This research studies the effects of group stewardship and group learning on permanent work groups performing the core work and service processes in their organizations. Stewardship has been proposed as a potentially significant form of intrinsic motivation that causes people to act collectively in the best interests of their organization's stakeholders. However, stewardship has not been operationalized nor have its antecedents and consequences been empirically tested in prior field research. After defining group stewardship, the construct is shown to be distinct from related concepts such as psychological ownership and identification with the organization. While previous research has studied the concepts of individual and organizational learning, the concept of group learning is just emerging in the group effectiveness literature. Group learning is shown to be a multidimensional concept including integration of external perspectives, within-group collaboration, and practical application through experimentation. Within and between analysis (WABA) is utilized to determine which task, group and organizational constructs relate to the development of group stewardship at the individual, group and organizational levels of analysis. Four constructs, the need for analysis in doing the group's work, group potency, affective trust, and identification with the organization, are shown to be especially significant in developing group stewardship. Additionally, each of these four factors is shown to support different aspects of group learning. Finally, group stewardship is shown to be highly correlated with the presence of group learning, proactive behaviors, group performance, and employee job satisfaction. / Ph. D.

Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006.

The concept outdoor team building implies a set of consecutive learning experience activities that are mainly conducted in the outdoors with the aim of positively influencing the behaviour of the participant (McEvoy & Buller, 1997:209). According to Wagner et al. (1991:53) this form of team building mainly comprises of centre-based team building programs and wilderness-based team building programs. During CBTB the participants live and eat indoors while the participation in structured team building activities takes place outdoors. In contrast to this, the participants in wilderness-based team building live outdoors and take part in strenuous activities such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, orientation, camping, canoeing and sailing. In the corporate world there is currently a tendency to make use of CBTB to increase organizational effectiveness (Buller et al., 1991:58; Irvine & Wilson, 1994:25; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4; DuFrene et al., 1999:24; lngram & Desombre, 1999:16; Salas et al., 1999:309-310; WiIliams et al., 2003:45). Notwithstanding the increasing popularity of these programs, there exists much scepticism concerning the real value of CBTB (Gall, 1987:58; Wagner & Roland, 1992:61; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4). The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness. According to Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001:3) the most innovative and comprehensive results of the dynamic nature of outdoor team building programs have been found in the wilderness or a type of wilderness environment, Ewert en McAvoy (2000:15) are of the opinion that the participation in activities in the wilderness can have a significant impact on the individual as well as the group. The test subject is identified by means of an availability sample and is randomly divided ahead of time into a control group as well as two separate experimental groups who participated in the CBTB (Venterskroon, Vredefort Dome) and the wilderness expedition (Central Drakensberg). This study is executed in the form of a quantitative pre-test post-test design (Thomas & Nelson, 2001:321-322). To measure personal effectiveness use is made of the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) with a Cronbach Alpha-value of between 0,79 and 0,93 (Richards et al., 2002:1-4). The instrument focuses on psychological and behavioural aspects that are key components of personal effectiveness (Richards et al., 2002:1). The ROPELOC consist of 45 questions and is made up of seven main components of which three consist of various underlying subcomponents. The difference can be determined with regard to the main components as well as the underlying subcomponents. For the measuring of group effectiveness use was made of an improved version of Herselman’s (1998:149) group effectiveness questionnaire. It was aimed with this questionnaire to determine the effect of CBTB and the wilderness expedition on group effectiveness, as well as which advantages, if any, it has for the individual. This questionnaire consists of open and closed items on group aspects as well as individual aspects, to determine the participants’ attitude with regard to certain variables before and after exposure to the CBTB and the wilderness expedition. The results of this study showed that both experimental groups (CBTB and wilderness expedition) brought about successful change. With reference to personal effectiveness the paired t-tests showed that the CBTB lead to more change with regard to the main components as well as the subcomponents than the wilderness expedition. This change took place with regard to personal ability and beliefs, organizational skills, overall effectiveness, self-efficacy, time management and the coping with change. With regard to group effectiveness the wilderness expedition lead to more change than the CBTB with reference to group cohesion, leadership development, attitude change, success experience, self-concept, self-confidence and dealing with criticism. To determine whether there was a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, use was made of a covariance analysis. The results of these tests showed that with regard to personal effectiveness there was only one practically significant intergroup difference, namely stress management, and that with regard to group effectiveness two significant intergroup differences were found, namely creativity and group moral. In all of these cases the CBTB exhibited better. On the basis of these results the assumption that CBTB is more effective than a wilderness expedition, for the improvement of personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, cannot be made. It is recommended that CBTB be given preference if the outcomes of the program is personal effectiveness and wilderness expedition be used to improve group effectiveness. / Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006

The concept outdoor team building implies a set of consecutive learning experience activities that are mainly conducted in the outdoors with the aim of positively influencing the behaviour of the participant (McEvoy & Buller, 1997:209). According to Wagner et al. (1991:53) this form of team building mainly comprises of centre-based team building programs and wilderness-based team building programs. During CBTB the participants live and eat indoors while the participation in structured team building activities takes place outdoors. In contrast to this, the participants in wilderness-based team building live outdoors and take part in strenuous activities such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, orientation, camping, canoeing and sailing. In the corporate world there is currently a tendency to make use of CBTB to increase organizational effectiveness (Buller et al., 1991:58; Irvine & Wilson, 1994:25; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4; DuFrene et al., 1999:24; lngram & Desombre, 1999:16; Salas et al., 1999:309-310; WiIliams et al., 2003:45). Notwithstanding the increasing popularity of these programs, there exists much scepticism concerning the real value of CBTB (Gall, 1987:58; Wagner & Roland, 1992:61; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4). The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness. According to Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001:3) the most innovative and comprehensive results of the dynamic nature of outdoor team building programs have been found in the wilderness or a type of wilderness environment, Ewert en McAvoy (2000:15) are of the opinion that the participation in activities in the wilderness can have a significant impact on the individual as well as the group. The test subject is identified by means of an availability sample and is randomly divided ahead of time into a control group as well as two separate experimental groups who participated in the CBTB (Venterskroon, Vredefort Dome) and the wilderness expedition (Central Drakensberg). This study is executed in the form of a quantitative pre-test post-test design (Thomas & Nelson, 2001:321-322). To measure personal effectiveness use is made of the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) with a Cronbach Alpha-value of between 0,79 and 0,93 (Richards et al., 2002:1-4). The instrument focuses on psychological and behavioural aspects that are key components of personal effectiveness (Richards et al., 2002:1). The ROPELOC consist of 45 questions and is made up of seven main components of which three consist of various underlying subcomponents. The difference can be determined with regard to the main components as well as the underlying subcomponents. For the measuring of group effectiveness use was made of an improved version of Herselman’s (1998:149) group effectiveness questionnaire. It was aimed with this questionnaire to determine the effect of CBTB and the wilderness expedition on group effectiveness, as well as which advantages, if any, it has for the individual. This questionnaire consists of open and closed items on group aspects as well as individual aspects, to determine the participants’ attitude with regard to certain variables before and after exposure to the CBTB and the wilderness expedition. The results of this study showed that both experimental groups (CBTB and wilderness expedition) brought about successful change. With reference to personal effectiveness the paired t-tests showed that the CBTB lead to more change with regard to the main components as well as the subcomponents than the wilderness expedition. This change took place with regard to personal ability and beliefs, organizational skills, overall effectiveness, self-efficacy, time management and the coping with change. With regard to group effectiveness the wilderness expedition lead to more change than the CBTB with reference to group cohesion, leadership development, attitude change, success experience, self-concept, self-confidence and dealing with criticism. To determine whether there was a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, use was made of a covariance analysis. The results of these tests showed that with regard to personal effectiveness there was only one practically significant intergroup difference, namely stress management, and that with regard to group effectiveness two significant intergroup differences were found, namely creativity and group moral. In all of these cases the CBTB exhibited better. On the basis of these results the assumption that CBTB is more effective than a wilderness expedition, for the improvement of personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, cannot be made. It is recommended that CBTB be given preference if the outcomes of the program is personal effectiveness and wilderness expedition be used to improve group effectiveness. / Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006

Taking into consideration outdoor experiential learning's popularity as an effective method for the improvement of personal and group related skills (locus of control (Hans, 2000), self-esteem (Romi & Kohan, 2004), organizational abilities (Russell et al., 2000), social abilities (Meyer, 2000; Hui & Cheung, 2004; Dent, 2006), trust, communication, decision making and group dynamics (Ewert & McAvoy, 2000), there exists much uncertainty how program components relate to outcomes (Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2002; Sibthorp; 2003; Gass & Priest, 2006). Sibthorp et al. (2007:1) and Paisley et al. (2008:201-202) state that too much attention is directed at what participants learn and not how learning takes place. Outdoor experiential learning is mainly centre-based and wilderness-based (Hinkle, 1999:190; Hans, 2000:35), and due to the interchangeable use of these two methods, this confusion has occurred (Gillis & Gass, 2004:601; Epstein, 2004:107-108). In order to develop more successful programs a need has arisen to determine exactly how program components relate to program outcomes (Hans, 2000:33; Russell, 2000:170; Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2002:415; Gass & Priest, 2006:79). Taking this into consideration, Beringer and Martin (2003:30) state that change is usually only attributed to action and experience. In this regard Miner (2003:6), Cole (2005:23), Berger and McLeod (2006:82) and Hill (2007:339) believe that the symbolic meaning of wilderness and its therapeutic role is largely being overlooked or ignored compared to the ecological and experiential values thereof. Although many suggest that the physical environment is important for achieving program outcomes, future research could focus more on the difference of programs in wilderness, unfamiliar non-wilderness environments (such as rope courses) and familiar environments such as classrooms and workplaces (McKenzie, 2000:20). For a clearer understanding on how program components relate to outcomes, Priest (1996) (also see Priest, 1998 and Williams, 2000) indicates by using a comparative study that if group initiatives are more successful than rope courses for the improvement of organizational effectiveness, it can give valuable insight of what specific method should be used for achieving specific outcomes (Priest, 1996:37). Taking this into consideration it is the purpose of this study to compare the effectiveness of a centre-based adventure program with an expedition-based wilderness program with regard to personal and group effectiveness, and to determine if the personal experience of restoration (Kaplan, 1995:172-173; Laumann et al., 2001:31-32), physical self (Berger & McLeod, 2006:91; Caulkins et al., 2006:21), prfmitiveness, humility, timelessness (Cole, 2005:26; Johnson et al., 2005:7), solitude, privacy, freedom of choice (Borrie & Roggenbuck, 2001:7), personal self (Russell & Farnum, 2004:39) and spiritual upliftment (Irvine & Warber, 2002:80; Berger & McLeod, 2006:91) are symbolically unique to wilderness participation. This study made use of a crossover design with a mixed-method approach which De Vos (2005:360) refers to as a combination of quantitative and qualitative research in a single study. In a crossover design all the participants take part in both interventions (Simon, 2002:1), which is, in this case, the centre-based adventure programme and expedition-based wilderness programme. There were 28 third year students (14 men and 14 women), aged 20-23 (x= 21.6 ± 0.7) from the North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus) who took part in this study. The participants were identified using an availability sample and were randomly divided into two experimental groups (7 men and 7 women). The research instrument used to measure personal effectiveness was the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) developed and piloted by Richards et al. (2002). This questionnaire measures personal effectiveness through seven major components. This questionnaire was administered in the form of a quantitative pre-and post-test to both groups. For the measurement of group effectiveness an improved version of the one,found in Herselman (1998) was used. This questionnaire measures group effectiveness through several factors, such as communication, team spirit, decision making and planning, which are considered important for effective group functioning. In combination with this questionnaire an improved version of the Recreation Experience Preference Scales (Manfredo et al., 1996) was used. This research instrument is developed to determine why people engage in recreation, what people want from it and how people might benefit from it. Both of these questionnaires (group effectiveness and Recreation Experience Preference Scales) were administered in the form of a quantitative post-test to both groups. In combination with the quantitative procedure, one-on-one and focus group interviews were conducted with each participant after every test. With regard to personal effectiveness results indicated that most of the ROPELOC components changed significantly. Between the two programs differences with medium effect (d=0.5) were found in self-confidence (d=0.53), stress management (d=0.42), quality seeking (d=0.62) and coping with change (d=0.49), all in favour of the expedition-based wilderness program. Even though both programs are very effective for the improvement of personal effectiveness, it is strongly recommended that an expedition-based wilderness program should be used. This is mainly attributed to the effect of the wilderness environment. The experience of solitude, privacy and freedom of choice, spiritual upliftment and restoration proved to be the most powerful. In terms of group effectiveness results indicated medium (d=0.5) to significant (d>0.8) differences mostly in favour of the centre-based adventure program in communication abilities (d=0.52), competition within the group (d=0.83) and productiveness (d=0.68). Although both programmes are rated very effective for the improvement of group effectiveness, it is strongly recommended that a centre-based adventure program should be used. This is mainly attributed to active involvement, intense social interaction and continuous group discussions. Furthermore, a significant sequence effect in favour of first attending the centre-based adventure program and thereafter the expedition-based wilderness program was documented, which lead to the conclusion that the two programmes should be used in combination. For a meaningful adventure experience results showed that the personal experience of restoration, physical self, primitiveness, humility, timelessness, solitude, privacy, freedom of choice, personal self and spiritual upliftment made the most important contribution during the expedition-based wilderness program and that this program is most effective in creating this. However, it is possible to experience these components during a centre-based adventure program, but to a lesser extent and with different meaning. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

Taking into consideration outdoor experiential learning's popularity as an effective method for the improvement of personal and group related skills (locus of control (Hans, 2000), self-esteem (Romi & Kohan, 2004), organizational abilities (Russell et al., 2000), social abilities (Meyer, 2000; Hui & Cheung, 2004; Dent, 2006), trust, communication, decision making and group dynamics (Ewert & McAvoy, 2000), there exists much uncertainty how program components relate to outcomes (Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2002; Sibthorp; 2003; Gass & Priest, 2006). Sibthorp et al. (2007:1) and Paisley et al. (2008:201-202) state that too much attention is directed at what participants learn and not how learning takes place. Outdoor experiential learning is mainly centre-based and wilderness-based (Hinkle, 1999:190; Hans, 2000:35), and due to the interchangeable use of these two methods, this confusion has occurred (Gillis & Gass, 2004:601; Epstein, 2004:107-108). In order to develop more successful programs a need has arisen to determine exactly how program components relate to program outcomes (Hans, 2000:33; Russell, 2000:170; Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2002:415; Gass & Priest, 2006:79). Taking this into consideration, Beringer and Martin (2003:30) state that change is usually only attributed to action and experience. In this regard Miner (2003:6), Cole (2005:23), Berger and McLeod (2006:82) and Hill (2007:339) believe that the symbolic meaning of wilderness and its therapeutic role is largely being overlooked or ignored compared to the ecological and experiential values thereof. Although many suggest that the physical environment is important for achieving program outcomes, future research could focus more on the difference of programs in wilderness, unfamiliar non-wilderness environments (such as rope courses) and familiar environments such as classrooms and workplaces (McKenzie, 2000:20). For a clearer understanding on how program components relate to outcomes, Priest (1996) (also see Priest, 1998 and Williams, 2000) indicates by using a comparative study that if group initiatives are more successful than rope courses for the improvement of organizational effectiveness, it can give valuable insight of what specific method should be used for achieving specific outcomes (Priest, 1996:37). Taking this into consideration it is the purpose of this study to compare the effectiveness of a centre-based adventure program with an expedition-based wilderness program with regard to personal and group effectiveness, and to determine if the personal experience of restoration (Kaplan, 1995:172-173; Laumann et al., 2001:31-32), physical self (Berger & McLeod, 2006:91; Caulkins et al., 2006:21), prfmitiveness, humility, timelessness (Cole, 2005:26; Johnson et al., 2005:7), solitude, privacy, freedom of choice (Borrie & Roggenbuck, 2001:7), personal self (Russell & Farnum, 2004:39) and spiritual upliftment (Irvine & Warber, 2002:80; Berger & McLeod, 2006:91) are symbolically unique to wilderness participation. This study made use of a crossover design with a mixed-method approach which De Vos (2005:360) refers to as a combination of quantitative and qualitative research in a single study. In a crossover design all the participants take part in both interventions (Simon, 2002:1), which is, in this case, the centre-based adventure programme and expedition-based wilderness programme. There were 28 third year students (14 men and 14 women), aged 20-23 (x= 21.6 ± 0.7) from the North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus) who took part in this study. The participants were identified using an availability sample and were randomly divided into two experimental groups (7 men and 7 women). The research instrument used to measure personal effectiveness was the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) developed and piloted by Richards et al. (2002). This questionnaire measures personal effectiveness through seven major components. This questionnaire was administered in the form of a quantitative pre-and post-test to both groups. For the measurement of group effectiveness an improved version of the one,found in Herselman (1998) was used. This questionnaire measures group effectiveness through several factors, such as communication, team spirit, decision making and planning, which are considered important for effective group functioning. In combination with this questionnaire an improved version of the Recreation Experience Preference Scales (Manfredo et al., 1996) was used. This research instrument is developed to determine why people engage in recreation, what people want from it and how people might benefit from it. Both of these questionnaires (group effectiveness and Recreation Experience Preference Scales) were administered in the form of a quantitative post-test to both groups. In combination with the quantitative procedure, one-on-one and focus group interviews were conducted with each participant after every test. With regard to personal effectiveness results indicated that most of the ROPELOC components changed significantly. Between the two programs differences with medium effect (d=0.5) were found in self-confidence (d=0.53), stress management (d=0.42), quality seeking (d=0.62) and coping with change (d=0.49), all in favour of the expedition-based wilderness program. Even though both programs are very effective for the improvement of personal effectiveness, it is strongly recommended that an expedition-based wilderness program should be used. This is mainly attributed to the effect of the wilderness environment. The experience of solitude, privacy and freedom of choice, spiritual upliftment and restoration proved to be the most powerful. In terms of group effectiveness results indicated medium (d=0.5) to significant (d>0.8) differences mostly in favour of the centre-based adventure program in communication abilities (d=0.52), competition within the group (d=0.83) and productiveness (d=0.68). Although both programmes are rated very effective for the improvement of group effectiveness, it is strongly recommended that a centre-based adventure program should be used. This is mainly attributed to active involvement, intense social interaction and continuous group discussions. Furthermore, a significant sequence effect in favour of first attending the centre-based adventure program and thereafter the expedition-based wilderness program was documented, which lead to the conclusion that the two programmes should be used in combination. For a meaningful adventure experience results showed that the personal experience of restoration, physical self, primitiveness, humility, timelessness, solitude, privacy, freedom of choice, personal self and spiritual upliftment made the most important contribution during the expedition-based wilderness program and that this program is most effective in creating this. However, it is possible to experience these components during a centre-based adventure program, but to a lesser extent and with different meaning. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

Made available in DSpace on 2010-04-20T20:47:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 98347.pdf.jpg: 17903 bytes, checksum: 7c41e6052b5659dcf3685216db347c61 (MD5) 98347.pdf: 695436 bytes, checksum: a1e8260d11be728f8125bdccb8c1c36e (MD5) 98347.pdf.txt: 261450 bytes, checksum: 0ea9e935529332152add56dd006e3a26 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2004-03-09T00:00:00Z / The objective of this thesis is to study the factors that influence the quality of group learning and group effectiveness. This study regards work groups as complex social systems and suggests that the explanation of the quality of learning and the effectiveness of a group lies in the interrelations of structural, cognitive and interpersonal factors. This study emphasizes the importance of applying systems thinking to understand complex systems and builds a conceptual system dynamics model, based on literature review – learning at the individual, group and organizational levels, effectiveness, and group dynamics – and on three case studies. At the end of the thesis, a generic, qualitative model is offered to whom is interested in a systems analysis of the complexities that encompass the learning process and effectiveness of work groups. / O objetivo deste trabalho é estudar os fatores que influenciam a qualidade de aprendizagem e a eficácia em grupos. Os grupos de trabalho são aqui considerados sistemas sociais complexos e o estudo aqui desenvolvido parte da premissa de que é na inter-relação de fatores estruturais, cognitivos e interpessoais que se pode explicar a qualidade da aprendizagem e o nível de eficácia de um grupo. Este trabalho enfatiza a importância de se utilizar raciocínio sistêmico para o entendimento de sistemas complexos e constrói um modelo conceitual de Dinâmica de Sistemas, partindo de uma ampla revisão da literatura – de teorias de aprendizagem individual, em grupos e organizacional, de teorias da eficácia e de teorias sobre grupos – e de três estudos de caso. Ao final do trabalho, um modelo genérico qualitativo é oferecido aos interessados em uma análise sistêmica das complexidades que envolvem o processo de aprendizagem e a eficácia em grupos de trabalho.