Making Choices about the Use of the Outdoors in Manager and Management Development more

Management Education and Development, Vol. 14, Pt. 3, 1983, pp. 182-196 Making Choices about the Use of the Outdoors in Manager and Management Development1 ALAN MOSSMAN, Anglian Regional Management Centre, Duncan House, London. EJ5 2JB Abstract The purpose of this paper is to suggest a framework for analysing 'Outdoor Management Development' so as to help potential consumers assess the compatibil- ity of provider organisations and their own. In the first part the choice of the label Outdoor Management Development (OMD) is explained and the boundaries are defined (cf. Beeby and Rathborn 1983, p. 172). A framework for thinking about the ways in which the Outdoors can be used in Manager and Management Develop- ment is outlined in the second part. This framework highlights the range of developmental philosophies possible in the outdoors. Some examples of applica- tions of OMD are given. It is intended that the framework will be used as the basis for further study and evaluation of OMD. The paper includes a comprehensive bibliography of Management Development Outdoors. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to begin the process of charting the rich waters of what I shall call Outdoor Management Development (OMD). Only 'begin' because the sea is large and the coastline where OMD meets more conven- tional forms of Manager & Management Development (MD) is quite varied and only partially surveyed. Only 'begin' too because most of the literature and television features to date have described what goes on in one particular part of OMD without adequately relating it either to other OMD activities 11 am most grateful to David Hall for time to discuss a number of the ideas in this paper, to Ian Cunningham, Peter Mossman and John Burgoyne for comments on an early draft. using outdoors in manager and management development 183 or to relatively better known traditional MD.2 The paper provides an initial framework for considering the range of OMD offerings and choosing between them. The focus of most OMD activities is on the development of process and interpersonal skills. Some 'personal development' of the kind associated with courses for younger people (e.g. self awareness, self confidence) also occurs, though, as delegates tend to be mature much of this has already happened. In the past OMD practitioners have made no claims that it will develop relevant technical skills in areas such as finance, marketing or computing, though it has been used to develop familiarity with these subjects. At a recent BIM Conference Roy Williams of Imperial Tobacco spoke of his company's work with Challenge Training. They have recently used the outdoors to develop finance skills for non-financial managers as well as strategic manage- ment skills at Main Board level.3 OMD operates at two distinct levels: • manager development, • management & organisation development. For a detailed list of the claims made for OMD see Mossman (1982, pp. 2-6 or 1983, pp. 8-11). The first section of the paper reviews the various labels which are used. The second attempts to define the key characteristics which differentiate OMD from other approaches to MD. The third section describes two substantially different philosophies which appear to co-exist under the Outdoor Manager Development umbrella. These are labelled 'Manager Training' and 'Self Development'. For clarity these are reviewed in relation to 'Adventure Education' and 'Diagnostic' Uses of the Outdoors (see table 1). The final section briefly describes Management & Organisation Develop- ment Outdoors and relates work in this area to the framework presented in section three. Why 'Outdoor Management Development'? Labels abound in this area of Management Development and each one seems to attach to a slightly different 'product'. Outward Bound is the one most commonly recognised but that has all the problems of Biro, Formica and 2 e.g. Allcock 1973; Anon 1976; Bickerstaffe 1982; Braid 1982; Cox & Putnam; Cranfleld 1982 a & b; Fine 1983; Fletcher 1971; Graham 1974; Horgan 1982; Kenton 1976; Kronwell 1980 & 1982; McManus 1982; Maughan 1982; Reeves 1982; Rice 1979; Roberts et al. 1974; Schrank 1977; Tiere 1983; Williams 1980; Whitfield 1974; cf. Beeby & Rathborn 1983; Creswick & Williams, 1979; Keslake & Radcliffe 1980; Mossman 1982, 1983a; Radcliffe & Keslake 1981. ' BIM Conference, 'The Crowing Use of the Outdoors', London 14 June 1983. See Mossman 1983b. 184 mossman Hoover - it is a trade name. Huczynski (1983, p. 200) uses the label but fails to give the organisation as an example of a provider! Development Training is one generic term but tends to be associated with the youth end of the Outdoor Training 'market' (see, for example, Bacie 1983, p. 86). Adventure Training focuses too much attention on the Adventure and suggests nothing of the reflection which I think is an important part of successful MD: it is also reminiscent of Services training. Both Development Training & Adventure Training imply the Training model of learning. There is more to the Outdoors than just training, certainly in the sense that Bert Juch uses it (1983, pp. 60- 2), and the way I understand it colloquially. And anyway do senior people go on (raining courses? Even Outdoor MD is inadequate; it is developmental but much of the time is spent indoors in reflection and often on indoor tasks (though different from the sort of indoor tasks used on conventional MD programmes). John Banks' suggestion of Outdoor Development is open to the same criticism. Having said that, I'm going to stick with OMD as my label until I find a better one. (Please suggest alternative labels). What is OMD? It seems to me that the characteristics which differentiate OMD from other sorts of MD are the combination of: - tasks designed to simulate the process involved in tackling typical problems back at work; - tasks which require the participants to engage their whole selves - intellect- ual, emotional and physical - fully and with great intensity; - tasks that often do this outdoors (cf. Beeby & Rathborn 1983, p. 174); - tasks that often put delegates under pressure. In addition to this distinctive set of features, the OMD experience will involve group as well as individual objectives; the application of experiential learning methods and some sort of review of the task and probably of the process which the group uses to tackle it. In pursuit of certain of the personal growth objectives the programme may also include various activities designed to stimulate individual creativity or personal awareness: drama or rock climbing for example. These may take place either indoors or out and could be incorporated in the tasks to some extent. This attempt at a definition of OMD embraces the two different levels of MD: • Manager Development which focuses on the development of individual managerial performance, and using outdoors in manager and management development 185 • Management (& Organisation) Development which emphasises the devel- opment of collective managerial performance. Clearly there are interactions between the two, but for the purposes of this article I should like to consider them separately. Manager Development Outdoors There seem to be two distinct manager development philosophies at work outdoors just as there are in more conventional MD. Here they will be referred to as the: - Management Training approach, and the - Self Development approach. To make the distinctions clear I shall describe them as 'pure types'. So far as I'm aware no organisation provides MD programmes which fit either of the pure types. Instead they draw ideas and theories from both in different measures. At the most basic level two questions distinguish Management Training from Self Development (after Boydell and Fedler 1981, p. 7): • To what extent are learning needs defined by the delegate (as opposed to the trainer or manager)? • To what extent does the delegate take responsibility for meeting those learning needs (as opposed to the trainer)? The answers to these questions enable us to locate the particular programme in the following space: Figure 1. Self Development & Management Training 186 moss man The boundary between the two is ill-defined. What is clear is that Self Developers take significantly more responsibility for defining their own learn- ing needs and for meeting them than do those managers who are subject to 'training'. It will become clear that most OMD programmes contain elements of both Training and Self Development. When choosing a provider* of OMD to work with an organisation it is important to select one that fits with the culture and values that exist (or that which senior management wish to promote in the future). In this section I shall also describe two other ways in which the outdoors is used for manager development: - Adventure Education - Diagnosis of training needs. Adventure Education (AE) or Adventure Training has grown out of the Services 'Outward Bound' training. It fits very much with the general image of OMD and is where OMD had its roots. But there are now significant differences between AE and other OMD Approaches, particularly in the attention given to reviewing the experience. Using the Outdoors for diagnostic purposes is not new. The War Office Selection Board (WOSB) has used Outdoor tasks in this way for many years. Recently companies have begun to use it for the systematic assessment of employees' learning needs and career potential. In the same way individuals can use the outdoors to review some of their own strengths and weaknesses. Outdoor tasks will only aid identification of certain aspects of the managerial role. The nature of the tasks focuses attention on process and interpersonal issues such as planning, motivation, delegation, leadership, communication, team working and managing change. (For an explanation of how this might work see Mossman 1982, p. 9 or 1983, pp. 12-13). In order to examine other more technical areas such as finance or marketing it is necessary to introduce other approaches, such as management simulations, that are found in conven- tional 'assessment centres' (see for example, Cole 1983, p. 69). Table 1 details the key difference between these four uses of the Outdoors for Manager Development. The ideas in Table 1 are based on my initial observations and discussions with a number of providers, sponsors and a very small number of delegates. The next stage in the process of charting the OMD waters is to talk in some more depth with providers, sponsors - and ultimately delegates - about the way they think about and experience the approach, and what they get out of it. * By 'providers' I mean those organisations which offer Manager Development Opportunities Outdoors. 'Consumers' are those organisations and their training and development people who send their managers on OMD experiences and foot the bill. 'Delegate' is the label I use for the manager* who attend the courses. using outdoors in manager and management development s 3 at a fl a Assessment Centre Uses outdoor tasks to assess managerial strengths and weaknesses. Can be oriented to improving participants own awareness and/or that of their employers. In the latter case it might be used to aid promotion or selection decisions. In either case it can contribute to decisions about future Management Development action. Nature of reviews and view of delegate depends on attitudes of staff and diagnosis. (see MT and SD) S ■y tf Z z § £ a a Uses outdoor tasks to help delegates develop skills and knowledge in areas which they, the delegates, have identified as important to their own lives and jobs. Learning occurs in the field and in personal and group reviews. Also serendipitous learning i.e. not hnked to pre-defined goals. - reviews of tasks likely to focus on personal and interpersonal, group and intergroup issues. - approach is based on holistic ideas of Humanistic Psychology. 1 1 Development Training (Beeby & Rathborn 1983) Outdoor tasks and activities* are used to help delegates leam specific skills. Learning takes place both in the field and in subsequent review sessions. The needs of delegates are assumed to be similar. 'Adventure is used purely as an educational vehicle ... in an effort to realise specific objectives . . . in relation to the individual's personal development and the work situation.' (Williams 1980, 259-60) | - outdoor tasks and activities are formally reviewed - review focusses on social and process issues of a group or intergroup nature. - approach is basically functional - to improve delegate behaviour in the workplace. „ & f- s > 5 91 Adventure Training 'Uses as a medium those outdoor pursuits which are potentially dangerous. It involves the presentation of a meaningful challenge to people within a framework of safety in order to give them a deep personal and social awareness.' (CI Mortlock quoted by Williams 1980, 259) - Uses tasks and activities almost exclusively 'outdoors'. - delegate is left to sort things out for self. - instructors tend to focus on technical (cf. social) issues. Alternative Labels Outline Description Distinctive Features ■■i 187 = B u 9 188 mossman using outdoors in manager and management development 189 z 1 depends - see 3 above. Dunlop pic 'Personal Development and Leadership Programme' (Cole, 1983) - depends - see 3 above. enables delegates or their organisations to determine learning objectives for future MD activities based on a wide range of criteria. May be a precursor to MT or SD. Usually pre-set by trainers to expose delegates to a range of testing managerial problems. n D i-l D Lk -1 in Delegate is seen as a person. Simulon (Tiere 1983) & Celmi probably get nearest. - delegate knows more about own needs than others; others can build on that knowledge (Johari window). - objectives negotiated personally by each course member with staff and other course members. Delegates decide what they wish to explore and, working with tutors, select tasks to enable that to happen. Specific tasks may (intentionally) surprise the delegates but the learning and development objectives will not. Trust between tutor and delegate is important here. S' I z ee s z < Delegate is seen as a manager. ? Leadership Trust, ? Development Training Ltd. (Many apprentice programmes come closer to this) There are experts who 'know' what is best; who 'know' what managers need. - pre-set by trainers - key objectives are in terms of managerial process issues. tasks are pre-set by trainers to their (the trainers') objectives. (Except that delegates may, in theory, opt out of a task.) a ? P § g u Delegate is seen as 'explorer'. John Ridgeway Centre - often expressed as 'in corpore sana' - a fit mind requires a fit body. - tends to be in terms of personal development (tends to be for younger people). tasks are pre-set by trai ne rs/i nstructors. 4. View of Delegate J. Examples 6. Philosophical basis 7. Objectives 8. Control of task T3 5 z F o P s ^ < a CL O 8 jj 0 -a U OJ a) D a .9- m K woo • £ a- <u a 3 tr 2 £ u ^ a? b 5 £ S ■5 - J= 1) 3 - a « - M o " 2 .5 § 2 & 2 ^ v> i_ s w s a o -Si ■sss 3 S ss "o 2 8 Q ,E 2 « ,S "o - £ a g 2 8 « * K Q > G C u .3 « 55 0 3 O 1 r* III" iiS "3 i « u u oa w_o Oh -a u e -a .£1° s ■8-8 o — s u a u P S ■ h t; « u » K B!2S « =5 C 2 5 « Ss . o J0,£ M a f r± u o s 6. c e -a &n f o o -o s £ 'F - P 5J ^ 3 3 g s 'a b q m °- £-a ^ V 3 b tJ .3 ge v. OJ) | QCC I o B. 8'SS ^ g o « H -a si ■S W .2 „1 Jf "a js £ u c u = .Si o TS f 2 g ■a — 6D > 13 >^ .a u_ 5 5.5 i2 ^ ^ v .E f 8. S E 3 -■3 " 2 a- B u s ^ ^ ^ * * u j| w j«j u ^■3 *>! W 5 I o. a 13 o u -a I 190 mossman using outdoors in manager and management development 191 a i 5 « O S3 E .5 S 13 < i 5 a * 8. . 5b u Si c 8 "S 5 "° S3 .y o ^ aj c- SI ^ -i & a §> ■s jg >, a b J p l£ &V53 3 "oj leg 4J O tJ-o ■o S H ° c * a, « E §JS 8 — as " »i qj 5 e .£ £ a "> . t> E <s 1 2 v Sj Jd ^ c ■e - * h -5 ." « O jl 3 H s 8 u u ■g 2 g S •6 a.s a «.S ■§ tS !a « 3 "&> O 3 a ° h 2 .s s ^ .a 5 0 ° n -o U ^ « til IA Is « _ ■ « St .2 ?■ •o • S -o o ■- „ *" E g o o S3 B 3 q. S * iTS h5 > o S u JS 3 a H E 2 C M £. 8. a. q, cd o 60-S I a 2*^ 2 e O to S 3B ^ I S 3 .3 S.ES 'cl'S & I « M U 9 o . ™ o 5 .a -o Jj % = u 1 t3 > ■ i « S 3 « a .2? i) u ; i» I o i; UJ G ^ cfl o o t E 3 H rj M P 1- C 3 3 tS fit z I O M j) 2 j» is; ^ 3 s 13 <3 t/5 t3 coo; a- as I oo2 a 3* ■S 3*8 p S = a g s s a « * i = jfi < s o Oi .3 s I -K 1« I 3 H H 0 t3 U 3 a c o u t2 z % s MD people who find the outdoors a useful medium. Safety, assessment and feedback - may also offer instruction and process consultancy when appropriate. 'We know how to (help delegates) identify their leanting needs.' 'How am I doing?' 'We'd like you to get to know a lot more about yourself.' OR 'We'd like to know a lot more about you and your likely potential in this organisation,' - Because people who come seem to get more promotions. - Because I want to know more about me. - Because I was sent. a* s > C -j tu in Management Developers who also enjoy the outdoors. Sensitive outdoors people. Safety, instruction, process consultancy and feedback. 'Delegates know what's needed - let's do what we can to help them get it,' 'How can you help me?' 'How can we help you develop yourself?' (Occasionally 'MD is not our business - if you want it, do it yourself!'). - Because I have , . . needs and this seemed an appropriate way to deal with them, - Because my boss/T.O. recommended it. z z I a Outdoors people with some awareness (and possibly experience) of large economic organisations. Safety, instruction and process consultancy; 'experts' in this (raining technology. 'We know what's needed - but we don't always show it 'cos we've got to keep the client happy.' 'Sock it to me - you're the experts.' "This event has been designed to meet your needs* - and anyway it has worked with other people,' (* i.e. our definition of your needs). - Because I was sent. - Because I thought it might help me. - Because of the effect it had on .... ADVENTURE Outdoors people (including ex-service people). Safety and instruction (technical). 'We know what's needed.' 'This should be a bit of a larf!' 'What you need is a good dose of . . .!' - Becaue I was sent. - Because it sounded good fun. - Because all my mates are going/have already been. 17. Background of Staff J*. Role of Staff 19. Attitudes: - of provider - of delegates - of employers 20. Why do delegates attend? 192 MOSSMAN o S o Dissatisfaction with current assessment centre activities because they do not involve the whole person. Need to involve physical and emotional elements as well as intellectual and social assessment. (Depends on nature of diagnosis and stance of trainer). Emphasises sensing and thinking as basis for planning and doing. e a s S g h-l w m Dissatisfaction with MT and feeling that Self Development experiences should use the whole person: intellectual, physical, social and emotional. Intellectual, social, physical and emotional aspects of person. 'Learning in public' and 'Learning in private' are balanced. manager tra[ning(mt) Dissatisfaction with AE. Feeling that it should involve more intellectual 'stuff and contain systematic review (mirroring) of individual and group performance. Intellectual, social and physical aspects - may also hook emotional. Emphasises planning and doing. Sensing and thinking are encouraged. Delegates certainly retain personal judgement. adventure education(ae) WWII attempts to increase resilience and self-reliance of young merchant marine crews. Social and physical aspects of person - may also hook emotional and intellectual parts. More like training than even 'liberal' education. Emphasises planning and doing. Sensing and thinking tend to be underplayed (at least formally). 21. Origins 22. Actively engages . . . 23. In Bert Juch's terms (1983, pp. 47-74). USING OUTDOORS IN MANAGER AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT 193 Management and Organisation Development Outdoors So far in this paper the focus has been on manager development. Some organisations are using the outdoors for developing their management and even for developing the organisation as a whole. Many companies are developing teams Outdoors, taking a complete man- agement or project team away for a week or a weekend together to tackle some challenging tasks and reflect on how they work together. As various writers* have suggested the power of the Outdoors comes from the immediacy of the consequences of success and failure. The tasks involve the whole person, not just the intellectual part. Management too involves the whole person. Taking a team away together enables them to get to know each other better. It seems that delegates don't yet know how to behave on an OMD programme. They are therefore forced back into their total reservoir of behaviours. In this way team members become aware of the 'kind of stuff their colleagues are made of. That kind of knowledge becomes useful back on the job as team members help each other respond to crises and opportuni- ties. It becomes possible to help a co-worker explore new ways of behaving at work because you've seen them behave that way outdoors. David Hall has the nice notion of the difference between the role-person and the whole-person. Role-persons have a restricted set of behaviours open to them - those that they perceive appropriate to their role. It is almost as if the whole-persons hang up a certain range of behaviours with their coats when they arrive in the morning and only resume them when they leave in the evening. Doing OMD as a team can help reduce the differences between the role-person and the whole-person, to a greater extent than if each individual joined an open course. OMD has been used to help management groups develop skills in the collective co-ordination, monitoring, control and planning of more complex operations. In larger organisations no one individual can possibly comprehend all the parameters. Collective decision making is vital. That requires trust coupled with a wide knowledge of one's colleagues' strengths and weaknesses. Shortly after completing a strategic management course, the Main Board of the Imperial Group spent two days on an 'Outdoor' problem exploring how they manage strategically in practice. Changing Organisation Culture At least one company - the Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association of London - has used OMD as part of a strategy to change the culture of the organisation. Brian Richardson joined Provident Mutual as General Manager J E.g.: Creswick & Williams 1979, pp. 2-5; Beeby & Rathborn 1983, p. 174; Mossman 1982, pp. 6-7; 1983b, p. 104; Williams 1980, p. 259, 194 MOSSMAN in 1974. His predecessor's management style was not particularly open and this was reflected throughout the company. Since the mid-70s Richardson has gradually built up a management develop- ment programme. This begins prior to a first junior management appointment with a 14 day open course at Brathay. After some in-house management training and 6-12 months as a 'middle manager' Provident Mutual staff are sent on the standard 5-day Leadership Trust programme. Richardson has recently reviewed this programme. His feeling is that it is probably going better than ever because the Outdoor, in-company and on- the-job training and support are now better integrated than previously. Self Development & Training Revisited In the same way that we distinguished between Self Development and Man- ager Training approaches to Individual OMD so we can see a similar range of approaches emerging at Organisation level. The Imperial Board chose to undertake an Outdoor task to explore their strategic planning and management skills and understanding. The changes at Provident Mutual have been through more of a 'training' mode; 'imposed' on the staff. Conclusion In this paper I have tried to provide a framework for thinking about OMD. The framework is designed to help consumers assess the compatibility of provider organisations with their own. One of the most frequently repeated messages at the recent BIM conference on OMD was the importance of choosing a provider whose culture and philosophy are compatible with your own or with the one you'd like to achieve. Where this is not done, frustration, anger, demoralisation and withdrawal are likely to result as managers who return revitalised and fired with enthusi- asm, get systematically blocked by their co-workers and by senior manage- ment. Roy Williams, one of the pioneers of the new OMD, believes we are only just beginning to see what can be done with this medium. This paper marks the first tentative step in a research programme designed to help us understand what the Outdoors has to contribute to Manager and Management Development. Bibliography Allock, R. S. (1973), 'Endeavour training'. The Training Officer, Vol. 9, No. 10, pp. 298-300. Alner, D. and Tiere, D. (1976), 'Experiential learning: a view from the inside'. Industrial & USING OUTDOORS IN MANAGER AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT 195 Commercial Training, Vol. 8, Pt. 1, pp. 27-35; Vol. 8, Pt. 2, pp. 73-8; Vol. 8, Pt. 3, pp. 114- 17. Anon, (1976), 'Operation outdoors'. SAM Advanced Management Journal, pp. 26-31, Anon, (1982), '"Keepwell" time for managers'. Shell World, Vol. 7, Pt. 3, pp. 14-15. Bacie, (1983), 'DTAG' BACIE Journal, p. 86. Barrett, F. D. (1975), 'Pathways to innovation', Canadian Training Methods, Vol. 8, Pt. 3, pp. 28-30. Beeby, J. M. and Rathbohn, S. (1982), 'Development Training using the outdoors: A pilot programme', /. of European Industrial Training, Vol. 6, Pi. 6. Beeby, J. M. and Rathborn, S, (1983), 'Development Training for managers', Management Education and Development, Vol. 14, Pt. 3, pp. 12-15. Bickerstaffe, G. (1982), 'How to survive a leadership course', International Management, pp. 40-1. Boydell, T, and Pedler, M, (eds), (1981), Management Self-Development: Concepts and Practices, Farnborough, Hants: Gower. Braid, J. (1982), 'Using outdoor activities for supervisory training', Training, Vol. 7, Pt. 12, pp. 2-4. Burgoyne, J., Bovdell, T. and Pedler, M. (1979), 'Self Development: Theory and Applications for Practitioners', London: Association of Teachers of Management - see esp. pages 61-6. Cole, J. (1983), 'Combining learning and assessment! A unique approach to developing young managers', The Training Officer, pp. 69-73, CraNFIeLO, I. (1982), 'No lack of endeavour', Education and Training, pp. 263-4. Cranfield, I. (1982), 'Training through Endeavour', Industry & Commercial Training, pp. 340- 3. Cox, M. and Putnam, R. (1982), 'Action Centred Management Development', unpublished paper to the 2nd National Conference on Education & Development in Organisations, Ideas in Development, Lancaster University. Creswick, C. and Williams, R. (1979), 'Using the Outdoors for Management Development and Team Building', Food, Drink & Tobacco ITB, Gloucester. Davies, B. (1981), 'Outward Leading', Sunday Telegraph Magazine, pp. 58, 59, 62, 67. Fine, B. (1983), 'City Challenge: Personal development through community involvement', The Training Officer, pp. 74-6. Fletcher, B. (1971), 'The Challenge of Outward Bound', London: Heinemann. Glynn, L. and Bailey, E. (1982), 'Shaping up British managers', Newsweek, pp. 52-3. Graham, C. (1974), 'Brathay's views', Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 6, Pt. 6, pp. 264- 5. Hanktns, P. (1983), 'Comments on the Leadership/Development Training Course run by SWRMC, Bristol Polytechnic, February 1983', unpublished article. Horgan, M, (1982), 'Management Training for Real', unpublished address to the 1982 Confer- ence of the Institute of Personnel Management, Harrogate. Huczynski, A. A. (1983), Encyclopedia of Management Development Methods, Aldershot, Hants.: Gower. Jenkins, W. G. (1982), 'Training in leadership: The pre-Sandhurst Rowallan course', British Army Review, pp. 12-19. Kenton, L. (1976), 'Management's toughest course'. Industrial Management, Vol. 6, Pt. 11, pp. 10-14. Keslake, P. S. and Radcliffe, P. J., (1980), 'Inward Bound - a new direction for Outward Bound: towards an holistic approach to Management Development', in Beck J. & Cox, C. (eds.), (1980), Advances in Management Education, Wiley, pp. 41-54. Krdcoff, C. (1982), 'Careers: Room at the treetop', Washington Post, p. 5, Washington, DC. Krouwell, Bill (1980), "Management Development using the Outdoors', The Training Officer, pp. 262-5. Krouwell, Bill (1982), 'Development Training at Lindley Lodge', The Training Officer, pp. 137-9. Martin, A. (1982), 'Management training in British Telecom', Personnel Management, pp. 52- 5. 196 MOSSMAN Maughan, P. (1982), 'Endeavour training in Scotland', Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 14, Pt. 7, pp. 238-9. McMantjs, I. (1982), 'Accept a challenge', Cosmopolitan, p. 124. McNicol, B. (1982), 'Experience with outdoor leadership training', Personnel Management Review, Vol. 55 (Shell), pp. 18-20. Mobsman, A. (1982), 'Management Training for Real', unpublished address to the 1982 Confer- ence of the Institute of Personnel Management, Harrogate. Mossman, A. (1983a), 'Management Development using the Outdoors: Action and Reflection to Help Managers Face the Challenges Confronting them at Work', unpublished report to the Local Government Training Board, Luton, LU1 2TS. Mossman, A. (1983b), 'The growing use of the outdoors', Management Today, pp. 104-5. Nixon, B. (1980), 'Recent trends in management development', Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 12, Pt. 9, pp. 374-80. Peer, E. (1982), 'Outward Bound for Execs.', Newsweek, p. 50. Radcliff, P. and Keslake, P. (1981), 'Outward Bound?' in Boydell and Pedler (eds.), (1981), Management Self Development, Farnborough, Hants; Gower Publishing, pp. 85-98. Ratcuffe, I. and Chesney, J. (1981), 'Using Bioenergetics', in Nixon, B. (ed.), (1981), New approaches to Management Development, Gower Press, pp. 42-54. Reeve, D. (1982), 'Revitalising managers by training outdoors', Personnel Management, pp. 34- 7. Rice, B. (1979), 'Going to the mountain', Psychology Today, pp. 65-70, 73-4, 77-8, 81. Richardson, N. H. (1982), 'On-the-water education: an overview',/, of Marine Education, Vol. 3, Pt. 2, pp. 11-13, Winter. Roberts, K. and White, G. (1972), 'A question of character', Personnel Management. Roberts, K. and White, G. (1971), 'The impact of character training courses on young people', British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 2, Pt. 3, pp. 337-54. Roberts, K. and White, G. (1972), 'Character training courses: Consumer's perspectives', Vocational Aspects of Education, Vol, 24. Roberts, K., White, G. and Parker, (1974), The Character Training Industry: Adventure Training Schemes in Britain, Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Rosenthal, S. R. (1982), 'The Fear Factor', Sport and Leisure, p. 61. Schrank, R. (1977), 'Two women, three men on a raft', Harvard Business Review, pp. 100-08. Thame, S. (1978), 'A means of understanding human learning: the Alexander Technique', Management Education & Development (MEAD), Vol. 9, Pt. 3, pp. 202-05. TiERE, J. (1979), 'Experiential learning: a follow up', Industrial & Commercial Training, pp. 155-61. Tiere, John (1983), 'Using the outdoors - part 1', Industrial and Commercial Training, pp. 272- 7; Part 2, Industrial and Commercial Training, forthcoming. Wellens, J. (1974), 'The Character Training Industry; an account of research into adventure training schemes in Britain', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 6, Pt. 9, pp. 102-06. Whitfield, P. (1974), 'The Character Training Industry: an alternative view', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 6, Pt. 6, pp. 259-64. Whitfield, P. C. (1974), Personal Development Courses: an assessment of the Brathay Hall One Month Standard Course, unpublished MA Thesis, University of Lancaster, Department of Behaviour in Organisations. Williams, D. H. (1980), 'Adventure with a purpose', The Training Officer.