- Email: [email protected]
The worth of laboratory training
THE WORTH OF LABORATORY TRAINING Impact on leadership and productivity REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
Mr. Powell is associate dean, director of the Division o f Research, and a faculty member in management sciences at The Ohio State University. Mr. Stinson is a faculty member in organization behavior at Ohio State. The research findings described in this article were presented to members o f the Academy o f Management annual meeting in Atlanta in August.
The authors have conducted a series o f studies to test some o f the commonly held assumptions about laboratory training. Their study was designed to determine if participation in such training as a "family group" has greater impact than "stranger group" training, and if there was an impact on leadership style and behavior. Many o f the findings are in contrast to popular opinion. The findings indicate that participation in laboratory training may be dysfunctional to organization effectiveness, and that formal leaders who participated in either group tended to abdicate the leadership role. This suggests that it may be appropriate to use laboratory training to cure social problems, but not necessarily to increase productivity.
In recent years, the laboratory approach to training has caught the interest and imagination of both academicians and executives. Through well-designed and illustrated brochures, proponents of this approach
AUGUST, 1971
have advocated that laboratory training can help to make administrators more aware of their own attitudes and behavior, more effective in interpersonal relationships, more efficient in organizational functioning, and more adept in expressing their capacities for leadership. The readers of such brochures may well conclude that, through laboratory training, they have found the answer to their organizational and interpersonal problems. Upon careful review, however, the claims of those advocating laboratory training must be confusing to most executives. Even those who have been intimately involved in various types of laboratory training find it difficult to define and classify the different offerings. It is recognized that some types of laboratory training are directed primarily toward individual recreation, while others have as their goals changes in behavior which are designed to improve the effectiveness of managers in organizations. The questions often raised are: "How valuable are laboratory training techniques to the typical executive? . . . . Can laboratory training be used to increase the leadership effectiveness of executives? . . . . Can it be utilized to increase the performance of work
87
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
groups and organizations?" These and related questions formed the basis for the investigation reported in this article.
TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS
88
Some types of laboratory training have little organizational value. Dunnette, for example, points out that some types of laboratory training provide recreational rather than learning experiences. He notes, "What happens in many sensitivity training groups sounds about the same way I feel when I ski down a mountain-it's an exhilarating, recreational kind of experience, but probably nothing more.'1 Furthermore, the learning that may occur in laboratories can be counter to many organizational values. Argyris quotes one graduate of encounter groups: "My only criterion of how I feel comes from within. I'm much less concerned with individuals who cannot fulfill my gratification." This brings up the question of whether such feelings serve to promote more effective interpersonal relationships within an organization. Odiorne goes even further in his criticism. He argues that some laboratory training may be damaging to the individual in his personal life, as well as his work life. 2 There has been considerable research relative to the results of organizationally oriented laboratory training. While this body of research has not always been methodologically rigorous or conclusive, some studies have established the basis for a number of interesting insights. Reviews of the investigations and analytical commentary by Stock, House, Dunnette, and Campbell provide the following conclusions:
1. Marvin Dunnette, "Should Your People Take Sensitivity Training," Innovation (September, 1970), pp. 42-5fi. 2. Chris Argyris, "On the Future of Laboratory Education," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, III (April, 1967), pp. 153-83. George Odiome, "The Trouble with Sensitivity Training," Training Directors Journal, XVII (October, 1963), pp. 9-20.
L a b o r a t o r y training will n o t cause personality change, b u t it m a y have some impact u p o n participant attitudes. Some participants b e c o m e m o r e o p e n - m i n d e d and m o r e sensitive to the feelings and behavior of others and develop a different p e r c e p t i o n of " s e l f " and their o w n behavior. L a b o r a t o r y training m a y have some impact u p o n participant behavior, at least for the d u r a t i o n of the laboratory. Some participants display more consideration for others, less d e p e n d e n c e on others, b e t t e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n through m o r e adequate and objective listening, and more ability to diagnose gToup p r o b l e m s and to w o r k with others to solve the problems. 3
Research does not show, however, that any or all of these changes occur in all participants attending the laboratories. The laboratories differ in design and objectives and thus may have different outcomes. Some are designed primarily to produce changes in attitudes. Examples of this are laboratories focusing upon black-white confrontations. Other laboratories attempt to influence participants' leadership and managerial styles; Blake's Managerial Grid Seminars are examples. 4 It has als0 been demonstrated that individual participants differ in their abilities to learn through laboratory training techniques. Generally, those who have relatively strong egos and low defense mechanisms are best equipped to learn. While it can be concluded that laboratory training has some value as an educational technique, we cannot offer it as a panacea. Rather, we can only conclude that s o m e training laboratories can provoke changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavior in some individuals. A significant question relative to laboratory training becomes "How much of the learning that may occur in a laboratory is
3. Dorothy Stock, "A Survey of Research on T-Groups," in Leland Bradford, Jack Gibb, and Kenneth Beene, T-group Theory and Laboratory Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964); Robert J. House, 'or-group Education and Leadership Effectiveness: a Review of the Empiric Literature and a Critical Evaluation," Personnel Psychology, XX (Spring, 1967), pp. 1-32; Marvin Dunnette and John Campbell, "Laboratory Education: Impact on People and Organizations," Industrial Relations, V H I (October, 1968), pp. 1-27. 4. Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964).
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
transferred b y the participants and continued in their on-the-job behavior?" Some real d o u b t exists as to the degree to which learning transferability occurs and becomes a part of the participant's behavioral responses. Sheldon Davis vividly highlights this problem with his statement: You've got to keep it in context. Hundreds of companies are sending executives off-site to labs but are not following up. So what happens? Say a man has a good experience. He comes back to the job full of new values--and sits down in the same crummy atmosphere he left a week before. He may be changed, but his environment isn't. How can he practice confrontation with a boss and a secretary and colleagues who don't even know what it's all about? In a few weeks he's either completely dazed or has reverted, in self-defense, to the old ways.s A number of behavioral scientists have reached similar conclusions. While indicating that laboratory training may induce some individual change, they suggest that any changes in knowledge, skills, and attitudes are more likely to be transferred into lasting behavioral changes on the j o b with resulting increased organizational effectiveness if "family groups,',' or actual work groups, attend the same laboratory than if an individual attends a "stranger" laboratory. The thrust of the proposition is that individuals who participate in laboratory training with individuals from other organizations may be encouraged to experiment with new behavior and to change some of their opinions and attitudes. However, when they return to their normal work environments, they find that their new opinions, attitudes, and behaviors are dissonant with the work group norms. Since the work group is the primary reference group f o r workrelated behavior, these participants gradually change their opinions, attitudes, and behavior until they are once again consonant with the group norms. At this point, any change induced b y the laboratory training has faded out. In contrast, the assumption is made that
5. Sheldon Davis, quoted in John Poppy, "New Era in Industry: It's OK to Cry in the Office," Look [July 9, 1968).
AUGUST, 1971
when all members of a work group participate in a training laboratory as an intact or family group, their opinions, attitudes, and behavior change more or less uniformly, and they begin developing new patterns of interpersonal relationships. When they return to their j o b environment, all members will have adopted the new opinions and attitudes, and they will provide reference group support for each other. In addition, they will continue to develop and implement new methods of group functioning. Thus, they are able to improve the process of group interaction and work together more effectively in solving problems and making decisions. ONE L A B O R A T O R Y EXPERIMENT Inasmuch as the authors have been involved with the application of laboratory training techniques within business organizations, a series of studies has been initiated to test many of the commonly held assumptions about laboratory training. One of these research projects provides additional insight into family group training. Specifically, the study was designed to determine if participation in laboratory training as a family group has greater impact upon work group effectiveness than does the condition of having group members participate in stranger group training. In addition, since laboratory training is used in business to improve the leadership effectiveness of executives, a second objective of the research was to determine if participation in laboratory training has an impact on the leadership style and behavior of formal leaders of work groups. In this research, an experiment was designed utilizing seniors and graduate students from a major university. These students participated in a general management business simulation as a part of a business policy course taken during their final quarter on campus. This simulation was adopted as the experimental task.
89
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
The choice of laboratory simulation experience, rather than a field study using executives in normal work groups, was important in this study. Inasmuch as an attempt was being made to determine the impact of laboratory training on work group effectiveness, it was essential to obtain a tangible measure of actual group productivity. It is well-known that it is very difficult to establish a tangible measure of the productivity of an actual executive work group. Management simulations, however, have been used as experimental tasks in research on work group productivity with some success. 6
The Setting for the Study
90
General Business Management Simulation is a management business game which requires each participating work group to make policy level decisions in the operation of a simulated company. 7 Each simulation company must make decisions regarding product price, marketing expenditures, quantity of product produced, expenditures for research and development, sources of long- and short-term financing, necessary market research information, and other important operating variables. Each simulated company's decisions, in relation to those of other companies, determine the level of sales and profitability achieved by the company. Each decision period represents a quarter of a year. The games generally last for three to four simulated years. Such a simulation provides a realistic 6. Samuel Deep, Bernard Bass, and James Vaughan, "Some Effects on Business Games of Previous Quasi-T-group Affiliation," Journal of Applied Psychology, LI (October, 1967), pp. 426-31; Norman Frederiksen, "Validation of a Simulation Technique," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, I (1966), pp. 87-109;John E. Stinson and E. T. Hellebrandt, '~3roup Cohesiveness, Productivity and Strength of Formal Leadership," The Journal of Social Psychology, in press. 7. E. T. Hellebrandt and John E. Stinson, The General Business Management Simulation (Athens, Ohio: FoUett Book Company, 1965).
setting for research on executive work group functioning. 8 Participants experience such phenomena as having to live with good and bad decisions, and having to meet unanticipated crises common to all operating executives. The groups have numerous sources of information which can be used to guide their decisions. They receive feedback on the results of previous decisions, which can be analyzed to provide guidance for future decisions. The members tend to become differentiated and specialized in their actions and their points of view. Conflicts arise and the group must function effectively to obtain maximum use of these resources. Of particular importance to this study are existing objective measures of the effectiveness of group functioning and group decision making.
The Design of the Study The seventy-five participants in the study were randomly assigned to fifteen General Business Management Simulation Companies. Participants were told that they would participate in the simulation for three and one-half simulation years, fourteen decision periods. They were also told that they would receive grades based on their simulated company's profitability and increase in stock price. This was done to enhance the participants' normal adoption of profit maximization goals. One participant from each company was randomly selected and appointed pr.esident of the company. He was given total responsibility for work accomplishment and goal attainment for his group. The simulation coordinator communicated with the group only through the president, providing him with all procedures regarding group operation. These actions were taken to enhance the
8. Norman Frederiksen, "Validation of a Simulation Technique," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, I (1966), p. 87-109.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
perception of the president as the formal leader of the group exercising formal authority over group members. At the end of one simulation year (four decision periods), the fifteen companies were broken into three groups, two experimental and one control. The companies in the groups were matched on the basis of accumulated gross profit during the first simulation year. Five of the companies participated in the laboratory training as family groups. Members of five other companies participated in stranger group training with members of other work groups. The remaining five companies acted as a control group and received no training. The first simulation year provided the groups with six to e~ght hours of intense participation together. While it is not reasonable to assume that the family groups had developed the strong social structure of a normal work group in that period of time, observation indicated that the groups had begun to develop structures, norms, and standards of operation. Further, the groups had started to differentiate for task accomplishment and develop norms of integration for the resolution of internal conflicts. Thus the family groups had taken on many of the characteristics of a normal work group before participating in laboratory training. The training laboratory used was a two-day instrumented laboratory, similar in design to Blake's Managerial Grid Seminars. The focus in the laboratory was task oriented rather than ego oriented. The laboratory was designed to improve the individual's effectiveness in interpersonal relationships and facilitate work group effectiveness. In addition, it encouraged the participants to adopt a leadership style that strongly emphasized both consideration for others and work group task accomplishment. The laboratory consisted of both theory sessions and T-group meetings. The theory sessions were distributed throughout the two-day laboratory. The learning pattern in the laboratory T-groups was as follows:
AUGUST, 1971
1. I n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s were to c o m p l e t e a p r e d e s i g n e d task. 2. T h e T - g r o u p s were to m e e t and, u n d e r t i g h t t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s , c o m p l e t e t h e same task. T h e T-groups w e r e e n c o u r a g e d to r e a c h c o n s e n s u s r a t h e r t h a n c o m p r o m i s e s o l u t i o n s to t h e i r tasks. 3. A s c h o o l s o l u t i o n to t h e task was p r o v i d e d b y the t r a i n e r a n d individuals, a n d groups s c o r e d t h e i r s o l u t i o n s to t h e task. T h e i r scores were c o m p a r e d to t h o s e o f o t h e r individuals a n d o t h e r T-groups in t h e laboratory. 4. T h e T-group t h e n m e t to evaluate its effectiveness as a g r o u p w o r k i n g to solve p r o b l e m s a n d m a k e decisions.
This pattern was repeated three times during the laboratory. It clearly emphasized work group functioning and should have helped the T-groups increase their effectiveness in work group functioning. As a final activity in the laboratory, all participants received feedback from the other members of their T-group regarding their behavior in the group and the leadership style they displayed. There was little evaluative component in the feedback; it Was simply a "this is the way we perceive your behavior" feedback. If the feedback was disconcerting, it was expected that the individual would take steps to alter his behavior. This laboratory design has been used with numerous executive groups and normally has been enthusiastically received. Following the laboratory, all simulation companies completed two and one-half additional years o f operations. The participants who attended stranger group training rejoined their original simulation companies for the completion of the exercise. Measures of the leadership style o f the president of each simulation company and of the cohesiveness of the company were taken immediately prior to the laboratory training and a second time at the conclusion of the simulation experience. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire was used to measure leadership style. 9 The work group cohesiveness subscale of the Work Group
9. Andrew W. Halpin, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau o f Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957).
91
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
The Impact of Laboratory Training Upon Simulation Company Operations* FamilyTrained Companies Average a c c u m u l a t e d p r o f i t Average increase in stock price Average increase in cohesiveness Average increase in leader=initiating structure behavior Average increase in l e a d e r - c o n c e n t r a t i o n behavior
StrangerTrained Companies
Control Companies
$186,600t $1/8t .349t~
$445,380 $5 3 / 4 , --1.39~
$440,080t $10 1 / 4 t --1.484t
--5,304t
--3.8261[
3.17tit
--3.41
--3.096
--.91
*Mean increases for dependent variables are provided only for comparison purposes. The Mann-Whitney U was used as the test of statistical significance. tDifference between family-trained companies and control companies statistically significant (p(U) = . 111 ). a~l)ifference between family-trained companies and stranger-trained companies statistically significant (p(U) = .111 ), [[ Difference between stranger-trained companies and control companies statistically significant (p(U) = .111).
92
Many of the findings of this study are in contrast to popular-opinion in the area. The accompanying table displays a summary of the results. Measures of work group effectiveness, accumulated profit, and increase in stock price show that participation in laboratory training as a family group did n o t contribute more to organizational effectiveness than did stranger group training. Rather, those companies who had participated in family group training performed significantly less well than did either the stranger-trained group
or the control group. As was expected, there was a greater increase in group cohesiveness in the family-trained groups than in either stranger-trained groups or control groups. The table also reveals that formal leaders of both family- and stranger-trained groups decreased in initiating structure or taskoriented leader behavior after the laboratory, while control group formal leaders increased their task-oriented behavior. Moreover, the formal leaders of family- and stranger-trained groups decreased more in considerate behavior than did control group formal leaders. The findings of this study indicate that participation in laboratory training as a family group may be dysfunctional to organization effectiveness. The significant question b e comes--why ? As was noted earlier, family-trained groups increased significantly more than stranger or control groups in group cohesiveness. Stogdill has proposed that there is an inverse relationship between cohesiveness and productivity: as group cohesiveness increases, productivity decreases. 11 In his investigation,
10. Ralph M. Stogdill, Managers, Employees, and Organizations (Monograph No. 125; Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, 1965).
11. Ralph M. Stogdill, "A Behavioral Model of Organization," paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, 1969, Washington, D.C.
Description Questionnaire was used as a measure of Cohesiveness.10 At the conclusion of the simulation, the accumulated profit for the last two and one-half years, the simulation operation following the laboratory training, and the increase in stock prices for the same time period were computed for each company.
WHAT THE STUDY REVEALED
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
he found that if group members devote more of their efforts to developing and maintaining a cohesive work group, they have less time and effort to spend in productive activity and interaction. In the present research, it seems reasonable to assume that the participants had a limited a m o u n t of time to devote to the simulation; as more time was devoted to improving interpersonal relationships, less was available for productive activities. We can speculate that the T-groups in the laboratory did develop standards of operation and norms of behavior during the laboratory, and that members of the T-groups developed satisfying interpersonal relationships with one another and desired to continue these associations. Further, it seems that the family-trained groups were able to transfer these norms back to their ongoing, work group activities. Member expectation of support from other group members was high, and much of their behavior was directed toward maintaining the established interpersonal relationships. Members of stranger-trained groups could not expect strong support from other group members. The patterns of behavior they developed in the laboratory could not be directly transferred to their work groups because of variations in the norms established in their various T-groups. Thus, as stranger-trained groups restructured into their simulation companies, conflicts developed. This analysis suggests that the transfer of the effects of laboratory training was facilitated b y participation in the training as a family group. But it also indicates that partici-
pation in laboratory training, even though the training was strongly task oriented, did not help participants learn to work together more productively. Rather it helped them develop more satisfying and enjoyable interpersonal relationships. In addition, it seems that the laboratory training did not encourage the strong formal leadership necessary for productive group action. Formal leaders that participated in the
AUGUST, 1971
laboratory training, in either family or stranger groups, decreased significantly in both task-oriented and relationships-oriented leader behavior-they abdicated the leadership ro le.
Throughout the training laboratory, there was considerable emphasis on developing consensus in decision making. Compromise and one-man decisions were discouraged. Rather, T-group participants were encouraged to ensure that all points of view were heard and thoroughly discussed, that all members contributed to the decisions as much as possible, and that the groups arrived at a consensus on their decisions. It is probable that this concentration on participation and consensus encouraged formal leaders to reduce the strength of their leadership. Rather than provide organizational structure and direction to group activities, the formal leaders were encouraged to abdicate leadership and to allow the group to function as a unit with little differentiation of activities and no clear development of control mechanisms over m e m b e r performance. In essence, the group moved toward a laissez-faire leadership pattern. Thus, in family-trained groups there was a decrease in strength of formal leadership, an increase in cohesiveness, and a lower level of productivity. This may be a satisfying social environment, b u t it is not an effective work group. In stranger-trained groups there was a decrease in strength of formal leadership, an increase in conflict, and a higher level of productivity. This provides a somewhat less satisfying social environment, b u t will less effort required for social facilitation more time and effort are available to devote to task accomplishment. Moreover, with higher levels of conflict present in the group, member-tomember monitoring of activities provides some of the necessary control functions abdicated b y the decrease in the formal leadership pattern.
93
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
IMPLICATIONS FOR EXECUTIVES
94
It is recognized that the findings from the present research can be generalized only to a limited extent. The findings are challenging, however, and suggest significant implications for executive users of laboratory training. Schein and Bennis have noted that one of the primary "meta-goals" of laboratory training is democracy. They indicate that the participants are encouraged to collaborate, to work together, and to achieve a maximum degree of participation. 12 A number of well-known behavioral scientists have encouraged the use of participative management. They propose that participation contributes to both greater productivity and greater member satisfaction. But come empiric evidence questions that assumption. Stogdill's research, mentioned earlier, indicates that participation can lead to group cohesiveness, b u t cohesiveness and participation are, in general, negatively related to productivity. Another recently completed study directed b y the senior author emphasizes this p o i n t J 3 A field experiment was conducted to determine the effects of participation on morale and productivity in a setting which eliminated the possibility of any economic incentive. The findings were clear. A high degree of participation did lead to higher morale, but productivity did not increase proportionately. The findings in the present research indicate that laboratory training did indeed encourage collaboration and participationperhaps participation to a detrimental extent. Further, family-group training supported the transfer of this high degree of participation to ongoing work group functioning. Work groups increased in cohesiveness, became more group oriented, and directed their efforts toward
obtaining greater social satisfaction from the group but at the expense of productivity. This suggests for the potential executive user that it may be appropriate to use laboratory training to cure social ills, but that it should n o t necessarily be used with the expectation that it will contribute to increased productivity. If an organization is faced with high rates of absenteeism and turnover, strikes, and general employee discontent, family group participation in laboratory training may be of benefit to that organization. Those responsible may decide to make some sacrifice in work group productivity in order to reduce the costs associated with employee discontent. The impact of laboratory training upon leadership may be of even greater concern. The importance of effective leadership in an organization is difficult to overstate. As Hersey and Blanchard have noted, "The successful organization has one major attribute that sets it apart from unsuccessful organizations: dynamic and effective leadership."14 Most scholars agree that there is no ideal leadership style. A number, however, indicate that a style which emphasizes both high concern for task accomplishment by t h e group and high concern for the maintenance of satisfying relationships between group members is generally effective in most situations in American business. Some of these same scholars have encouraged the use of laboratory training as a technique to train leaders in the effective use of their leadership style. Although laboratory training has been utilized as a leadership training technique, there has been limited •study of its impact on leadership style. There seems to be an implicit assumption that participants in a laboratory learn about their own behavior and its impact upon others and learn about interpersonal relationships, and
12. Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods (New York: J o h n Wiley and Sons, 1965). 13. Reed M. PoweU and J o h n L. Schlacter, "Participative Management-a Panacea?" Academy of Management Journal XIV 0 u n e , 1971), pp. 165-73.
14. Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior (Engtewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1969).
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
that this learning enhances their effectiveness as formal leaders. In fact, this assumption has not been clearly supported by empirical research. Miles, in a study of thirty-four elementary school principals who attended a two-week stranger laboratory, found no change in the leadership style they employed i n their schools after they returned from the laboratory. Friedlander studied thirty-one business executives who participated in family group laboratory training. He found that mutual influence among group members and personal involvement increased significantly, but group members perceived that their leaders became less approachable. 1 s The present study questions the assumption to an even greater extent. There was a significant change in leadership style after the
15. Matthew Miles, "Changes During and Following Laboratory Training," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, I (July, 1965), pp. 215-42. Frank Friedlander, "The Impact of Organizational Training Laboratories Upon the Effectiveness and Interaction of Ongoing Work Groups," Personnel Psychology, XX (1967), pp. 289-307.
AUGUST, 1971
laboratory training. The formal leaders tended to abdicate their \ leadership role, and their groups evidenced leaderless characteristics. It must be suspected that laboratory training may not be the effective leadership training technique that has been implied. In fact, the formal leaders may reduce the strength of their leadership initiative and depend upon group pressures for direction and control of group activities. Thus, the executive who perceives a need for strong formal leadership in his organization may well think twice before encouraging members of his management team to participate in laboratory training. It should not be concluded on the basis of this study that laboratory training is without value to executives and organizations. But, the evidence presented here should lead the executive user of laboratory training to evaluate carefully the potential value of any laboratory training course offered to him for use in his organization as a vehicle for stimulating the development of either leadership or productivity.
95
Mr. Powell is associate dean, director of the Division o f Research, and a faculty member in management sciences at The Ohio State University. Mr. Stinson is a faculty member in organization behavior at Ohio State. The research findings described in this article were presented to members o f the Academy o f Management annual meeting in Atlanta in August.
The authors have conducted a series o f studies to test some o f the commonly held assumptions about laboratory training. Their study was designed to determine if participation in such training as a "family group" has greater impact than "stranger group" training, and if there was an impact on leadership style and behavior. Many o f the findings are in contrast to popular opinion. The findings indicate that participation in laboratory training may be dysfunctional to organization effectiveness, and that formal leaders who participated in either group tended to abdicate the leadership role. This suggests that it may be appropriate to use laboratory training to cure social problems, but not necessarily to increase productivity.
In recent years, the laboratory approach to training has caught the interest and imagination of both academicians and executives. Through well-designed and illustrated brochures, proponents of this approach
AUGUST, 1971
have advocated that laboratory training can help to make administrators more aware of their own attitudes and behavior, more effective in interpersonal relationships, more efficient in organizational functioning, and more adept in expressing their capacities for leadership. The readers of such brochures may well conclude that, through laboratory training, they have found the answer to their organizational and interpersonal problems. Upon careful review, however, the claims of those advocating laboratory training must be confusing to most executives. Even those who have been intimately involved in various types of laboratory training find it difficult to define and classify the different offerings. It is recognized that some types of laboratory training are directed primarily toward individual recreation, while others have as their goals changes in behavior which are designed to improve the effectiveness of managers in organizations. The questions often raised are: "How valuable are laboratory training techniques to the typical executive? . . . . Can laboratory training be used to increase the leadership effectiveness of executives? . . . . Can it be utilized to increase the performance of work
87
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
groups and organizations?" These and related questions formed the basis for the investigation reported in this article.
TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS
88
Some types of laboratory training have little organizational value. Dunnette, for example, points out that some types of laboratory training provide recreational rather than learning experiences. He notes, "What happens in many sensitivity training groups sounds about the same way I feel when I ski down a mountain-it's an exhilarating, recreational kind of experience, but probably nothing more.'1 Furthermore, the learning that may occur in laboratories can be counter to many organizational values. Argyris quotes one graduate of encounter groups: "My only criterion of how I feel comes from within. I'm much less concerned with individuals who cannot fulfill my gratification." This brings up the question of whether such feelings serve to promote more effective interpersonal relationships within an organization. Odiorne goes even further in his criticism. He argues that some laboratory training may be damaging to the individual in his personal life, as well as his work life. 2 There has been considerable research relative to the results of organizationally oriented laboratory training. While this body of research has not always been methodologically rigorous or conclusive, some studies have established the basis for a number of interesting insights. Reviews of the investigations and analytical commentary by Stock, House, Dunnette, and Campbell provide the following conclusions:
1. Marvin Dunnette, "Should Your People Take Sensitivity Training," Innovation (September, 1970), pp. 42-5fi. 2. Chris Argyris, "On the Future of Laboratory Education," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, III (April, 1967), pp. 153-83. George Odiome, "The Trouble with Sensitivity Training," Training Directors Journal, XVII (October, 1963), pp. 9-20.
L a b o r a t o r y training will n o t cause personality change, b u t it m a y have some impact u p o n participant attitudes. Some participants b e c o m e m o r e o p e n - m i n d e d and m o r e sensitive to the feelings and behavior of others and develop a different p e r c e p t i o n of " s e l f " and their o w n behavior. L a b o r a t o r y training m a y have some impact u p o n participant behavior, at least for the d u r a t i o n of the laboratory. Some participants display more consideration for others, less d e p e n d e n c e on others, b e t t e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n through m o r e adequate and objective listening, and more ability to diagnose gToup p r o b l e m s and to w o r k with others to solve the problems. 3
Research does not show, however, that any or all of these changes occur in all participants attending the laboratories. The laboratories differ in design and objectives and thus may have different outcomes. Some are designed primarily to produce changes in attitudes. Examples of this are laboratories focusing upon black-white confrontations. Other laboratories attempt to influence participants' leadership and managerial styles; Blake's Managerial Grid Seminars are examples. 4 It has als0 been demonstrated that individual participants differ in their abilities to learn through laboratory training techniques. Generally, those who have relatively strong egos and low defense mechanisms are best equipped to learn. While it can be concluded that laboratory training has some value as an educational technique, we cannot offer it as a panacea. Rather, we can only conclude that s o m e training laboratories can provoke changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavior in some individuals. A significant question relative to laboratory training becomes "How much of the learning that may occur in a laboratory is
3. Dorothy Stock, "A Survey of Research on T-Groups," in Leland Bradford, Jack Gibb, and Kenneth Beene, T-group Theory and Laboratory Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964); Robert J. House, 'or-group Education and Leadership Effectiveness: a Review of the Empiric Literature and a Critical Evaluation," Personnel Psychology, XX (Spring, 1967), pp. 1-32; Marvin Dunnette and John Campbell, "Laboratory Education: Impact on People and Organizations," Industrial Relations, V H I (October, 1968), pp. 1-27. 4. Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964).
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
transferred b y the participants and continued in their on-the-job behavior?" Some real d o u b t exists as to the degree to which learning transferability occurs and becomes a part of the participant's behavioral responses. Sheldon Davis vividly highlights this problem with his statement: You've got to keep it in context. Hundreds of companies are sending executives off-site to labs but are not following up. So what happens? Say a man has a good experience. He comes back to the job full of new values--and sits down in the same crummy atmosphere he left a week before. He may be changed, but his environment isn't. How can he practice confrontation with a boss and a secretary and colleagues who don't even know what it's all about? In a few weeks he's either completely dazed or has reverted, in self-defense, to the old ways.s A number of behavioral scientists have reached similar conclusions. While indicating that laboratory training may induce some individual change, they suggest that any changes in knowledge, skills, and attitudes are more likely to be transferred into lasting behavioral changes on the j o b with resulting increased organizational effectiveness if "family groups,',' or actual work groups, attend the same laboratory than if an individual attends a "stranger" laboratory. The thrust of the proposition is that individuals who participate in laboratory training with individuals from other organizations may be encouraged to experiment with new behavior and to change some of their opinions and attitudes. However, when they return to their normal work environments, they find that their new opinions, attitudes, and behaviors are dissonant with the work group norms. Since the work group is the primary reference group f o r workrelated behavior, these participants gradually change their opinions, attitudes, and behavior until they are once again consonant with the group norms. At this point, any change induced b y the laboratory training has faded out. In contrast, the assumption is made that
5. Sheldon Davis, quoted in John Poppy, "New Era in Industry: It's OK to Cry in the Office," Look [July 9, 1968).
AUGUST, 1971
when all members of a work group participate in a training laboratory as an intact or family group, their opinions, attitudes, and behavior change more or less uniformly, and they begin developing new patterns of interpersonal relationships. When they return to their j o b environment, all members will have adopted the new opinions and attitudes, and they will provide reference group support for each other. In addition, they will continue to develop and implement new methods of group functioning. Thus, they are able to improve the process of group interaction and work together more effectively in solving problems and making decisions. ONE L A B O R A T O R Y EXPERIMENT Inasmuch as the authors have been involved with the application of laboratory training techniques within business organizations, a series of studies has been initiated to test many of the commonly held assumptions about laboratory training. One of these research projects provides additional insight into family group training. Specifically, the study was designed to determine if participation in laboratory training as a family group has greater impact upon work group effectiveness than does the condition of having group members participate in stranger group training. In addition, since laboratory training is used in business to improve the leadership effectiveness of executives, a second objective of the research was to determine if participation in laboratory training has an impact on the leadership style and behavior of formal leaders of work groups. In this research, an experiment was designed utilizing seniors and graduate students from a major university. These students participated in a general management business simulation as a part of a business policy course taken during their final quarter on campus. This simulation was adopted as the experimental task.
89
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
The choice of laboratory simulation experience, rather than a field study using executives in normal work groups, was important in this study. Inasmuch as an attempt was being made to determine the impact of laboratory training on work group effectiveness, it was essential to obtain a tangible measure of actual group productivity. It is well-known that it is very difficult to establish a tangible measure of the productivity of an actual executive work group. Management simulations, however, have been used as experimental tasks in research on work group productivity with some success. 6
The Setting for the Study
90
General Business Management Simulation is a management business game which requires each participating work group to make policy level decisions in the operation of a simulated company. 7 Each simulation company must make decisions regarding product price, marketing expenditures, quantity of product produced, expenditures for research and development, sources of long- and short-term financing, necessary market research information, and other important operating variables. Each simulated company's decisions, in relation to those of other companies, determine the level of sales and profitability achieved by the company. Each decision period represents a quarter of a year. The games generally last for three to four simulated years. Such a simulation provides a realistic 6. Samuel Deep, Bernard Bass, and James Vaughan, "Some Effects on Business Games of Previous Quasi-T-group Affiliation," Journal of Applied Psychology, LI (October, 1967), pp. 426-31; Norman Frederiksen, "Validation of a Simulation Technique," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, I (1966), pp. 87-109;John E. Stinson and E. T. Hellebrandt, '~3roup Cohesiveness, Productivity and Strength of Formal Leadership," The Journal of Social Psychology, in press. 7. E. T. Hellebrandt and John E. Stinson, The General Business Management Simulation (Athens, Ohio: FoUett Book Company, 1965).
setting for research on executive work group functioning. 8 Participants experience such phenomena as having to live with good and bad decisions, and having to meet unanticipated crises common to all operating executives. The groups have numerous sources of information which can be used to guide their decisions. They receive feedback on the results of previous decisions, which can be analyzed to provide guidance for future decisions. The members tend to become differentiated and specialized in their actions and their points of view. Conflicts arise and the group must function effectively to obtain maximum use of these resources. Of particular importance to this study are existing objective measures of the effectiveness of group functioning and group decision making.
The Design of the Study The seventy-five participants in the study were randomly assigned to fifteen General Business Management Simulation Companies. Participants were told that they would participate in the simulation for three and one-half simulation years, fourteen decision periods. They were also told that they would receive grades based on their simulated company's profitability and increase in stock price. This was done to enhance the participants' normal adoption of profit maximization goals. One participant from each company was randomly selected and appointed pr.esident of the company. He was given total responsibility for work accomplishment and goal attainment for his group. The simulation coordinator communicated with the group only through the president, providing him with all procedures regarding group operation. These actions were taken to enhance the
8. Norman Frederiksen, "Validation of a Simulation Technique," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, I (1966), p. 87-109.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
perception of the president as the formal leader of the group exercising formal authority over group members. At the end of one simulation year (four decision periods), the fifteen companies were broken into three groups, two experimental and one control. The companies in the groups were matched on the basis of accumulated gross profit during the first simulation year. Five of the companies participated in the laboratory training as family groups. Members of five other companies participated in stranger group training with members of other work groups. The remaining five companies acted as a control group and received no training. The first simulation year provided the groups with six to e~ght hours of intense participation together. While it is not reasonable to assume that the family groups had developed the strong social structure of a normal work group in that period of time, observation indicated that the groups had begun to develop structures, norms, and standards of operation. Further, the groups had started to differentiate for task accomplishment and develop norms of integration for the resolution of internal conflicts. Thus the family groups had taken on many of the characteristics of a normal work group before participating in laboratory training. The training laboratory used was a two-day instrumented laboratory, similar in design to Blake's Managerial Grid Seminars. The focus in the laboratory was task oriented rather than ego oriented. The laboratory was designed to improve the individual's effectiveness in interpersonal relationships and facilitate work group effectiveness. In addition, it encouraged the participants to adopt a leadership style that strongly emphasized both consideration for others and work group task accomplishment. The laboratory consisted of both theory sessions and T-group meetings. The theory sessions were distributed throughout the two-day laboratory. The learning pattern in the laboratory T-groups was as follows:
AUGUST, 1971
1. I n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s were to c o m p l e t e a p r e d e s i g n e d task. 2. T h e T - g r o u p s were to m e e t and, u n d e r t i g h t t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s , c o m p l e t e t h e same task. T h e T-groups w e r e e n c o u r a g e d to r e a c h c o n s e n s u s r a t h e r t h a n c o m p r o m i s e s o l u t i o n s to t h e i r tasks. 3. A s c h o o l s o l u t i o n to t h e task was p r o v i d e d b y the t r a i n e r a n d individuals, a n d groups s c o r e d t h e i r s o l u t i o n s to t h e task. T h e i r scores were c o m p a r e d to t h o s e o f o t h e r individuals a n d o t h e r T-groups in t h e laboratory. 4. T h e T-group t h e n m e t to evaluate its effectiveness as a g r o u p w o r k i n g to solve p r o b l e m s a n d m a k e decisions.
This pattern was repeated three times during the laboratory. It clearly emphasized work group functioning and should have helped the T-groups increase their effectiveness in work group functioning. As a final activity in the laboratory, all participants received feedback from the other members of their T-group regarding their behavior in the group and the leadership style they displayed. There was little evaluative component in the feedback; it Was simply a "this is the way we perceive your behavior" feedback. If the feedback was disconcerting, it was expected that the individual would take steps to alter his behavior. This laboratory design has been used with numerous executive groups and normally has been enthusiastically received. Following the laboratory, all simulation companies completed two and one-half additional years o f operations. The participants who attended stranger group training rejoined their original simulation companies for the completion of the exercise. Measures of the leadership style o f the president of each simulation company and of the cohesiveness of the company were taken immediately prior to the laboratory training and a second time at the conclusion of the simulation experience. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire was used to measure leadership style. 9 The work group cohesiveness subscale of the Work Group
9. Andrew W. Halpin, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau o f Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957).
91
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
The Impact of Laboratory Training Upon Simulation Company Operations* FamilyTrained Companies Average a c c u m u l a t e d p r o f i t Average increase in stock price Average increase in cohesiveness Average increase in leader=initiating structure behavior Average increase in l e a d e r - c o n c e n t r a t i o n behavior
StrangerTrained Companies
Control Companies
$186,600t $1/8t .349t~
$445,380 $5 3 / 4 , --1.39~
$440,080t $10 1 / 4 t --1.484t
--5,304t
--3.8261[
3.17tit
--3.41
--3.096
--.91
*Mean increases for dependent variables are provided only for comparison purposes. The Mann-Whitney U was used as the test of statistical significance. tDifference between family-trained companies and control companies statistically significant (p(U) = . 111 ). a~l)ifference between family-trained companies and stranger-trained companies statistically significant (p(U) = .111 ), [[ Difference between stranger-trained companies and control companies statistically significant (p(U) = .111).
92
Many of the findings of this study are in contrast to popular-opinion in the area. The accompanying table displays a summary of the results. Measures of work group effectiveness, accumulated profit, and increase in stock price show that participation in laboratory training as a family group did n o t contribute more to organizational effectiveness than did stranger group training. Rather, those companies who had participated in family group training performed significantly less well than did either the stranger-trained group
or the control group. As was expected, there was a greater increase in group cohesiveness in the family-trained groups than in either stranger-trained groups or control groups. The table also reveals that formal leaders of both family- and stranger-trained groups decreased in initiating structure or taskoriented leader behavior after the laboratory, while control group formal leaders increased their task-oriented behavior. Moreover, the formal leaders of family- and stranger-trained groups decreased more in considerate behavior than did control group formal leaders. The findings of this study indicate that participation in laboratory training as a family group may be dysfunctional to organization effectiveness. The significant question b e comes--why ? As was noted earlier, family-trained groups increased significantly more than stranger or control groups in group cohesiveness. Stogdill has proposed that there is an inverse relationship between cohesiveness and productivity: as group cohesiveness increases, productivity decreases. 11 In his investigation,
10. Ralph M. Stogdill, Managers, Employees, and Organizations (Monograph No. 125; Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, 1965).
11. Ralph M. Stogdill, "A Behavioral Model of Organization," paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, 1969, Washington, D.C.
Description Questionnaire was used as a measure of Cohesiveness.10 At the conclusion of the simulation, the accumulated profit for the last two and one-half years, the simulation operation following the laboratory training, and the increase in stock prices for the same time period were computed for each company.
WHAT THE STUDY REVEALED
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
he found that if group members devote more of their efforts to developing and maintaining a cohesive work group, they have less time and effort to spend in productive activity and interaction. In the present research, it seems reasonable to assume that the participants had a limited a m o u n t of time to devote to the simulation; as more time was devoted to improving interpersonal relationships, less was available for productive activities. We can speculate that the T-groups in the laboratory did develop standards of operation and norms of behavior during the laboratory, and that members of the T-groups developed satisfying interpersonal relationships with one another and desired to continue these associations. Further, it seems that the family-trained groups were able to transfer these norms back to their ongoing, work group activities. Member expectation of support from other group members was high, and much of their behavior was directed toward maintaining the established interpersonal relationships. Members of stranger-trained groups could not expect strong support from other group members. The patterns of behavior they developed in the laboratory could not be directly transferred to their work groups because of variations in the norms established in their various T-groups. Thus, as stranger-trained groups restructured into their simulation companies, conflicts developed. This analysis suggests that the transfer of the effects of laboratory training was facilitated b y participation in the training as a family group. But it also indicates that partici-
pation in laboratory training, even though the training was strongly task oriented, did not help participants learn to work together more productively. Rather it helped them develop more satisfying and enjoyable interpersonal relationships. In addition, it seems that the laboratory training did not encourage the strong formal leadership necessary for productive group action. Formal leaders that participated in the
AUGUST, 1971
laboratory training, in either family or stranger groups, decreased significantly in both task-oriented and relationships-oriented leader behavior-they abdicated the leadership ro le.
Throughout the training laboratory, there was considerable emphasis on developing consensus in decision making. Compromise and one-man decisions were discouraged. Rather, T-group participants were encouraged to ensure that all points of view were heard and thoroughly discussed, that all members contributed to the decisions as much as possible, and that the groups arrived at a consensus on their decisions. It is probable that this concentration on participation and consensus encouraged formal leaders to reduce the strength of their leadership. Rather than provide organizational structure and direction to group activities, the formal leaders were encouraged to abdicate leadership and to allow the group to function as a unit with little differentiation of activities and no clear development of control mechanisms over m e m b e r performance. In essence, the group moved toward a laissez-faire leadership pattern. Thus, in family-trained groups there was a decrease in strength of formal leadership, an increase in cohesiveness, and a lower level of productivity. This may be a satisfying social environment, b u t it is not an effective work group. In stranger-trained groups there was a decrease in strength of formal leadership, an increase in conflict, and a higher level of productivity. This provides a somewhat less satisfying social environment, b u t will less effort required for social facilitation more time and effort are available to devote to task accomplishment. Moreover, with higher levels of conflict present in the group, member-tomember monitoring of activities provides some of the necessary control functions abdicated b y the decrease in the formal leadership pattern.
93
REED M. POWELL AND JOHN F. STINSON
IMPLICATIONS FOR EXECUTIVES
94
It is recognized that the findings from the present research can be generalized only to a limited extent. The findings are challenging, however, and suggest significant implications for executive users of laboratory training. Schein and Bennis have noted that one of the primary "meta-goals" of laboratory training is democracy. They indicate that the participants are encouraged to collaborate, to work together, and to achieve a maximum degree of participation. 12 A number of well-known behavioral scientists have encouraged the use of participative management. They propose that participation contributes to both greater productivity and greater member satisfaction. But come empiric evidence questions that assumption. Stogdill's research, mentioned earlier, indicates that participation can lead to group cohesiveness, b u t cohesiveness and participation are, in general, negatively related to productivity. Another recently completed study directed b y the senior author emphasizes this p o i n t J 3 A field experiment was conducted to determine the effects of participation on morale and productivity in a setting which eliminated the possibility of any economic incentive. The findings were clear. A high degree of participation did lead to higher morale, but productivity did not increase proportionately. The findings in the present research indicate that laboratory training did indeed encourage collaboration and participationperhaps participation to a detrimental extent. Further, family-group training supported the transfer of this high degree of participation to ongoing work group functioning. Work groups increased in cohesiveness, became more group oriented, and directed their efforts toward
obtaining greater social satisfaction from the group but at the expense of productivity. This suggests for the potential executive user that it may be appropriate to use laboratory training to cure social ills, but that it should n o t necessarily be used with the expectation that it will contribute to increased productivity. If an organization is faced with high rates of absenteeism and turnover, strikes, and general employee discontent, family group participation in laboratory training may be of benefit to that organization. Those responsible may decide to make some sacrifice in work group productivity in order to reduce the costs associated with employee discontent. The impact of laboratory training upon leadership may be of even greater concern. The importance of effective leadership in an organization is difficult to overstate. As Hersey and Blanchard have noted, "The successful organization has one major attribute that sets it apart from unsuccessful organizations: dynamic and effective leadership."14 Most scholars agree that there is no ideal leadership style. A number, however, indicate that a style which emphasizes both high concern for task accomplishment by t h e group and high concern for the maintenance of satisfying relationships between group members is generally effective in most situations in American business. Some of these same scholars have encouraged the use of laboratory training as a technique to train leaders in the effective use of their leadership style. Although laboratory training has been utilized as a leadership training technique, there has been limited •study of its impact on leadership style. There seems to be an implicit assumption that participants in a laboratory learn about their own behavior and its impact upon others and learn about interpersonal relationships, and
12. Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods (New York: J o h n Wiley and Sons, 1965). 13. Reed M. PoweU and J o h n L. Schlacter, "Participative Management-a Panacea?" Academy of Management Journal XIV 0 u n e , 1971), pp. 165-73.
14. Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior (Engtewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1969).
BUSINESS HORIZONS
The Worth of Laboratory Training
that this learning enhances their effectiveness as formal leaders. In fact, this assumption has not been clearly supported by empirical research. Miles, in a study of thirty-four elementary school principals who attended a two-week stranger laboratory, found no change in the leadership style they employed i n their schools after they returned from the laboratory. Friedlander studied thirty-one business executives who participated in family group laboratory training. He found that mutual influence among group members and personal involvement increased significantly, but group members perceived that their leaders became less approachable. 1 s The present study questions the assumption to an even greater extent. There was a significant change in leadership style after the
15. Matthew Miles, "Changes During and Following Laboratory Training," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, I (July, 1965), pp. 215-42. Frank Friedlander, "The Impact of Organizational Training Laboratories Upon the Effectiveness and Interaction of Ongoing Work Groups," Personnel Psychology, XX (1967), pp. 289-307.
AUGUST, 1971
laboratory training. The formal leaders tended to abdicate their \ leadership role, and their groups evidenced leaderless characteristics. It must be suspected that laboratory training may not be the effective leadership training technique that has been implied. In fact, the formal leaders may reduce the strength of their leadership initiative and depend upon group pressures for direction and control of group activities. Thus, the executive who perceives a need for strong formal leadership in his organization may well think twice before encouraging members of his management team to participate in laboratory training. It should not be concluded on the basis of this study that laboratory training is without value to executives and organizations. But, the evidence presented here should lead the executive user of laboratory training to evaluate carefully the potential value of any laboratory training course offered to him for use in his organization as a vehicle for stimulating the development of either leadership or productivity.
95