-related

with a strategy that relates to the overall vision of the developing organization and their specific

leadership needs.

Summary of Results

1. During the traditional event, which program components referenced in the review of

literature actually observed?

During the traditional event, the researcher observed program components related to the

Experiential Learning Theory. To bring focus to the group, the lead facilitator framed a clear

schedule of events. The challenge-by-choice philosophy was used to help direct energy toward

development, rather than performing. The outdoor environment was safe and created an

atmosphere of support complimented by feedback. The challenging action portion of the event

contained multiple elements that progressed in difficulty. The final event, the High ROPES


Course, utilized the perception of risk and an individually unsolvable problem to transform a shared

experience into development. During the debrief, participants commented on self and group related

observations. They described how new skills were used to overcome challenging obstacles and

build relationships (See Table 1: Program Components; Control Group for further detail).

2. During the traditional event, which program components referenced in the review of

literature were missing?

Organizational context, readiness, and learning integration were three program components

referenced in the review of literature that appeared to be missing from the traditional program.

Because the paperwork describing the needs of the group was absent, the facilitator did not know

what type of learning was supported by the decision makers of the organization. He also did not

know their goal and had no way of knowing if he had attained it. The participants did not reference

a shared vision or ongoing developmental process and did not incorporate their experiential

learning into their organizational system. The participants had fun, but were uncertain about the

purpose of the event. That means the facilitator placed the emphasis on the experience, rather than

the learning extracted from the experience.

In preparation for learning, the participants did not have a foundation on which to build

their leadership skills. As a group, they had not done personal assessments or brought self-

awareness to individual strengths, weaknesses, values or ethical boundaries. Most importantly,

they did not have an individual or team goal. Team readiness was also missing in the preparation

for the challenging action that was to come. The participants did not understand how their

development related to a theory, identify limiting behavior, or have an opportunity to develop a

plan for improvement.

After the challenge action the participants missed their chance to measure their thoughts and

actions against their defined values and behaviors. There was no discussion of functional or


dysfunctional behavior or exposure of individual perceptions. Without this component,

modification of thoughts and behaviors is less possible, especially without follow up or

accountability built into the program. Because the event lacked a plan for leadership development

integration, learning was not internalized and lifestyles were not reframed; the transfer of learning

from the event back to the organization would decrease with time and eventually be lost (See Table

1: Program Components; Control Group for further detail).

3. Based on the results of the traditional event, how was the experimental leadership

development program enhanced?

By adding a learning segment that focused on organizational context and readiness before

the program, and another learning segment focused on learning integration after, the experimental

leadership development program was enhanced. The researcher first created a systemic

organizational context by describing the leadership development literature and the Learning

Organization Theory of Peter Senge. After grasping the concepts of systems thinking and

becoming familiar with the shared vision of their organization, the researcher moved onto

individual and team readiness.

Adlerian psychology provided a foundation for personal development. By understanding

their personal mental models, they identified values and standards in relationship to their individual

strengths and weaknesses. With an understanding of how they fit into the context of their

organization, their independent focus shifted to the awareness of their team. As a group, they went

through a process of team diagnostics that helped create a team goal and plan of action. As focus

shifted from the meeting to the outdoor activity, the group was asked to be observant of individual

and group functions within the context of their organization and remain goal oriented throughout

the event.

After the facilitator lead the group through their High ROPES Course experience, the


researcher began to integrate new leadership skills into their organizational context. First, the

experience was recalled. Program challenges and individual learning were shared, related to

personal values, exposed to others in the group, and then internalized by the participants. Next,

new ways of thinking and behaving were translated into goals for future actions. Each person

made commitments that would enhance their leadership development and positively influence their

team and organization. Finally, meetings were scheduled to ensure accountability, leadership

development retention and goal modification.

4. How did the results of the traditional event compare to the results of the experimental

event?

Participants were tested on their knowledge of leadership both before and after their

programs by answering as series of questions on a Likert scale ranging from one to six with one

representing the lowest level of agreement and six representing the highest level of agreement

(Reference Table 2: Pre and Post Leadership Assessment Data in Appendix for further detail). The

control group reported an initial average score of 4.67, which increased to 4.94 after their ROPES

experience. The positive increase between their pre and post-program scores averaged .25. This

movement represents the increase in learning that took place because of their High ROPES Course

program. On the same scale, the experiential group reported an initial average score of 4.93, which

increased to 5.30 after their ROPES experience. The positive increase between their pre and post-

program scores averaged .45 (See Figure 3). Comparison of Leadership Knowledge listed below

for detail.) After comparing the scores of both the control and the experimental group the

researcher concluded High ROPES Courses are contributing to positive leadership development;

however, the experimental program results were more effective than the traditional program.


Control Group Experimental Group

Pre-Test

Post

Change

Pre-Test

Post

Change

Average Average Average Average Average Average

4.67 4.94 0.25 4.93 5.30 0.45

Figure 3. Comparison of Leadership Knowledge

As part of the same initial survey participants were asked to report their level of leadership

related activities prior to partaking in the High ROPES Course event. This information was

gathered by listing common activities associated with leadership development described in the

review of literature. Each person indicated whether he or she had participated in the activity within

the past month by checking a box. (For further detail reference Table 3. Development Readiness

Assessment Questions located in the Appendix). The readiness level average was measured by

adding up checked boxes then dividing by the number of participants in each group.

Readiness

Level Assessment Control Group

Average Experimental Group

Average

Difference

Individual Readiness Score 5.08 6.88 1.79

Figure 4. Comparison of Individual Readiness

As you can see in Figure 4, the control group reported a readiness level of 5.08 on average.

That means that on average, each person completed about five different leadership-related activities

within the month prior to the event. The experimental group reported a readiness level of 6.88 on

average, which means they completed between six to seven different leadership- related activities.

With a difference of 1.79 the results indicates the experimental group partook in a higher level of

leadership related activities prior to the event. In alignment with research listed in the review of

literature, the researcher concluded higher levels of readiness do align with the increased learning

found in the experimental group.

After the event was finished, participants completed a survey revealing perceptions of their

program experience using a Likert scale ranging from one to six, where again, one represented the

lowest level of agreement and six represented agreement on the highest level. Questions related to


components of each program that are assumed to be included based on the information available in

the review of literature. The responses to each question were totaled and divided by the number of

participants in each group. The totaled average for each question was compared side by side with

either a positive or negative average totaled difference from the control group to the experimental

group (Reference Table 4: Challenging Action and Debrief Assessment Data in Appendix for

further detail).

On average, the control group reported a total score of 4.68 and the experimental group

reported a total score of 5.07 out of a possible 6.0 for program component inclusion. The

difference between the two numbers is .38. When looking at each question, the number .38

(average) was used to determine if components were perceived as being strongly included (less

than .38 difference) or weakly included (equal or greater than .38) from the program. For example,

the researcher asked if, “The challenges were explained to me in advance.” The difference between

the control group and the experimental group average response measured .17. Because the number

was less than the average score of .38, there was a significant level agreement that allowed the

researcher to assume both groups had the same perception of a strongly experienced program

component. Review Figure 5. Comparison of Event Perceptions for a full list of divided program

components.


Strongly Experienced=Good

Similar Perception

(less than .38 difference)

Weakly Experienced: Needs Improvement

Different Perception

(equal or greater than .38 difference)

The challenges were explained to me in advance. I took a personal risk.

My learning involved movement. Taking part in the challenge was my personal choice.

I chose to modify existing thoughts and behavior I could have done the High ROPES Course alone.

I have internalized new learning. I had a goal in mind while on the course.

I had an emotional response to the activities.

I identified my limits and pushed beyond them.

I found new solutions to old problems.

My behavior today aligned with my values.

I experienced a state of being unbalanced or disequilibrium.

I experienced a heightened state of self-awareness.

I will adjust how I behave in the future.

I will transfer what I learned from this event to my everyday life.

The facilitator provided a way to evaluate the ROPES Course.

This event was a shared experience.

I made observations.

I had the chance to expose my individual perceptions.

I got feedback and support from the group.

I identified functional and dysfunctional behavior

Figure 5. Comparison of Experience Perceptions

When looking at the lists in correlation with leadership development programs on High

ROPES Courses, many of the assumed outcomes positively related to leadership development were

lacking. The experimental program participants consistently rated their perceptions higher than the

control group, which means there is a quality gap between traditional and experiential programs.

Statements such as, “I took a personal risk” and “I had a goal in mind while on the course,” were

expected to be strongly perceived by both groups as a foundational program component, but

research reveals, both were weak. This information challenges basic program assumptions sited in

the review of literature and reveals a need for organizations and facilitators to review the basics of

their experiential learning programs in the areas sited above (in Figure 5).

The researcher was interested in the how the participants perceived their environment while

taking part in their events. During the post-survey, participants either agreed with the statement (1)

or disagreed with the statement (0). Each question, such as, “The environment was lighthearted,”

was totaled based on agreement and then divided by the number of participants in each group. The

higher than average differences noted by the experimental group described their event as


contemplative, relaxed, present and future oriented, and collaborative with a positive attitude

toward growth and change. For most part, the control group and the experimental groups agreed

upon positive environmental perceptions, however, the experimental group continually reported

higher environmental perceptions on average of .16. (See Table 5. Environmental Assessment Data

for details in Appendix for calculations.) It was interesting to note the only category in which the

control group ranked higher levels of perception was in the area of safety (a key Adlerian goal.)

The disparity between the environmental perceptions is being attributed to the design of the

experimental program. The biggest difference between the control group and the experimental

group was their frame of reference for learning. (With a score of .42), Less than half of the

participant in the control group connected their present experience on the High ROPES Course to

their future development. On the other hand, the experimental group made a strong connection

between the experience and future development (with a score of .90). The researcher credits the

context, readiness and learning integration components of the experimental program for the positive

difference sited between the control and experimental groups in the area of environmental

perception (See Table 5. Environmental Assessment Data for details in Appendix for calculations).

The final portion of the post event survey was short answer. The participants were asked

questions in correlation with expected results sited from the Literature Review. The researcher

then compiled and summarized the answers to each question given from the control and

experimental groups. When compiling the data the researcher noticed a pattern. The control group

answered each question in one of two ways, either with similar supportive responses or with

independent thoughts. In opposition, the experimental group consistently answered the questions

only with similar responses in support of the topic. The researcher assumed questions answered

collectively in support of the topic by both groups revealed a pattern of outcomes that support

positive leadership development on a High ROPES Course. It was also assumed that questions that


were answered collectively with support by the experimental group, but without support by the

control group revealed areas of improvement for traditional programming. Please review Figure 6

for a summary of the responses to each question in the categories of Awareness, Leadership and

Development.

Figure 6. Results Assessment Data

Awareness Control Group Summary Experimental Group Summary

Self Awareness -

The group was split with half of the participants seeing no change,

and others noticing an increased level of self-awareness. Those

with increased awareness noticed their impact on others, and the

importance of accepting challenges that will help them to reach

their full potential.

The entire group experienced higher levels of self-

awareness, but each in a personal way.

Participants gained an understanding of their place in

the group, noticed the importance of communication,

enjoyed self-reflection, realized they can accomplish

their goals, and expanded their limitations.

Others Awareness +

Everybody became more aware of the other people on their team. By

watching others succeed, they were inspired. When others struggled,

they remembered the importance of encouragement and support. The

fear they experienced on their own and in others helped them break

down barriers and build confidence and trust.

As a group, everybody experienced a positive change

regarding their awareness of others in the group. The

adventure allowed them to see teammates overcome

challenges, be more perceptive, get to know one and

other, and revealed expectations. They also became

more sensitive to other’s opinions and realized there

were voices in the group that were not being heard.

Organizational Awareness -

Half of the group did not see a link between the event and Everybody agreed the event increased his or her

organizational awareness. level of organizational awareness. The group

Some of those who thought organizational awareness was became more aware of their role, and how to use

increased related the question to safety procedures and communication and creativity to benefit the

communication. organization.

System Awareness -

Most of the group did not have enough contexts to understand

how they related to their system. Those who saw an increase in

system awareness related the question to safety procedures.

The majority of the group thought the event would

positively affect their system in the areas of being

conscious of it, more cohesive, more confident,

having big ideas, and being more understanding.

Three members did not answer the question.

Leadership Control Group Summary Experimental Group Summary

Leadership Skills +

Most of the group reported positive change related to leadership

development. They discussed how this experience helped them to

challenge themselves, and others to reach their full potential by

being open to possibilities, supportive as a team, confident and

encouraging.

All agreed the event positively influenced their

leadership skills. Members of the group sited

increased confidence, the ability to self-

evaluate, how to attain a goal, improved

communication, better listening, more courage and

growing in strength as a leader that makes them

want to help other people.

Leadership Perspective +

Aside from one individual who perceives leadership as being the

ability to control a situation, the rest of the group experienced growth

in their leadership perspective. Themes included focusing not only on

self, but also on the team. They learned how to lead by being a

positive example with both confident and supportive actions and

words.

Almost everybody in the group adjusted their

leadership perspective based on learning

associated with the event. They came to understand

that leadership is a life-long process of constant

development. They learned how opportunities to

grow and become more self-aware are open to

anybody, and the importance of hearing the voices in

which they represent.

Inspired Leadership Development -

Everybody was inspired to partake in additional

leadership development opportunities. One participant

specifically wanted more outdoor adventure leadership

training.

As a whole, everybody in the group enjoyed learning

and pushing themselves to do better.

They will encourage people to continue

learning and recommend leadership

development programs.

Organizational Leadership

Development -

Responses in this category ranged from individuals seeing their

leadership abilities being a “main focus” and directly correlating

with the success of their organization to others not seeing the

relationship at all. Most were in the middle and saw the

correlation but did not emphasize the importance.

All participants agreed, their leadership

development would positively affect their

organization.

Accelerated Leadership +

Half of the group reported no acceleration in their leadership

development. The other half

saw increases in their self-awareness, encouragement, and

leadership style that would accelerate their leadership

development process.

Everybody agreed, because of the event, leadership

development would be accelerated.

They were motivated and excited to continue

learning. They had a better understanding of their

team, were more confident, more aware of

themselves and others, and had stronger

communication and developed as leaders.


Development Control Group Summary Experimental Group Summary

Goal Attainment -

The group did not have a shared goal. Some attained their goal of

finishing the course and others attained their goal of getting to know

others in the group better.

Collectively, the group goal focused on

bonding as a team and developing as

individuals for the benefit of the group. This

goal was achieved by all members of the

group.

Personal Relationships +

This newly formed group mostly agreed personal relationships

were created and strengthened because of their participation.

Everybody agreed the event would have a positive

impact on the group’s personal relationships. Because

of the shared experience, they are more comfortable,

connected, trusting, honest, and better at

communicating.

Trust -

Part of the group did not see an increase in trust and those that did

were divided. Some increased trust related to people and others;

safety related to equipment and procedures.

As a group, all participants indicated their level of

trust was increased, strengthened, or reinforced.

Group Cooperation +

Everybody noted positive changes in their group’s level of

cooperation. Emerging

themes included a decrease in competition with a shift toward

working together to build both a team, and relationships.

All participants noticed an increase in

cooperation. Because the group was being

supportive and open, quieter members were

comfortable actively solving the challenge, rather

than simply following the instructions of the

leaders.

Communication +

Most of the group described how their level of communication

would be enhanced by being more open, clear, and encouraging

while opening the doors for work relationships in the future.

Unanimously, the group noted increased openness in

communication skills and was

excited to use their improved skills to reach their full

potential.

Adverse Effects + None. None.

Learning +

The group noticed in increase in confidence

as they met new people, broke down personal boundaries, and

experienced the excitement that accompanied challenge and risk.

Their adventurous spirits were satisfied in the atmosphere of

growing trust and supportive communication.

Together, the group learned how to

accomplish their goals as a team. With increased

levels of open communication, trust, and support,

this group will challenge each other to take risks and

find the humor that accompanies transforming plans

into actions.

Figure 6. Results Assessment Data Continued

As you can see in Figure 6, each topic has either a plus or a minus located next to the topic

being discussed. The researcher extracted each topic and grouped them based on collective

agreement (+) or individual thought (-). In Figure 7, all topics listed in the “Individual Thoughts”

column are areas of improvement for traditional programs. On the other hand, topics listed in the

“Collective Agreement” column are areas of strength for the experimental program.

Collective Agreement + Individual Thoughts -

Personal Relationships Goal Attainment

Group Cooperation Trust

Communication Self Awareness

Adverse Effects (None) Organizational Awareness

Others Awareness Systems Awareness

Leadership Skills Organizational Leadership Development

Leadership Perspective Inspired Leadership Development

Accelerated Leadership

Learning

Figure 7. Comparison of Expected Results


For example, Figure 7 shows, “Personal Relationships” as being on the Collective

Agreement side of the chart. That means both the experimental and control groups answered the

questions about personal relationships with the same answer due to the positive impact of

traditional High ROPES Course programming. In contrast, “Goal Attainment” was answered

collectively by the experimental group due to the learning program inserted by the researcher, but

was answered with individual thought due to the lack of quality programming by the traditional

program. The researcher concludes traditional High ROPES Courses are beneficial to

organizations in areas such as leadership, learning and cooperation. Data also suggests programs

are enhanced by using a holistic and systemic approach that benefits the awareness of organizations

in the areas of trust and goal attainment necessary in today’s modern culture.

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations

When viewed from a holistic perspective within an organizational context, a team that takes

part in a traditional High ROPES Course program will reap the benefits that are associated with an

adolescent rite-of-passage rather than a dynamic professional event. However, if this popular

teambuilding intervention is combined with the psychology of human development and modern

leadership theory, an outdoor adventure can be transformed into leadership gold. The following

conclusions and recommendations serve as a foundation for program enhancement that will help

close the gap between traditional challenge course programming, and the needs of organizations

seeking sustained leadership development now and in the future.

Context

When operating independently, a traditional High ROPES Course event was a stand- alone

experience that lacked the context necessary for ongoing leadership development. Facilitators had

the ability to guide experiential learning challenges and create an environment of safety and

support, but could not provide participants the necessary foundation for learning or context


required for learning retention after leaving the course. When the control group was asked to

reflect on their learning, they often answered questions with only personal, rather than team or

organization-related answer. For example, they did not agree on the attainment of their goal. They

also did not agree on how the program affected their level of trust, their leadership development or

how it changed their personal, organizational, or systemic awareness. In contrast, the experiential

group answered questions with a collective voice indicating the importance of focus and program

preparation.

Their success was attributed to the context for learning they received, based on the Learning

Organization Theory by Peter Senge. This information helped them to think systemically with a

big-picture perspective. As part of their training, they revisited the shared vision of their

organization and learned how their individual and team leadership development aligned with a

larger goal. As a result, the group was more aware of how the event influenced them personally, as

a group, and the overall strategy of their organization.

This is important to understand because without a context, actions are not applied to a

learning structure and integration of new thoughts and behavior becomes impossible. That means,

unless an organization is creating a context or a developmental plan for leadership before an event,

they are not going to see the sustainable benefits of their experiential investment after the event is

finished. Before partaking in an outdoor leadership program such as a High ROPES Course,

organizations must first develop a context, or framework, that connects individuals and teams to the

vision and mission of the organization. A context helps create readiness and integrates the

accelerated learning that results from an intentional leadership experiences.

Readiness

Without the proper preparation, or readiness, individuals, teams and organizations are

incapable of seeing development. In this study data confirmed there is alignment between


enhanced levels of readiness (focus and intention) and the ability for individuals to find meaning

from events. The control group did not have an opportunity to measure their actions against their

personal and team expectations; they were focused on the experience. As part of a newly formed

group that did not understand how their development related to their organization or the upcoming

physical activity. As a team, they had not identified limiting behaviors, goals or a foundation in

which to build their leadership skills. They were learning in a team setting, but without doing the

goal-related work required to create necessary levels of readiness.

Research revealed half of this group did not see the connection between the outdoor event

and their organization. As a result, the challenging action they experienced did not align with a

goal or purpose and half of the participants reported no change in self-awareness, and missed a

leadership development opportunity. In contrast, the experiential group attended a diagnostic

program and focused on a goal associated with learning. Equipped with a team goal and focused

on making useful observations, the group emerged with increased team and organizational-

awareness. They had a better understanding of how the team functioned and how their

development could benefit their organization.

The researcher overcame the observed shortcoming by adding readiness activities to the

pre-program learning segment. Participants understood the basics of Adlerian Psychology. They

were taught how mental models developed as a child have shaped reality that guide choices,

thoughts, and behavior. They understood part of evolving as a leader requires intentionally

modifying these deeply ingrained routines. In order to grow, each person gained the ability to

focus on the “self” and set measurable goal and value-related standards for development. They

were also given the framework for personal development according to Peter Senge’s Learning

Organization. After studying systems thinking, mental models, shared vision, team learning and

personal mastery they understood how continuous leadership development is beneficial to them,


their teams and their organization.

A diagnostic meeting engaged individuals in an open discussion about group behavior,

barriers, issues, or obstacles that affect performance. As a group, the team goal was created which

brought focus to the challenging action that was to come. After the challenging action was

complete, the group was able to reflect on their development and measure movement. Strengths,

weaknesses, and values were defined, placed into the context of the organization, and learning was

integrated into measurable goals supported by accountability.

Learning Integration

Traditional ropes course programs are not designed to assist participants with the necessary

process of learning integration. When it comes to safety the course was impeccable, but the design

of their programs was greatly lacking in standards and quality outcomes. In preparation for this

type of work, the facilitators had apprenticed experienced staff when initially trained but lacked

specialized training necessary for working with organizations seeking leadership development.

ROPES Course paperwork indicating organizational goals was lost leaving facilitators uninformed.

They lacked organization context, goals and expectations. As a result, they were incapable of

planning or measuring program success. Rather than reading important group specifications, they

were forced to rely on personal intuition. The researcher observed programs and outlines being

created independently by facilitators, minutes before the arrival of participants.

During the debrief process, participants are proven to retain learning when assisted with

translating outdoor development into on-the-job results. Organizations and ROPES Course leaders

must plan for integrating the learning that results from a team building activity before the action

takes place. After their High ROPES Program, the experimental group participated in a discussion

of functional versus dysfunctional behavior and exposed their perceptions which allowed

participants to modify leadership actions. Before leaving the course, the experimental group had


scheduled accountability meetings to ensure learning was not lost. When learning integration was

absent in the control group, their lifestyles were not reframed and development on all levels would

dissipate with time.

A High ROPES program that is designed well is the collaborative effort of the organization,

the challenge course, and the organizationally focused facilitator guiding the action. Decision

makers on the management team support program development and are prepared to integrate

learning into the organizational context. Before action takes place, an outline defines the goal and

activities. Individuals are adequately prepared; teams are ready. The organization is also prepared

to weave the learning that results into the ongoing development of the organization with

expectations for extended leadership development retention.

Summary

This is an outlined version of both conclusions and recommendations stated

previously. This study confirmed Traditional High ROPES Courses are:

• Contributing to leadership development within organizations by utilizing: o Five-Stage Model of Experiential Learning (Joplin, 1981)

o Challenge-by-Choice Philosophy • Observed Positive Outcomes

o Increased Personal Relationships and Leadership Skills

o Group Cooperation and Communication

o Positive Learning Environment • Areas for Improvements

o Awareness of Self, Team, Organization and System

o Goal Attainment within Context

o Trust Building within Team

o Inspired Organizational Leadership Development The study confirmed Experimental High ROPES Courses were more effective than traditional

programs due to leadership-focused program enhancements such as:

• Context: Learning Organization Theory (Senge, 2006)

o Systems Thinking

o Shared Vision • Readiness: Adlerian Personal Development (Corey, 2009)


o Mental Models (Senge) • Ethical Boundaries • Values

• Strengths

• Weaknesses

o Team Learning (Senge)

Diagnostic Meeting

• Limiting Behaviors • Team Goal

• Plan for improvement • Learning Integration

o Personal Mastery (Senge)

Recollection of Experience

Group Discussion • Exposure of individual Perceptions

• Functional and Dysfunctional Behavior Identification • Behavior modification

Accountability • Internalized Learning

• Reframing of Lifestyle Transfer of learning from event to Organization

Inspired and Adaptive Organization

Recommendations for Further Study

While compiling data on the topic of High ROPES Courses and their influence on

organizations, additional areas for further study emerged. Focused areas of interest include

researching accelerated leadership, teambuilding within a learning organization and leadership

development integration and retention. The researcher is also interested in studying successful

High ROPES Course management strategies and facilitation training techniques associated with

positive outdoor experiences. Expanded areas of interest include studying leadership development

as a process over time or creating a leadership model that can be used to guide successful

leadership development experiences.


References

Avolio, B., & Hannah, S. (2008, December). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader

development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 331-347.

Retrieved February 6, 2009, from EBSCO MegaFILE database.

Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments matter in accelerating

authentic leadership development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Corey, G. (2009). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (8th

ed.). Belmont, CA:

Thomas Brooks/Cole.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership Development: A Review in Context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4),

581–613. Retrieved from online on February, 10, 2009 from http://www.ila-

net.org/Publications/LQArticles/DavidDay.pdf

Dyer, W.G. (2005). Team building: Past, present, and future. In Rothwell, W., & Sullivan, R.

(2005). Practicing organizational development: A guide for consultants. (pp. 403-419). San

Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Doh, J. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(1), 57-64. Retrieved January 18,

2009, from EBSCO MegaFILE database.

Duval, T.S., & Wicklud, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York, NY:

Academic.

George, B., Mclean, A., & Graig, N. (2008). Finding your true north: A personal guide. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gillis, H. L., & Speelman, E. (2008). Are challenge (ROPES) courses an effective tool? A meta-

analysis. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(2), 111-135. Retrieved January 18, 2009,

from Academic Search Premier database.


Hornyak, M., & Page, D. (2004). Experiential learning: Introducing faculty and staff to a university

leadership development program. Simulation & Gaming, 35(4), 461-475. Retrieved January

19, 2009, from EBSCOhost database.

Joplin, l. (1981). On demanding experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(1),

16-20. Retrieved on January 19, 2009, from EBSCOhost database.

Kaplan. S. & Talbot, J. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In Altman, I. and

Wohlwill, (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Karen, P., Furman, N., Sibthorp, J., & Gookin, J. (2008). Student learning in outdoor education: A

case study from the national outdoor leadership school. Journal of Experiential Education,

30(3), 201-222. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (2001). The leadership mystique: A user’s manual for the human

enterprise. London, UK: Prentice Hall.

Kriek, H. (2007). A survey of the prevalence and nature of teambuilding interventions in South

African organisations. South African Journal of Business Management, 38(4), 1-7.

Retrieved January 17, 2009, from MasterFILE Premier database.

Locke, E. A., Kirkpatrick, S., Wheeler, J. K., Schneider, J., Niles, K., Holdstein, H., Welsh, K., &

Chan, D. (1991). The essences of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully. New

York, NY: Lexington Books.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E.

Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 241–258). San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Meyer, J. (2003). Four territories of experience: A developmental action inquiry approach to

outdoor-adventure experiential learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education,

2(4), 352-363. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.


Miles, J. C. & Priest, S. (1995). Adventure programming. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture

Publishing, Inc.

Priest, S. & Rohnke, K. (2000). 101 of the best corporate team-building activities. Location Not

Available: Tarrak Publication.

Riggio, R. E. (2008). The current state and future expectations. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 60(4), 383-392. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from EBSCOhost

database.

Rohnke, K. (1995). Ropes courses: A constructed adventure environment. In Miles, J. C. & Priest,

S. (1995). Adventure programming. (pp. 347-352). State College, Pennsylvania: Venture

Publishing, Inc.

Rohnke, K., Rogers, D., Wall, J. B., & Tait, C. M. (2007). The Complete Ropes Course Manual.

Pineola, North Carolina: Kendall / Hunt Publishing Company.

Rothwell, W., & Sullivan, R. (2005). Practicing Organizational Development, A Guide for

Consultants. San Francisco, California: Pfeiffer.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York,

New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Thomas, G. (2008). Facilitate thyself first: The person centered dimension of facilitator education.

Journal of Experiential Education, 31(2), 168-188. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from

Academic Search Premier database.

White, S. (2008). Managing yourself so others want to work with you. American Journal of

Health-System Pharmacy, 65(10), 922-925. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from Academic

Search Premier database.

Wolfe, B. D., & Samdahl, D. M. (2005). Challenging assumptions: Examining fundamental beliefs

that shape challenge course programming and research. Journal of Experiential Education,


28(1), 25-43.


Is the component listed below included in traditional High ROPES Course Programs?

(Continued)

Yes

No

?

Event Framing of challenging action x Perceived risk x Challenge-by-choice x Shared experience x Group alliance toward individually unsolvable challenge

x

Goal-directed activity x

Action-oriented movement x Participants are aware of self and group

activity and make observations

x

Emotional Response x Identify limiting behavior x

Find solutions using new problem-solving skills

x

Measure thoughts and behaviors against defined values and behaviors

x

Disequilibrium x

Heightened self-awareness x

Integration Expose individual perceptions x

Group feedback and support x Identify functional and dysfunctional behavior x

Choose to modify existing thoughts and behavior

x

Internalized learning x

Reframe lifestyle x Transfer of learning from event to life x

Evaluation x Results Overcome inferiority x

Improved interpersonal relationships x Improved level of trust x

Improved cooperation x

Improved communication x

Increased self-Awareness x

Increased other-awareness x

Increased organization-awareness x

Increased system-awareness x

Sustained leadership skills x

Systemic big-picture perspective x Inspired future leadership development x

Inspired organizational learning climate x

Accelerated leadership development x

Nurtured team learning component in learning organizations

x

Table 1

Program Components: Control Group

Appendix

If the program component was observed during the event, then an “x” was marked in the yes column. If the

program component was not described, an “x” was marked in the no column. If the program component is unclear,

an “x” was marked in the associated column. Below is a summary of the active observations.

Effective Organizational

Development Teambuilding Event Traditional

Program

Is the component listed below included in

traditional High ROPES Course Programs?

Yes

No

?

Program Design Supported by decision-makers x

Measurable goal attainment x

Group size-appropriate x Budget sensitive x

Aligned with shared vision of organization x

Based on needs assessment x

Part of ongoing development process x

Systemic and multi-level x

Focus on individual and group development x Experiential; focus, challenging action, debrief x Lead by facilitator x Multiple elements x Progression of difficulty x Relationship orientation x Focus on learning rather than performing x Schedule of Events x Scheduled follow-up accountability x

ROPES Course Model or Theory x Safe x Outdoor setting x Feedback and support x Lighthearted x

Contemplative x

Relaxed x

Atmosphere of respect x Present and future orientation x

Context Leadership is a lifelong process x Anybody can develop leadership skills x Perceptions are based on mental models x Personality is based on heredity and environment

x

Lifestyle development is based on choice x Foundation of development is self-awareness x Readiness Competency Assessments x Define organizational context x Defined values and ethical standards x Defined strengths and weaknesses x Defined personal goal x

Defined team goal x

Personal Mastery x Suspension of judgment x

Positive attitude toward growth and change x Readiness activities x Plan for improvement x Relevant theory discussion x


Table 2

Pre and Post Leadership Assessment Data

Control Group Experimental Group

Pre and Post Assessment Questions

(Possible Answer of 1=strongly disagree and

6=Strongly Agree)

Pre-Test

Average

Post

Average

Change

Average

Pre-

Test

Average

Post

Average

Change

Average

Leadership development is a life-long process. 5.33 5.50 0.17 5.88 6.00 0.13

Anybody can be a leader. 4.25 4.83 0.58 5.00 5.25 0.25

Perceptions are unique for each individual. 5.25 5.33 0.08 5.50 4.50 -0.38

Personality is based on heredity and environment. 4.33 5.08 0.42 4.50 5.00 0.50

Behavior is a choice. 5.33 5.67 0.50 5.25 5.25 0.00

Today’s learning effects tomorrow’s decisions. 5.33 5.50 0.33 5.75 5.63 -0.13

I am self-aware. 4.50 5.00 0.33 5.25 5.25 0.00

I know my personality style. 4.75 5.17 0.42 5.13 4.75 0.00

I know my organizational context. 4.17 4.50 0.33 5.13 5.13 0.00

I have documented values and ethical standards. 4.33 4.42 0.08 4.25 5.00 0.75

I have documented my strengths and weaknesses. 4.00 4.33 0.08 4.50 5.00 0.75

I have documented my personal goals. 4.08 4.17 0.25 4.00 5.38 1.38

I know the goals of my team. 4.00 4.50 0.17 4.88 5.63 0.75

I have a plan for personal leadership development.

4.42

4.25

-0.17

4.25

5.25

1.00

I understand learning conversations require a suspension of judgment.

4.83

4.75

-0.08

4.50

5.25

0.75

I have a positive attitude toward growth and change.

5.50

5.58

0.08

5.25

6.00

0.75

I want to improve my leadership skills. 5.58 5.83 0.25 5.88 5.88 0.00

I am familiar with leadership theory. 4.00 4.58 0.75 3.88 5.25 1.63

AVERAGE TOTAL 4.67 4.94 0.25 4.93 5.30 0.45

Table 3

Development Readiness Assessment Questions Each box below is associated with a leadership activity. Please place a check in the box if you have participated in the activity within the last four weeks. If there is an item missing from the list that you consider to be a leadership activity, please add it to the bottom of the list.

Read a leadership book

Made an entry in your leadership journal

Attended a leadership seminar

Taken a leadership training course

Attended a leadership class

Met with your leadership mentor

Worked with a leadership consultant

Met with your leadership coach

Taken a leadership assessment

Met with a leadership group

Reviewed your personal goals

Reviewed your personal values

Participated in a leadership event

Other


Table 4

Challenging Action and Debrief Assessment Data Post Assessment Challenging Action

and Debrief Questions

(Possible Answer of 1=strongly disagree and

6=Strongly Agree)

Control Group Average Total

Experimental

Group Average Total

Movement from

Control to Experimental

The challenges were explained to me in advance. 5.33 5.50 0.17

I took a personal risk. 5.00 5.50 0.50

Taking part in the challenge was my personal choice. 5.25 5.88 0.63

This event was a shared experience. 5.50 5.88 0.38

I could have done the High ROPES Course alone. 3.58 2.00 -1.58

I had a goal in mind while on the course. 4.25 4.75 0.50

My learning involved movement. 4.92 5.13 0.21

I made observations. 5.08 5.50 0.42

I had an emotional response to the activities. 4.42 5.25 0.83

I identified my limits and pushed beyond them. 4.83 5.38 0.55

I found new solutions to old problems. 3.42 5.00 1.58

My behavior today aligned with my values. 4.83 5.38 0.55

I experienced a state of being unbalanced or disequilibrium. 5.00 3.88 -1.12

I experienced a heightened state of self-awareness. 4.25 5.13 0.88

I had the chance to expose my individual perceptions. 4.67 5.13 0.46

I got feedback and support from the group. 5.33 5.75 0.42

I identified functional and dysfunctional behavior 4.17 4.63 0.46

I chose to modify existing thoughts and behavior 4.50 4.63 0.13

I have internalized new learning. 4.67 4.88 0.21

I will adjust how I behave in the future. 4.33 5.13 0.80

I will transfer what I learned from this event to my everyday life. 4.42 5.25 0.83

The facilitator provided a way to evaluate the ROPES Course. 5.25 5.88 0.63

Average Total 4.68 5.07 0.38

Table 5

Environment Assessment Data

Description of the Challenge Course Environment

Control Group Average Total

Experimental Group Average Total

Difference Between Experimental and

Control Group

Lighthearted 0.75 0.80 0.05

Contemplative 0.42 0.80 0.38

Relaxed 0.58 0.80 0.22

Present and future orientation 0.42 0.90 0.48

Suspension of judgment 0.58 0.60 0.02

Positive attitude toward growth and change 0.75 1.00 0.25

Emphasize encouragement 1.00 1.00 0.00

Collaborative relationships 0.83 1.00 0.17

Supportive 0.92 1.00 0.08

Feedback 0.67 0.80 0.13

Safe 0.83 0.80 -0.03

Average Total 0.70 0.86 0.16

running head: high ropes course and leadership …

Documents