The purpose of this research is to investigate how training helps the employees’ building of personal resources essential for successful teamworking and how it contributes to significant teamwork practices. The study aims to offer a broader perspective on the existing research by utilizing a mixed-method approach. The research’s objectives are to evaluate the effects of four different types of training and examine how the organizational context influences employees’ training experiences and outcomes. It also strives “to integrate qualitative process evaluation and quantitative effect evaluation” to investigate the intervention outcomes. Another objective is to generate additional knowledge for the research literature. Besides, the study also intends to assess whether a mixed-method approach can provide a more exceptional understanding of the organizational change processes.
The research’s nature is causal because it uses a quantitative design to exclude alternative explanations and qualitative approach to comprehend the results. The study incorporates a three-level process evaluation model because it aims to capture an understanding of training, employees’ attitudes, and mental models and context. Consequently, there is a need to follow a model that can training might enhance the integration of effective teamwork practices, but it depends on the context and leaders’ mental models. Moreover, the study revealed that the utilization of quantitative and qualitative techniques strengthened the validity of the findings.
Methods & Empirics
As mentioned earlier, the article uses a mixed-method approach that allowed withdrawing more exceptional results to achieve the research’s purpose. The work focused on collecting the data from four participants’ groups, including those who received no training, team members’ training, the leader’s training, or the whole team’s training, including the head. The gathered information represented qualitative data, and the timing was arranged to get information during the training and after a particular period, so that the employees could provide a more general opinion on their experiences. The quantitative part of the research implicated incorporating specific surveys in different forms. It involved the documentary evidence of the employees’ and leaders’ contributions, the meetings’ time, and focus groups and interviews by the end of the training assessment. Besides, the researchers distributed a questionnaire before and after the training intervention with a one-and-a-half-year period in between, which generated relevant findings of employees’ autonomy, performance, and interdependence.
It is crucial to look at the details of the data collection process. At the initial study’s stage and a while after the intervention (second period), the participants received the questionnaires. Each round gave forty-five days for the contributors to return the answers, and two reminders throughout this time were sent. The study conducted individual interviews to collect the data related to the perceptions and experiences of the leaders. The average time for one discussion varied from twenty-five minutes to one hour. Moreover, the randomly selected employees who participated in the focus groups, each of which had from two to seven participants, also had interviews that lasted for approximately fifty minutes. The research utilized the outcome evaluation, which included self-report measures withdrawn from the questionnaires, and process evaluation, which constituted the work’s multilevel analysis.
The next significant stage is assessing the sampling techniques and the target population for this research. The study focused on elder care personnel who work in community-based or residential care for seniors. The employees who participated in this study included the representatives of administrative staff and physiotherapists. The participants were divided into geographical units based on the nature of their activities and a specific geographic area. Before the intervention, the group size varied from five to thirty-five people. As a part of interference, the groups were alienated into smaller teams, which resulted in having up to thirteen members per unit. Each group had its team leader, which provided 14 individuals to participate in the research. Around 350 employees received questionnaires in the primary phase of the intervention, out of which 277 were returned. During the second period, 310 workers got the survey, and 152 were answered. The participants’ average age was 43 years old, and around 90% of them were females.
One of the critical points is that going through training was not random for the participants, but all chose it voluntarily, which explains to the different sizes of the units. For the study’s purpose and objectives, not undertaking a randomization technique played a favorable role because motivation and personal commitment are vital for the training’s success. Nevertheless, the research incorporated the eldercare sector employees, where teamwork and proper training are of particular significance. In such a way, the chosen sample well represents the population of the employees who receive training, because it incorporates the participants from different units. However, it might limit the findings since the contributors were chosen from one industry.
The article used qualitative and quantitative methods and arranged it into a quasi-experimental study to achieve a high level of external validity. The interventional approach that this work utilized is more relevant to the potential population and helps to accomplish “a better balance between internal and external validity” (Handley et al., 2018, p. 7). This study design allowed comparing the leaders’ and employees’ experiences to validate the qualitative assessment from the different parties’ perspectives. The quantitative part, in turn, endorsed excluding the threats to internal validity. Hence, the researchers tried to integrate the most effective design and approach to conduct a proper process and outcome evaluation that ensures a broader perspective on the objectives and answers a research question.
Using the mixed research method entails the integration of numerous tools and additional time and resources. Nevertheless, those techniques and activities can help gain a clearer understanding of the contradictions or connection between quantitative and qualitative information (Shorten & Smith, 2017). Consequently, this work used various instruments to rule out the threats and create a more extensive view of the analyzed question. The study tools “focused on the hypothesized working mechanisms of the interventions and the impact on both of the prevailing organizational context” (Nielsen et al., 2015, p. 232). The used techniques included the interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, and organizational materials, like the documentation on the involvement or meeting time. The interviews conducted with the leaders and focus groups were coded in QSR NVivo. The analysis was carried out based on the description of the intervention, mental models of the participants, and the intervention context. The research also used various theories like the social identity leadership model.
Critical Review
The article opens up a new perspective on the issue of training and employees’ motivation. The authors mention previous research conducted in this area and emphasize that not a lot of detailed work was performed to assess the influence of training when implemented into teamwork. Still, none of the works directly investigated different types of teamwork and training intervention. Thus, the study reveals a new aspect of the concept and manages to look at it from different angles. The fact that the paper bases the research on three different themes, as mentioned above, provides more in-depth insights and lays the foundation for possible recommendations for the organizations. According to Morse (2016), research requires more than one method for one project to grasp a complex phenomenon. The concept analyzed in this study is multifaceted, highlighting the necessity of integrating a mixed-method approach, as the authors did it.
As stated above, the paper talks about the previous research held in this field. The crucial aspect is that the sample size is large compared to other studies that use a mixed-method approach. Besides, the majority of the participants were represented by women, which might limit the findings as well. Still, comparing this research to other studies in this area, it is possible to say that incorporating mixed-method techniques allowed this work to grasp a more excellent view on the issue. The article followed the research standards, describing all the integrated information, including the data collection process, measurement and classification, analysis and interpretation, and the limitations (Duran et al., 2006). Besides, the paper is written in an academic manner, well-organized, and complies with the referencing requirements. All of the sources are correctly cited, and the work includes the list of utilized materials.
References
Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., & Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40. Web.
Handley, M. A., Lyles, C. R., McCulloch, C., & Cattamanchi, A. (2018). Selecting and improving quasi-experimental designs in effectiveness and implementation research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 5-25. Web.
Morse, J. M. (2016). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures (Vol. 4). Routledge.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., & Christensen, K. B. (2015). Do different training conditions facilitate team implementation? A quasi-experimental mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 223-247. Web.
Shorten, A., & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. Evidence Based Nursing, 20(3), 74-75. Web.