A recent firewalk organised for Burger King employees ended up
with a few hospitalisations. About a dozen Burger King employees
suffered at least first- and second-degree burns on their feet.
The story was reported in the Miami Herald at:
www.miami.com/herald/content/news/local/dade/digdocs/074897.htm
One commentator is quoted as saying:
''You can certainly help employees develop courage and build
teamwork without having them walk on coals.''
Does anyone know of research that links the
risk/intensity/eccentricity of an activity with the learning
outcome?
There seems to be a popular misconception around that the further
you tempt people away from their comfort zone the more they will
learn.
Other Burger King Employees bent steel bars with their throats
and walked over a board of 6,000 sharp nails.
'Go Large' is a BK slogan, but just how ''large'' do we have to
go in adventure education / training in order to achieve results?
I know that the 'Question of Balance' conference looked at this
issue mainly from the 'not enough risk' perspective. But before I
start banging 6,000 sharp nails into a piece of wood, I would
like to know if there is any evidence (or even a theory) that
such an activity will be more educational or more empowering or
more transferable than rock climbing or other more 'traditional'
adventures.
Any thoughts? Any evidence? Any ideas about the size, nature or
style of risk that produces the best results?
Roger Greenaway
|