Page 1 of 8

BUSS 5069 Assignment 2 case study – Team building

1. Describe how you would evaluate if Seagate’s team building effort was worth $9000 per
person? Include details of the metrics you would collect.
(Note * is an example of how to reference the case study as CS. The author of the
article on which the CS is based is Max, S 2006 and you will see the author quoted
in the assignment text as well)
An evaluation of whether Seagate’s team building effort was worth $9000 per person, should utilise
Kirkpatrick’s five-level framework as the basis for analysis (Noe 2017, p. 253). This would require
the collection of reaction responses, cognitive and behaviour outcomes, results and finally the
return on expectations. The key is to collect data which is a valid evaluation of Eco Seagate.

Reaction responses, are Kirkpatrick’s level one evaluation and should be collected from participants
at the conclusion of the training program (Noe 2017, p. 252). An online survey using predominantly
closed questions would be the most efficient method for data collection as there are 200
participants. A couple of open questions would produce rich data, such as reasons for reaction
responses (Moskowitz 2008a, p. 181). The survey should focus on participant perceptions of the
administration process, facilitators and all activities. The Seagate employees self-nominated for the
program, and likely have a pre-existing positive attitude to adventure activities (CS). To overcome
this potential bias in the reaction responses, some questions should focus on the participants’
reactions to the objectives of the program and the usefulness of the sessions in relation to their
work (Moskowitz 2008, p. 151).

Learning or cognitive responses are Kirkpatrick’s level two evaluation outcomes. Knowledge
sessions were presented to participants each morning on “a key attribute of a strong team, such as
trust, healthy conflict, commitment, accountability” (CS*). Therefore, employees should complete
an online assessment of their knowledge of those topics.

Kirkpatrick’s level three evaluation focuses on behaviours and skills. While this evaluation can be
more time consuming, it is a good indicator of transfer of learning to work related situations.
According to Max (CS), CEO Bill Watkins wants staffers in the training to “get involved”, “work
together”, be “open and honest and “ask for help”. As these are the desired behaviour outcomes of
the program, behaviour evaluation should focus on these. People’s self-assessment of their own
 Page 2 of 8

behaviours can be biased, therefore it would be best to gather 360-degree feedback on behaviour
changes from peers and managers (Moskowitz 2008a, p. 181).

To increase the validity of the knowledge, behaviour and skills evaluation it would be a strength to
include a control group and a pre-test and post-test for those metrics (Noe 2017, p. 253). This is a
rigorous evaluation design (Noe 2017, p. 256) and is more time consuming than a simple reaction
evaluation. However, as Eco Seagate is an annual program it is worth the investment.

One of the challenges of completing an evaluation at a results level is that the annual number of
participants in Eco Seagate constitutes less than 0.5% of the total number of employees and they’re
from different regions and roles within the company. To be a valid measure of the program, result
metrics should be linked to Eco Seagate participants and their immediate teams and must be
impacted on by team skills as this was the focus of the program. Employee turnover, employee
satisfaction and accidents would be suitable result metrics (Moskowitz 2008, p. 155). Once again,
using comparison data could increase the validity of conclusions. For example, comparing the
employee turnover data for employees who have and haven’t participated in Eco Seagate.

Return on investment data is referred to as Kirkpatrick’s fifth level of evaluation. The costs are
totalled at $9000 per person for Eco Seagate (CS). However, it is harder to calculate benefits as the
participants in the program aren’t from a specific operational area. An alternative could be to
consider the return on expectations (Noe 2013, p. 243). Max (CS) explains that the Seagate CFO will
“e-mail all staffers in his organization and ask what they’d do differently as a result of Eco Seagate”;
these qualitative responses could be collated and a content analysis completed to evaluate the
return on expectations.

The use of reaction surveys, knowledge assessment, 360-degree behaviour feedback and a return
on expectation assessment are likely to be effective metrics to evaluate Eco Seagate. The use of
data comparison groups and pre-test and post-test data would increase the validity of the
evaluation.
 Page 3 of 8

2. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Seagate’s approach to team building.

Seagate’s use of adventure learning as an approach to team building has strengths and weaknesses.
Its key strength is that adventure training has been shown to improve team skills which is the goal
of Eco Seagate. However, adventure training has far transfer of learning to the workplace and due
to its physical nature can discriminate against certain employees.

A key strength of Seagate’s approach to team building is that adventure learning has been shown to
develop skills in team work. The goal of the program is to “break down barriers and boost
confidence” (CS). Max (CS) described an example of team work that she witnessed on the final day
when one participant had cramp, “his teammates lift his leg over the bike, rub his knotted muscle
and squeeze a pack of sickeningly sweet energy gel into his mouth”. This description suggests that
the program was a success for this group. Noe (2013, p. 297) argues that adventure learning is
effective for the development of group effectiveness, conflict management, risk taking and the
development of team cohesiveness.

There is also evidence that adventure training can reduce or remove hierarchical, emotional and
other barriers that prevent teams from operating effectively in everyday work situations.
Pattanayak (2003, p. 408) found that the use of adventure learning at an executive leadership camp
enhanced junior executives’ morale and reduced the sense of power distance between senior
executives and junior employees. Noe (2013, p. 299) argues that a shared emotional challenge and
experience helps to form a cohesive work team. Therefore, Seagate’s activities such as rappelling
down a cliff forces participants to face fears and physical challenges and builds team cohesiveness
as they support each other.

Thirdly, adventure learning is a highly engaging way to learn; it is fun and all of the participants in
Eco Seagate wanted to participate. This high level of motivation is likely to enhance learning (Noe
2013, p. 125). Adventure learning has been found to be particularly engaging for Millennials. They
like to be challenged, work with people and value fun and flexibility. Barnes, Smith and Constantine
(2012, p. 257) found that trust development as a result of an adventure program transferred to
greater success in team work in the semester course. However, reflection sessions were a key to
the transfer of learning.
 Page 4 of 8

One of the greatest weaknesses in Seagate’s approach to team building is that it doesn’t seem to
initiate explicit reflection of learning. Seagate CEO Bill Watkins said to the participants, “some of
you will learn about teamwork because you have a great team. Some of you will learn because your
team is a disaster” (Max 2006, p. 110). While team skills learnt through Eco Seagate may be
transferable, the situations in which they were learnt aren’t and when back at work, each individual
will need to apply these skills to a new team of individuals who don’t share the Eco Seagate bond.
For each adventure activity a skilled facilitator should lead a debriefing about what happened, what
was learnt and how it relates to each person’s work situation (Noe 2013, p. 298).

A further weakness of Seagate’s approach is a missed opportunity to create communities of

practice. If the teams in Eco Seagate mirrored teams of people who would regularly work together
then greater transfer of learning would likely result. Enhanced teamwork in Eco Seagate would
transfer to enhanced team work on the job (Noe 2013, p. 178).

Finally, Seagate’s strategy lacks inclusivity. Adventure training is physically demanding and risky.
Consequently, people with a disability or health condition may not be able to participate in the
training (Noe 2013, p. 298). Consequently, Seagate’s team building program may not target an
employee who needs to develop team skills.

There is evidence that adventure learning promotes team building. However, Seagate’s approach
lacks effective reflection on learning and discriminates against some employees therefore not
meeting the training needs of all individuals or the company.
 Page 5 of 8

3. Choose a different team training method that might be a better alternative to Seagate’s
approach. Describe the method and discuss why you have chosen it.

While Seagate has committed to the use of adventure learning, an alternative to this approach
would be the use of action learning. While it has been criticised at being time consuming to achieve
a result, the high transfer of learning to work outcomes makes it an effective choice for team
building.

Action learning has been shown to be an effective training method for team building. As a result of
the outcomes of an IBM development program, Tracy (2011, p. 159) concluded that action learning
is good for developing teams, building relationships and creating learning organizations. As Seagate
is similar to IBM in that they are both technology companies it could have similar success at the
development of team building through action learning.

Action learning establishes a team or ‘set’ working on a real issue or project (Elsay & Tse 2007, p.
515). The team could be a group of employees from different divisions or an existing team within
the company. In Eco Seagate participants nominated to be in the program. As action learning is less
physically demanding and hence is more inclusive, employees could be identified to participate in
the program based on a training needs analysis. This would be a strength over Seagate’s approach
where those who most need to develop team skills might not nominate to participate or be able to
physically cope with the demands of adventure training.

The second stage in action learning is formal instruction on action learning and its process
(Christiansen, Prescott & Ball 2014, p. 243). In the case of Seagate’s focus on team work this session
could also include a discussion on effective team building. Christiansen, Prescott and Ball (2014, p.
243) argue that understanding what will happen helps to develop participant’s trust in the learning
process. Formal instruction shouldn’t be a disengaging lecture. Instead, a flipped classroom
approach should be utilised where participants initially complete online learning about the basic
principles and process of action learning. This follows the principles of adult learning, allowing the
participants to engage in the knowledge development when they are self-motivated to do so. (Noe
2013, p. 160) However, participants would then be brought together for a simulation and behaviour
 Page 6 of 8

modelling of the action learning process. This is likely to be engaging as it allows participants to
work together to apply their knowledge.

The next aspect of action learning is the process of discussing, sharing issues, actions and solutions.
It promotes teamwork through collaborative leadership as people listen to each other, pose
questions and offer suggestions (Raelin 2006, 157). This stage can be time consuming (Turner &
Heneberry 2013, p. 61) as it allows for solutions to be posed, applied in practise and then discussed
in the group again before making adjustments if need be. This means that the strength of this
method is a high level of learning transfer as there is the opportunity to apply knowledge,
immediately, to a real work situation (Elsey & Tse 2007, p. 522). As all training programs aim to
achieve high transfer of learning, this would seem to be the key advantage, of action learning over
an adventure learning approach in terms of team building.

The last key aspect of action learning is the opportunity for reflection. There is a debriefing at the
end of each session for participants to reflect on learning, analyse and apply new knowledge
(Mazany, Francis & Sumich 1997, p. 102). This is done in a communal way which can be confronting,
however it is overcoming this that helps to establish trust within the team and can lead members to
share their new knowledge more broadly within the organisation (Sunyoung, Kang, Valencic & Cho
2012, p. 13).

Action learning provides a better option for team building than Seagate’s choice of adventure
learning. It results in high level transfer of learning and as it is more inclusive, it can include all
employees who have a need for training in team building.
 Page 7 of 8

Reference List

Barnes, KJ, Smith, GE & Constantine, M 2012, “You want me to trust you? Using adventure learning
to teach millennials about trust”, Organization management journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 255-267.

Christiansen, A, Prescott, T & Ball, J 2014 “Learning in action: developing safety improvement
capabilities through action learning”, Nurse education today, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 243-247.

Elsey, B & Tse, RC 2007, “Changing the behaviour of traditional bakers in a Chinese multi-family
owned food company through workplace action learning in Hong Kong”, Journal of workplace
learning, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 511-525.

Max, S 2006, “Seagate’s Morale-athon”, Business Week, vol. 1, no. 3978, (April 3), pp. 110-112.
(these are the Case study details so do not need to be included in the reference list)

Mazany, P, Francis, S & Sumich, P 1997, “Evaluating the effectiveness of an outdoor workshop for
team building in an MBA programme”, Team performance management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 97-115.

Moskowitz, M 2008, “Chapter 7: evaluation part 1: how did the training go?”, in Practical guide to
training and development assess, design, deliver and evaluate, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, pp. 145-166.

Moskowitz, M 2008a, “Chapter 8: evaluation part 2: is training adding value?”, in Practical guide to
training and development assess, design, deliver and evaluate, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, pp. 167-186.

Noe, RA 2017, Employee training and development, 7th edn, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.

Pattanayak, B 2003, “Gaining competitive advantage and business success through strategic HRD:
An Indian experience”, Human resource development international, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 405-411.

Raelin, J 2006, “Does action learning promote collaborative leadership?”, Academy of management
learning & education, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 152-168.

Sunyoung, P, Kang, I, Valencic, TR & Cho, Y 2012, “Why are we using action learning and in what
contexts?”, Action learning: research and practice, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4-24.

Tracy, M 2011, “Action learning – an experience working with executives at the IBM corporation”,
Action learning: research and practice, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 159-164.

Turner, A and Heneberry, P 2013, “The impact of action learning: what difference are we making in
the world?”, Action learning: research and practice, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 61-68.
Page 8 of 8