Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Top of Page

 


Team Building Research

This document will define teams and team work, look at the history of team work development and the implications of current theory and practice for the work of human resource developers (HRD).

What is a Team?
The definitions of teams that are found in the literature tackle the term both conceptually and concretely. Conceptually, a team can be viewed as a socially constructed phenomenon or linking mechanism that integrates individuals and organisations (Horvath, Callahan, Croswell & Mukri, 1996). A team's concrete characteristics focus on attributes internal to the team. For example, Dyer (1984) defined a team as having two or more people with a common goal, specific role assignments, and interdependence. Guzzo and Dickson (1996) recognise that work teams function within a larger organisational context and define a work group as:

made up of individuals who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of the tasks they perform as members of a group, who are embedded in one or more larger social systems (e.g., community, organisation), and who perform tasks that affect others (such as customers or co-workers) (pp.308-309).

History of Team Building
The emergence of the team idea can be traced back to the late 1920s and early 1930s with the now classic Hawthorne Studies. These involved a series of research activities designed to examine in-depth what happened to a group of workers under various conditions. After much analysis, the researchers agreed that the most significant factor was the building of a sense of group identity, a feeling of social support and cohesion that came with increased worker interaction. Elton Mayo(1933), one of the original researchers, pointed out certain critical conditions which were identified for developing an effective work team:

  1. The boss (chief observer) had a personal interest in each person's achievements.
  2. He took pride in the record of the group.
  3. He helped the group work together to set its own conditions of work.
  4. He faithfully posted the feedback on performance.
  5. The group took pride in its own achievement and had the satisfaction of outsiders  showing interest in what they did.
  6. The group did not feel they were being pressured to change.
  7. Before changes were made, the group was consulted.
  8. The group developed a sense of confidence and candour.

These research findings spurred companies to seriously consider the idea of grouping their employees into effective work teams and to this day they are still important considerations for human resource developers (Dyer, 1990).

Social Psychology and Team Buiding
Team building grew out of the group dynamics area of social psychology, incorporating much of the theory and research in small groups as well as the applied focus used in training groups (T-groups), which were very strong in the 1950s and 1960s. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, management theory centred on the works of McGregor(1960), Likert (1961), and Blake and Mouton (1964). All of these writers began to emphasise the apparent advantages of participative management over more traditional authoritarian approaches. The methodology that was available at the time to help in that transformation was the training group, also called the T-group, sensitivity group, encounter group or basic group. These groups helped participants examine group processes, experience group processes, experience group problem solving, openly share information, establish a highly cohesive group climate and build norms of shared and collaborative action (Dyer,1984). The models of team development resulting from this research suggest that teams exhibit fairly consistent phases of interaction over time, progress in a mostly linear fashion through a sequence of developmental phases, and must complete one phase before entering the next one.

Unfortunately whereas the T-group method was successful in groups of strangers, who usually disbanded and never met again, they had mixed results when used with groups composed of persons who had worked together for years in the same department and had to continue to be responsible for issues raised in the group. Slowly the methodology shifted from the unstructured T-group to a more focused, defined process of training a group of interdependent people in collaborative work and problem-solving procedures. A more recent view of team development has focused on naturally-occurring, task-driven, organisational work groups. Morgan, Salas, and Glickman (1992) stated that in contrast to the traditional view, these later findings indicate that team development does not necessarily progress gradually, in linear, lock-step fashion, through clearly demarcated phases(p.280).

Modern Concepts in Team Building
The traditional HRD prescription for developing work-team effectiveness has been labelled team development or team building. Perhaps the most significant change in the entire team-building concept has been the increased emphasis on helping teams achieve results: get work done. There was so much attention paid in the early days to the relationships between people that work matters were often neglected. Now in a team-building exercise, most team facilitators realise the importance of both how people are working together and how work is getting done. Both social processes and task processes are now accepted as important to team success (Dyer, 1984).

To effectively help teams make work contributions, HRD professionals need to understand what is meant by performance. For both work teams and organisations, performance can be measured by at least seven causally related criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, quality, productivity, quality of work life, innovation, and profitability/budget ability (Sink, Tuttle, & Devries, 1984). Guzzo and Dickson (1996) state that there is no single, uniform measure of performance effectiveness for groups and instead opt for indicators (a) group-produced outputs (quantity or quality, speed, customer satisfaction, etc.), (b) the consequences a group has for its members, and (c) the enhancement of a team's capability to perform effectively in the future.

Team Building Approaches
The literature identifies four general approaches to team-building interventions: goal setting, interpersonal relations, role clarification, and problem solving (Druckman & Bjork, 1994; Sundstrom, DeMeuse & Futrell, 1990). Druckman and Bjork state that there is much enthusiasm for these approaches among practitioners and consultants, but it is not matched by strong empirical support for their effect on team performance(p.125). Related theory and research has been limited. Dyer (1984) noted that models of team performance tend to focus only on limited factors that might influence performance and to exclude some potentially important factors. Further, most studies examined group dynamics that were unrelated to performance or were conducted in a laboratory (Shea & Guzzo, 1987). As a result, team studies have not greatly contributed to our understanding of how naturally forming teams in the workplace interact over time to produce outputs that contribute to an organisation. Buller (1986) noted that the results of team-building research have been ambiguous for two primary reasons: Team building as a concept has not been well defined, and the research has generally been methodologically poor. Specifically, much of the team-building research has failed to adequately specify relationships between independent variable and performance criteria (Russ-Eft, D. Preskill, H. & Sleezer, C.,1997).

Despite this lack of hard evidence, there are plenty of statistics to show how companies have benefited greatly from using teams. Procter & Gamble reduced manufacturing costs by 30 to 50 percent by implementing teams, Aid Association for Lutherans experienced a 20 percent increase in productivity whilst slashing case processing time by 75 percent, and insurance company Shanandoa Life reduced case processing time from 27 to 5 days (Antonioni, 1996). Although there seems to be insufficient research and data to create a coherent model for HRD professionals to follow, there are plenty of variables that have both supported and impeded the formation of successful teams.

Factors Affecting Team Effectiveness
This paper will now look at the positive variables that have contributed to the formation of strong working teams. Chaudron (1995) maintains that the changes needed to improve team effectiveness across the organisation do not involve individual teams, but rather the systems that support them. These systems include (1) organisational structure, (2) hiring, promotion and performance appraisal criteria, and (3) compensation. In his paper entitled How to improve cross-functional teams, he maintains that thought needs also to be given to the fact that as companies employ more teams, an individual may serve on more than one team. A study conducted with 240 managers who attended continuing education seminars at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business (Antonioni, 1996), indicated that individuals served on an average of three teams; in some cases, they may have served on as many as 12 teams at any given time. Chaudron (1995) states that a big mistake in team-building is when HRD workers fail to train all members of a cross-functional team at the same time. Many companies mix and match their training attendance with people from different teams. This approach may make it easier to schedule the training, but it does not promote the spirit of a particular team. And isn't that the point of team-building? (p.2).

Antonioni (1996) supports the idea that how a team performs depends on the management of two major factors: performance and process. The performance factor focuses on what results are expected of the team. It also deals with the structure of the team's tasks. The process factor focuses on how the team interacts in meetings and focuses on maintenance of the team. Team leadership revolves around team performance, while team synergy arises from team processes.

Factors Affecting Team Failure
If good teamwork promotes productivity and quality improvement, it begs the question of why this works for some companies and not for others. This paper will now look at the variables some companies have failed to acknowledge which have contributed to failure of their teams. It has been noted that these variables can go amiss within the same company with performance between teams varying as much as 100 percent (Scott & Townsend, 1994). Nahavandi and Aranda (1994) discovered that many employees believe working in a team environment is a waste of productive time because too much time is routinely spent on building trust and agreement. While this is commendable, it often does not translate into higher productivity or increased creativity (Allender, 1993). For example, Florida Power & Light Company reduced worker participation after employees complained that too many team meetings were hurting their performance (Zemke, 1993 in Trumble, Diaz, Johanna, 1996).

Both managers and workers have expressed dissatisfaction, anger and exasperation over a team's frequent inability to generate good decisions. One reason for these frustrations is that people in a team commonly feel that other team members decrease their chances for personal success. This is especially true with high performers who may frown on teams because their individual work ethic is often less noticed in a group. As a result, many team members hold back their effort and instead concentrate their energy on individual goals (Bartol & Hagmann, 1992).

Measuring Team Effectiveness(TE)
Alongside the statistics to support the use of teams there is concrete literature to support both social and task processes in groups, as evidenced in Hackman's (1990) framework of group effectiveness. This has been used to descriptively analyse various kinds of teams in different types of organisational settings. It lays out specific types of outcomes that should be included in measuring team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987,1990) such as (a) the group's production of a high-quality product, be it a physical product, a decision, a plan, or other output, that is acceptable to those who receive or review it; (b) the continuing capability of members to work together in the future, that is not burning themselves out in producing their product; and (c) the team's contribution to the well-being and growth of its members, allowing members to learn new things and to help their personal needs be satisfied. For groups to attain such effectiveness, teams benefit from being set up right in the first place...or having the initial conditions of group structure that promotes competent work on the task(Hackman, 1990, p.10).

These structural features include (a) a task structure that is clear and consistent with a group's purpose and high on what Hackman calls motivating potential...the team has a meaningful piece of work to do, for which members share responsibility, and accountability and that provides opportunities for the team to learn how well it is doing (p.10); (b) group composition that provides an appropriate size and mix of talents and interpersonal skills needed for communication and co-ordination with one another; and (c) core norms that regulate member behaviour and promote co-ordination and continuous scanning of the performance situation and pro-active planning of group performance strategies (p.11). These initial conditions also include an organisational context that supports and reinforces excellence through its system of rewards, education, and information, and makes available expert coaching and consultation assistance regarding effort, knowledge and skills, and performance strategies (pp.11-13).

New Paradigm Research
In evaluating the possible advantages to the case study method, Adelman (1980) considers them to be a step to action:

'They begin in a world of action and contribute to it. Their insights may be directly interpreted and put to use; for staff or individual self-development, for within-institutional feedback; for formative evaluation; and in educational policy making' (p.123).

He goes on to say that by carefully attending to social situations, case studies can represent something of the discrepancies or conflicts between the viewpoints held by participants.

He also states that case studies present research or evaluation data in a more publicly accessible form than other kinds of research reports and that the form of the presentation is usually less dependent on specialised interpretation than in the case of conventional research reports.

When weighing up the issue of qualitative and quantitative research, this research project is primarily concerned with qualitative research, whilst recognising that quantitative research plays a part in relating the extent to which the actual numbers of participants correlate to several issues. Contrasting quantitative with qualitative research, quantitative is described as:

concerned with the collection and analysis of data in numeric form. It tends to emphasize relatively large-scale and representative sets of data, and is often falsely in our view, presented or perceived as being about the gathering of facts. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is concerned with collecting and analysing information in as many forms, chiefly non-numeric, as possible (Blaxter et al., 1996).

"Qualitative" implies a direct concern with experience as it is "lived" or "felt" or "undergone". (In contrast, "quantitative" research, often taken to be the opposite idea, is indirect and abstract and treats experiences as similar, adding or multiplying them together, or "quantifying" them). Qualitative research then, has the aim of understanding experience as nearly as possible as its participants feel it or live it (Sherman & Webb, 1988, p.7).

We employed new paradigm research and utilised the model of co-operative enquiry. Researchers interacted with the participants so that they could contribute to hypothesis-making, to what went on during the three day training and to formulating the final conclusions. So as researchers, we asked the participants certain questions as laid out by Heron (in Rowan & Reason, 1981) such as:

'Did you in fact construe what was going on from the way that I have interpreted your reaction to the process as expressed in my research conclusions?' And again

'When you produced that piece of behaviour during the research, was your intention in doing it consonant with my interpretation in these conclusions?' (p.22).

The primary strength of new paradigm research and its fundamental claim to being a valid process according to Rowan & Reason (1981) 'lies in its emphasis on personal encounter with experience and encounter with persons' ( p.242).

They go on to say that the two main ways in which the validity of inquiry may be threatened are through unaware projection and through consensus collusion. They offer 8 processes which if used skilfully may be used to increase the validity of an inquiry.

1) Valid research rests above all on high quality awareness on the part of the co-researchers. As qualified therapists we have made high quality awareness an integral and important part of our work.

2) Such high quality awareness can only be maintained if the co-researchers engage in some systematic method of personal and interpersonal development. All Paradox UK facilitators have at least 5 years of personal development through therapeutic training and personal therapy and have had ongoing training for professional development, including working with groups.

3) Valid research cannot be conducted alone. We employed an additional researcher as mentioned above to run the training days, both for the purpose of support and for challenging and confronting issues.

4) The validity of research is much enhanced by the systematic use of feedback loops, and by repeating the research cycle several times. The training days were designed to offer feedback to participants throughout the three days and material which was fed back from participants did influence the direction of training. Due to the psychological nature of this training, evaluation was limited to before and after the training to allow participants to fully enter into the experience.

5) Valid research involves a subtle interplay between different forms of knowing. The training days employed an experiential base combined with practical knowledge, whilst encouraging more subtle processes such as intuition, reflection and creative thinking. Emotional intelligence as well as analytical thinking was supported.

6)Contradiction can be used systematically. We actively and consciously used each other as sounding boards to challenge, contradict and disprove the data in order to see what held up as a result.

7) Convergent and contextual validity can be used to enhance the validity of any particular piece of data. As mentioned earlier, multiple methods and viewpoints were used in the training, and the feedback process was tailored to obtain information on each individual method rather than generalised comments. The extent to which the received feedback from the different methods converged served as a measure of data validation.

8) The research can be replicated in some form. The three day training is a stand-alone module which can be run and re-run and has formed part of a number of modules offered on varied subject areas.

Looking overall at the case study methodology and the use of participant observation, Bailey (1978) identifies some advantages in the participant observation approach. He mentions that observation studies are superior to experiments and surveys when data are being collected on non-verbal behaviour. He also states that in observation studies, investigators are able to discern ongoing behaviour when it occurs and are able to make appropriate notes about its salient features.

Cohen and Manion (1998) mention that the accounts that typically emerge from participant observations are often described as subjective, biased, impressionistic, idiosyncratic and lacking the precise quantifiable measures that are the hallmark of survey research and experimentation. They go on to say that comments about the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of the participant observation study are to do with its external validity and ask the question 'How do we know that the results of this one piece of research represent the real thing, the genuine product?'

We have used new paradigm research to argue that the real thing or the genuine product is neither subject nor object, but rather emerges from the relationship between the subject and object within its surrounding context.

'This means that any notion of validity must concern itself both with the knower and with what is to be known: valid knowledge is a matter of relationship' (Reason & Rowan, 1981,p.241).

Heron (in Rowan & Reason, 1981) uses the model of cooperative enquiry to put forth the idea that 'for an authentic science of persons, true statements about persons rest on a value system explicitly shared by researchers and subjects, and on procedural research norms explicitly agreed by researchers and subjects on the basis of that value system' (p.33).

New paradigm research demands a distinctive training environment with as much dialogue, affirmation of experience, and sharing of responsibility as possible. In the positivist paradigm, people are basically reduced and alienated because they are studied in contrived situations; if studied in their natural settings, then their particularity is eliminated. The trivialisation of people and their subsequent manipulation for the purpose of research designs leads to findings which are themselves trivial and suitable for objects rather than people (Freire, 1994).

In keeping with new paradigm research methods we have employed new paradigm interview techniques. It was found that traditional scientific models of interviewing were inadequate, particularly with respect to the shifting dynamics of power in interview relationships. Fred Massarik (in Rowan & Reason, 1981) proposes a typology of interviews for new paradigm research. Of these, we utilised a mixture of the 'rapport interview' which goes beyond the 'cut-and-dried' approach and tries to create a genuinely human relationship; the 'depth interview' which is characterised by a more intensive process of thorough exploration; and the 'phenomenal interview' which is characterised by mutuality of trust, a commitment to joint search for shared understanding and a readiness to 'actively examine and disclose both remote and accessible aspects of their lives, including experiences, present responses, and imageries' (p.203).

This is in direct contrast to the traditional conceptualisation of the research interview which is grounded in a masculine, positivist paradigm. This paradigm encompasses several assumptions, including a unidirectional flow of information from interviewee to interviewer, the sovereignty of objectivity, and the value of decontextualising and depersonalising the interview relationship. These assumptions deny the agency of interviewees and disempower the research 'subject' (Limerick, Burgess-Limerick, Grace, 1996, p.449).

There are three issues Robson (1997) discusses when sampling in a single case study that I considered: choice of person; linking people, settings, events and processes with research questions; and time.

There is a need to think, in terms of sampling, about why one chooses one kind of person to interview or observe. Why this kind of person and what are the implications for other choices of persons.

The choice was made to select participants who have had previous experience of team building for their ability to compare and contrast between the two methods of training.

One is sampling people, setting, events and processes. So it is important to link these with the research questions to consider how one can sample to get unbiased answers making efficient use of everyone's time.

All participants were asked the same questions in the same format in one to one interviews where possible.

Because time is an issue, one strategy is to start with a 'fall-back' sample; those things which you simply must cover if one is to answer the basic questions.

As well as pre and post interviews there was also a questionnaire evaluation at the end of the three day training session which related both to the evaluation of the training days and to answering the question proposed for the main research.

Having no alternative model to compare current approaches, we devised a 9 stage multi-faceted model which we tested out on 13 participants. By introducing an approach that attempts to appreciate the person as a whole, as opposed to treating individuals in isolation, we attempted to demonstrate that by bringing awareness to the totality of a person's life, a greater understanding of its inter-relatedness could be gained.

The experiential nature of the training days and the variety of approaches used (i.e. self-reflection, pair work, group work, creative expression etc.) addressed the notion that collaborative enquiry spans four different 'territories' of human reality : 1) the outside world 2) one's own behaviour 3) one's own and other's thinking and feeling 4) the dynamics of human attention as it gains, loses or changes focus and as it narrows or widens the number of qualities of which it is aware (Torbet in Rowan & Reason, 1981, p.441).

The three day training days are drawn from the specifically devised model shown below:

  1. Field Incubation - what is happening in the group field or environment that the person is operating in, i.e., conflicts and dynamics within the work context.

  2. Personal - Examining disavowed aspects of the individual's personality through creative expression.

  3. Challenges - what personal challenges are present within the individual; i.e., level of authenticity, ability to communicate, ask for help, injunctions, expectations (real or imagined).

  4. Developing new patterns through imagery - how does the individual see themselves and the company as a whole; how is the current situation challenging them to go beyond the limitation as expressed by their belief system and identity.

  5. Re-imagining belief system and dreaming processes - examining fantasies about what being true to themselves would mean and helping them to develop positive fantasies.

  6. Historical - what patterns are being repeated; what challenges were not met, what choices were made or not made; what motives are behind it all.

  7. Maturation and individuation - examining how the person is being challenged to grow as opposed to regress so as to help the person meet the challenges in the moment. Empowering the person to step into a position they both want and fear. Examining projections and helping them to occupy disavowed aspects of themselves.

  8. Integration to work environment - after discovering disavowed aspects of the individual, helping them find ways of expressing the disavowed identity in the work place. Creating feedback loop to support secondary identities. Helping people introduce secondary factors into their primary location.

This model drew upon the research of new physics, in particular the ideas expressed in systems thinking. The main characteristics of systems thinking emerged simultaneously in several disciplines during the first half of the century, especially during the 1920s. This new paradigm was pioneered by organismic biologists, gestalt psychologists and ecologists who emphasised the view of living organisms as integrated wholes. According to Capra (1997), the systems theory view is that the essential properties of an organism, or living system, are properties of the whole, which none of the parts possess. They arise from the interactions and relationships between the parts. These properties are destroyed when the system is dissected, either physically or theoretically, into isolated elements (p.29).

In the systems approach, the properties of the parts can be understood only from the organisation of the whole, as opposed to analysis which takes a thing apart in order to understand it. In the world of physics, this tendency to dissect is also characterised as discrete entity thinking and belongs to the Cartesian paradigm.

The newly devised model challenges the limitations of current approaches by supporting the totality of the individual, the field they occupy, and the emergence of new patterns. In this way a person can gain an understanding of the interrelationship and inherent connections that may be contributing to dysfuntionality of the group.

Process-orientated psychology has embraced systems thinking and has combined it with gestalt and Jungian psychology (a research-based organisation that examines new methods for treating symptoms) and argues that symptoms are not dysfunctional, but highly functional. Joseph Goddbread (1997) maintains that the system whose functions they promote is simply not always in accord with the way their bearer wants to be able to function. The deadlock that can arise from this disagreement can result in everything coming to a standstill (p.31).

This research has now been incorporated into the Paradox UK Three Act Paradigm and forms the basis of our new and exciting approach. With our new multi-dimensional approach we are able to bring new and profound transformations to group dynamics and create a whole new era in creative group processing. See: Case Studies

References

Allender, H.D.,(1993) Self-directed work teams: how far is too far? Industrial Management, Vol.35 (5), pp.13-15.

Blake, R.,& Mouton, J., (1964)The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf.

Buller, P.F.(1986) The team building-task performance relation: Some conceptual and methodological refinements. Group & Organizational Studies, vol. 11, pp.147-168.

Chaudron, D.,(1995), Organizational development: How to improve cross-functional teams, HR Focus, Vol. 72(8), New York.

David, A., (1996), How to lead and facilitate teams, Industrial Management, Vol. 38(6), Norcross.

Druckman, D.,& Bjork, R. A. (Eds.). (1994). Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Dyer, J. L., 1984, Team research and team training: A state-of-the-art review. Human Factors Review, pp. 285-319.

Guzzo, R.A., & Dickson, M.W., (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, pp.307-338.

Hackman, J.R., (Ed.)(1990), Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Horvath, L., Callahan, J.L., Croswell, C., & Mukri, G. (1996). Team sensemaking: An imperative for individual and organizational learning . In E. Holton (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development,(pp.415-421).

Likert, R., (1961), New Patterns of Management, New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGregor, D., (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mayo,E., (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Nahavandi, A., and Aranda, E., (1994) Restructuring teams for the reengineered organization. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8(4)

Russ-Eft, D, Preskill, H., and Sleezer, C., (1997), Human Resource Development Review: Research and Implications. London: Sage

Scott, K.D, & Townsend, A., (1994) Teams: why some succeed and others fail. HR Magazine, Vol. 39(8), pp.62-67.

Shea, G. P.,& Guzzo,R. A. (1987) Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, Vol.28, pp.25-31.

Sink, D.S., Tuttle,T.C., & DeVries, S.J., (1984) Productivity measurement and evaluation: What is available? National Productivity Review, Vol.3, pp.265-287.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P.,& Futrell, D. (1990) Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), pp.120-133.

Trumble, T.R., Diaz, R., Johanna J., (1996) Work-teams: Why do they often fail?, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Cincinnati, Vol.61(4) p.31-36.

Adelman, C., in Cohen, L. & Manion L., (1998), Research Methods in Education, Fourth Edition, Routledge, New York.

Bailey, K.D., (1978), Methods of Social Research, Collier- MacMillan, London.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., Tight, M., How To Research, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Capra, F., (1997), The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, Harper Collins, London.

Chapman, R.(1994) Job Stress in a Changing Workforce, in Hurrell, J.J. & Keita, G.P.(Eds.), American Psychological Association, Washington D.C, pp.109-345.

Charlesworth, E., & Nathan R.G., (1982), Stress Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Wellness, Souvenir Press, London.

Cohen, L., & Manion L., (1998), Research Methods in Education, Fourth Edition, Routledge, New York.

Edwards, B.,(1993), Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain . How To Unlock Your Hidden Artistic Talent, Harper Collins Publishers, London.

Erikson, E., (1965), Childhood and Society, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Freire, P. (1994), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin, London.

Goodbread, J., (1997), The Dreambody Toolkit, Lao Tse Press, Second Edition, Oregon.



Copyright � 2000, 2001, 2002 Paradox UK Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Paradox UK Ltd
23 Bentinck Street, London, W1U 2EZ
Tel : 020 7684 1927 / Fax : 020 7935 0255 / Email : enquiries@paradoxuk.com
� 2000, 2001, 2002 Paradox UK Ltd (Last updated 19/02/02)

Web Site Design by Davis Rubin Associates Limited. Comments or Enquiries to : webmaster