Outdoor Management Development is a concept, based on experiential learning theory, and combines several tasks and activities conducted in the outdoors, with the purpose of facilitating management development and improving organizational processes. The mainstream literature is primarily concerned with the effectiveness of training programmes and the quantifiable observation of performance. Thus, it is strongly biased towards positivism and functionalism. The purpose of our paper is to provide an overview of the literature, and to develop a critical perspective on the concept. We argue that Outdoor
Management Development must not be seen as a neutral management tool, but is subject to specific social and political contexts. It should be seen as an emergent process and approached with reflexive awareness. We argue that reflexive practice may be capable of dealing with the issues of context, politics and process, we are discussing throughout the critical part of this paper.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The state of the field
2.1 What makes OMD so powerful?
2.2 The historical roots of OMD
2.3 What is OMD?
2.4 The objectives of OMD
2.5 Characteristics of an effective OMD programme
2.6 Different types of OMD programmes
2.7 Organizational factors of success and potential barriers to learning transfer
3. Towards a critical perspective
3.1 Against a purely functionalist and technocratic view of OMD
3.2 Against a decontextualised view of OMD
3.3 Against a depoliticised view of OMD
3.4 Towards a processual understanding of OMD
3.5 Reflection, reflexive practice, and their implications for OMD: Some conclusive remarks
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to move beyond the predominant functionalist and positivist interpretations of Outdoor Management Development (OMD) by providing a comprehensive overview of existing literature and introducing a critical, processual, and reflexive perspective on the concept. The authors aim to challenge the perception of OMD as a neutral management tool, arguing that it is deeply embedded in specific social and political power relations.
- The historical evolution and definition of OMD practices.
- Critique of functionalist and technocratic assumptions regarding managerial skill development.
- The role of context and organizational culture in learning transfer.
- The political dimension of OMD and its impact on power relations within organizations.
- The potential for reflexive practice to address complexity, politics, and process in management development.
Excerpt from the Book
Against a decontextualised view of OMD
According to Grugilis (2007), management requires anything but a homogenous set of skills and competences that are versatile in any given context. For him, “management is not a functionally coherent, readily identifiable set of tasks or roles but rather a diverse and heterogeneous range of activities and responsibilities which vary [...] from organisation to organisation and [...] individual to individual” (ibid: 136). Taking into account the extreme diversity of managers, one possible implication for management development is that activities that are suitable in one setting may fail in another. If it is true that what makes a ‘good’ manager highly depends on context, different types of generic management development become fairly problematic. “Outdoor activities and exercises; low-level, short courses which have roots in counselling and psychotherapy; and purposive games: all are stable features of the management training industry” (ibid: 150). Consequently, as managerial skills cannot be clearly defined due to the heterogeneity of management, it seems questionable to us, whether they can easily be developed in the outdoors, and whether learning within OMD programmes can directly be transferred to the workplace.
Similarly, McKenna (2004) opposes an approach to skill development, which assumes that managerial skills are controllable and developable independently of context. Among others, he highlights the importance of predispositions in learning, which may have important implications for our understanding of OMD, not least because participants always already have specific ways of relating to themselves and the world. Applying a constructionist point of view, we suggest that they are not only shaped by, but also actively shape a training programme when bringing in their own peculiarities. Taking into account that not only participants, but also trainers bring in their predispositions, OMD programmes seem to be less controllable and their outcomes less predictable than generally assumed.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter contextualizes OMD within the broader scope of management development and identifies the prevailing functionalist bias in existing literature.
The state of the field: This section provides a comprehensive review of OMD, covering its historical roots, objectives, program characteristics, and factors influencing successful learning transfer.
Towards a critical perspective: This final section challenges the instrumental view of OMD by analyzing it through political, contextual, and processual lenses, ultimately advocating for the integration of reflexive practice.
Keywords
Outdoor Management Development, OMD, Experiential Learning, Functionalism, Managerial Competence, Reflexive Practice, Organizational Culture, Learning Transfer, Power Relations, Processual Understanding, Management Education, Critical Management Studies, Social Constructionism, Training Effectiveness, Organizational Change
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines Outdoor Management Development (OMD) by critiquing its mainstream functionalist framing and proposing a more critical, reflexive approach to understanding its role in organizations.
What are the central thematic areas covered?
The themes include the historical roots of OMD, the characteristics of effective training programs, the limitations of evaluating OMD through purely functionalist metrics, and the influence of political and power dynamics on training outcomes.
What is the primary objective or research question?
The aim is to demonstrate that OMD is not a neutral management tool but a practice shaped by specific social contexts and power relations, and that it should be understood as an emergent, processual phenomenon rather than a linear training method.
Which scientific methods or approaches are utilized?
The authors employ a critical review of existing management literature, drawing on organizational theory, process philosophy, and the concepts of disciplinary power developed by Michel Foucault.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body transitions from a state-of-the-field review into a fundamental critique, covering topics like the decontextualized nature of skill acquisition, the political dimensions of competency, and the value of reflexive practice over simple reflection.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include OMD, functionalism, reflexive practice, organizational power, experiential learning, and management development.
How does the paper challenge the idea of "managerial competence"?
The authors argue that competence is not an objective, measurable, or fixed state, but rather a situated and socially constructed concept that is contingent upon organizational context and power dynamics.
Why do the authors advocate for a "processual understanding" of OMD?
They argue that a processual view recognizes development as continuous and contingent, which is more accurate than seeing it as a linear process aimed at achieving fixed, pre-defined goals.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Stefan Aufschnaiter (Autor:in), Matthias Wurzenrainer (Autor:in), 2010, Outdoor Management Development, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/165898
