a- professor: ahmed farouk mohammeda- professor: ahmed farouk mohammed s-w field department –...

Fayoum University ا��م ��

Faculty of Social Work �� آ�� ا�� ا��

S-W Fields Department �� ت ا�� ا��

PROFESSIONALS ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEAMWORK IN THE SOCIAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS

A- Professor: Ahmed Farouk Mohammed

S-W field Department – executive director of (CeC) - Fayoum University

[email protected]

أحمـــــد فــــــاروق محمد صالح/ د

مدير مركز خدمة المجتمع جامعة الفيوم–أستاذ الخدمة االجتماعية المساعد

- 2010 -


- ٢ -

Content Page

ABSTRACT:………………………………………………… 3

Key words :………………………………………………… 3

Introduction: ……………………………………………… 3

1. Theoretical study :……………………………………………. 4

1.1 Theoretical framework :………………………………….. 4

1.2 Research definitions :……………………………………… 6

1.3.1 social welfare :…………………………………………….. 6

1.3.2 Attitudes :…………………………………………………… 6

1.3.3 Teams :……………………………………………………….. 7

1.3.4 Teamwork :…………………………………..……………… 7

1.3.5 Multi professionalism :…………………..……………… 7

1.3 Theoretical framework :………………..………………… 7

1.4 Teamwork theory :…………………………..……………… 8

1.5 Study Objectives :………………………………………….. 8

1.6 Study questions :…………………………………………… 8

1.7 Study hypotheses : ………………………………………… 8

1.8 Research Methodology :…………………………………… 9

1.8.1 Study Population:…………………………………………. 9

1.8.2 Sample :……………………………………………………… 10

1.8.3 Delimitation of the study :…………………………….. 10 1.8.3.1 Local Delimitation :…………………………………………. 10 1.8.3.2 Human Delimitation : ……………………………………… 10 1.8.3.3 Time Delimitation :………………………………………… 10

1.8.4 Limitations of This Study :……………………………… 10

1.8.5 Study Variables :………………………………………… 10

1.8.6 Scale validity and Reliabilities :…………………….. 10

2. Data analysis :…………………………………………… 12

2.1. Sample description :………………………………… 12

2.2. Variables cross tabulation : …………………… 17

2.3 Question (1):…………………………………………… 19

2.4 Question (2) :………………………………………….. 22

2.5 Hypotheses (1):……………………………………… 25

2.6 Hypotheses (2):……………………………………… 27

Summary : ………………………………………………… 31

References :……………………………………………….. 32

Appendix :…………………………………………………. 35

Biography :………………………………………………… 39


- ٣ -

ABSTRACT:

The current article aims to measure the professionals attitudes towards teamwork in the welfare organizations, the study belongs to the pattern of descriptive studies, methodology based on social survey by sample, the study applied on (405) of professionals, Participants divide to (197) teachers, (85) social worker, (69) doctors and (54) for nursing staff various fields of social welfare in Fayoum governorate, south Egypt, according to the (A-B-C) Model the results of Friedman test showed that the Cognitive component (C) achieve the first rank of important at (2.34), Behavior component (B) the second by main rank (2.28), and the Affective component (A) achieve the third rank at (1.37), the Results showed that the Current model is as follows (CBA) not (ABC), on the other hand the multi regression Test showed a rejection of the null hypothesis and accepts the alternative hypothesis: there is a statistically significant association at a level less than (0.05) between the personal and environmental determinants as independent variable with the professionals attitude towards teamwork, to determine the statistical differences the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test showed a reject the null and Accept alternative hypothesis that there is a significance difference in the professional attitude according Gender, experience, the kind of professions, Results of the study showed that there is many determinants that affect on the attitude of professionals about teamwork, it was found that the external environment (EX-E-D) comes in the first by mean rank (2.34), followed by the determinants of the internal environment (E-N-D) at (2..28), in the third and finally the personal determinants (P-D) at mean rank (1.37). Key words:

Social welfare - health care - social work –social solidarity - teamwork - Professionals attitudes – cognitive, affective and behavior component - (ABC) Model - personal, external and internal environment determents.

Introduction:

Social Welfare is an integrated system of programs, projects and services that provides to various groups without discrimination or preference, but in developing countries where specialized studies as Robert G. Hayden (1985), Lane Kenworthy (1998), Ann Orloff (2008) focused on the inadequate umbrella of social welfare has produced many of the disadvantaged and marginalized groups, other studies like Dileni Gunewardena (2001), focused on discrimination in welfare services and showed that the percentage (75%) of the population in the third world have no access to quality services, while other studies indicate that the percentage (65%) living below the poverty line and the percentage (40%) reside in urban, compared to (60%) of the rural areas. social welfare in the developing world need to review the process


- ٤ -

to invest the resources to extend umbrella to provide the welfare for different groups as (males, females, minority, groups at risk, rural and urban areas) without distinction, exclusion. Effective social welfare should be provided through the professionals in the fields of medicine, nursing, social work, law and other professions of humanitarian, Social welfare requires teamwork, where professionals collaborate to provide services to different groups without bias according to gender, race, ethnicity, or geographic regions or other factors that limit the effectiveness of social welfare. teamwork is one of the forms of cooperation between professionals in various fields of social welfare. the current study concerned with the identification of professionals attitude about teamwork, where the attitude is composed of three components: cognitive, affective , and behavior Component or the (ABC) model, current research objected to measure the professionals attitude towards the teamwork in the fields of health, education and social solidarity.

1. Theoretical study: 1.1 Theoretical framework:

The challenges of social welfare are increasingly complex and subject to frequent change. Meeting these demands requires that professionals work in partnership with each other, with other professionals such as social workers, teachers, nurses, doctors staff, and with various clients. The value of working as a team has already been recognized. We now need to strengthen and develop team working within social welfare to provide specific program and services for the future. (Dame Deirdre Hine, 2000, p: 1) Previous studies showed the increasing role of the organizational determinants that influence on the performance of teamwork in social welfare organizations, where according to a study in each of the Amour et al (2005), Ovretveit et al (1997), Devine et al (2002), Guzzo et al (1996), Hackman et al (1987), and Sundstrom et al (1990) studies have shown that the external environment that including the opportunities and threats affecting the effectiveness of work teams in social welfare institutions, On the other hand a study of Grady et al (1996), Lemieux et al (2002) and Bateman et al (2002) indicate the role of the internal environment like organizational culture, organizational structure, which affects directly or indirectly on the effectiveness of the expected outputs of the teamwork. Theoretical associated with attitude toward professional teamwork shown the weakness in the component skills in interaction with the team and make sure that through the study of each, studies have shown that emotional and cognitive components are not sufficient to establish a work team can provide care services in an effective manner that's sure to study both in Bacon (2005), Barker (1999) , Campion (1993) Delarue (2003), Fröbel (2005), Galve Górriz (2000) and Kuipers (2005) revealed the need to refine the components of cognitive, emotional and skill so as to enable professionals to work as a


- ٥ -

team, on the other side of specialized studies revealed that the absence of one or more of these components affects negatively and directly return on teamwork in various areas of social welfare. Kam-shing Yip study (2004) about Medical dominance is a crucial problem in social work practice in mental health services. This paper is an examination of the response of social workers to medical dominance in mental health services in Hong Kong. To explore the process and the effects of medicalization of social workers, (63) social workers in various areas of mental health service settings were interviewed. Their reaction and daily performance in facing medical dominance were analysed and evaluated. The findings show that facing medical dominance was a common occurrence for social workers in various mental health services in Hong Kong. Conflict existed between the rationalization of medical knowledge by medical professionals, and social work rationalization of social work knowledge by social workers.. The findings also show that medicalization was influenced by the organizational and team context. Jinman Kyonne (2007) using an analysis of secondary data, develops a construct of “teamwork” to study its relationship to turnover. The study specifically explores “teamwork” compared with individual work-related factors - burnout and job satisfaction; one work environment factor –organizational climate and one personal factor – educational background. Logistical regression analysis was conducted on an anonymous random sample of 319 public child welfare caseworker’s responses to an organization wide survey conducted in one U.S. Midwestern state, Findings indicate that the workers’ positive perception of teamwork decreases their stated intentions to leave whereas the workers’ burnout increases their stated intentions to leave. Laura L. Ellingson (2002), Study belong to the pattern of descriptive analytical studies, the study showed that the increasing forms and levels of teamwork in the medical field leads to an improvement in the performance of professionals in the field of health care. Michael Malone (2004) tray to examine professionals attitudes and perceptions about teamwork and team processes. (31) Professionals who were serving on teams that support people with disabilities were asked to complete two surveys: the Attitudes about Teamwork Survey and the Team Process Perception Survey. Responses to these surveys indicated a generally positive attitude about the team process. Aspects of communication and investment of time and energy were most highly rated. Central themes that emerged relative to perceptions about benefits, limitations, and supports included, respectively, disciplinary involvement, process barriers, and collaboration. Respondents also provided recommendations for the improvement of teamwork including the improvement of team structure, process issues, and training. Practical implications of the results, and directions for further investigation in this area, are discussed.


- ٦ -

1.2. Research definitions:

1.2.1 Social welfare:

Social Welfare has been defined by Katz (1983) as “the provision of relief and rehabilitation for dependent people. By dependents Katz is referring to the poor, the marginalized or in today’s language, those persons deemed to be the most vulnerable within society. What has been happening is that the “relief” aspect of the definition has been emphasized, hence the idea of social welfare being a “hand out” and the “rehabilitation” aspect de-emphasized. As a consequence, many have been heard to say that social welfare perpetuates dependency and by extension the cycle of poverty. Social Welfare, however, as suggested by (Midgley (1997), can also be defined as a state or condition of well-being that exists when social problems are managed, human needs met and social opportunities maximized. It is Midgley’s definition of social welfare that informs this paper and permits the concept to be considered as empowerment. (Ruth Blackman, 2006: 2)

1.2.2 Attitudes:

Comprehensive definition of the attitude indicates that: the attitude is a mental or neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence on the individual's response to all objects and situations to which it is related (Allport, 1935). The former concept explains that attitude is based on knowledge, experience and skills that enable professional to perform tasks effectively. Current study dealing with trends towards teamwork of professionals from the premise that the attitude is composed of three components: the component cognitive and emotional and behavioral component.

1.2.3 TEAMS:

The literature on teams underscores that a team’s structure differs depending upon its purpose, its task, its setting, the mix of professions on the team, and the formal relationships between social welfare professionals on the team. a team can be defined simply as ‘a group of people who make different contributions towards the achievement of a common goal. (Pritchard, 1994: 23) A more comprehensive definition reads: ‘A team is a group of professionals who work together to produce products or deliver services for which they are mutually accountable. Team members share goals and are mutually held accountable for meeting them, they are independent in their accomplishment, and they affect the results through their interactions with one another. Because the team is held collectively accountable, the work of integrating with one another is included among the responsibilities of each member. (Christine Glover, 2000:39)

1.2.4 Teamwork:

It is difficult to arrive at a comprehensive definition of teamwork in all welfare fields. Several concepts exist and researchers in the field of welfare


- ٧ -

working conditions differ in their view of what teamwork actually means. Social Welfare organization using teamwork can refer to a wide range of possibilities, such as ‘Groups of employees or specific professionals who have at least some collective tasks and where the team members are authorized to regulate mutually the execution of these collective tasks’ (Delarue, 2003: 23) another views indicated that the teamwork is „A permanent group for people with a defined number of professionals. These professionals are committed and they hold a point responsibility for a common purpose, set of performance goals and approach. These goals are based on people demands. The team performs in all areas with a degree of independence and with continuous focus on improvement. (Kuipers, 2005:41)

1.2.5 Multi professionalism:

Multi professionalism is a team or group of individuals or professionals from different disciplines with different and complementary skills, shared values, common aims and objectives. (Christine Glover, 2000:40)

1.3 Theoretical framework:

The Webster dictionary defines teamwork as “work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole.” Current study aims to measure the professionals' attitudes (T-W-A), identify the causal relationship between the personal and environmental determinants (P-E-D) with the professionals' attitudes towards teamwork in social welfare organizations (S-W-O) and identify the impact of demographic and organizational variables in the attitudes of professionals towards teamwork through (A-B-C) model. Current Figure refers to the nature of relationship between personal and environmental determinants and professionals attitudes towards teamwork, and the extension of that relationship to affect of the attitudes components: cognitive, affective and behavioral.

A -W -T

A- C

B- C

C- C

EE-D

IE-D

P-D

FIG (1): TW Attitudes & Determinants


- ٨ -

1.4 Teamwork theory:

Human team processes have been studied by psychologists since the 1950s. Paris et al. (2008) group the representative theories influencing our understanding of human teamwork into the following categories, that focused on the interactions between team members, the environment surrounding the team, task and function of the team, the way the team's performance, Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) divide human teamwork into three dimensions: cognitions, skills, and affective . . Stasser et al (1995) identify the cognition or knowledge category includes information about the task such as team mission, objectives, norms, problem models, and resources. Smith et al (1998) describe the Teamwork skills include behaviors such as adaptability, performance monitoring, leadership, communication patterns, and interpersonal coordination. In the other hand Prince et al (1995) identify the Affective measure as: the participants’ feelings about the team: team cohesion, mutual trust, and importance of teamwork. Within the framework of the theoretical about the teamwork, the current study is working to address the professional attitudes through three main components: cognitive component, affective component, and skills or behavior component:

1.5 Study Objectives:

1) Measure the kind of association between organizational determinants and professionals attitude towards teamwork.

2) Measure the significance difference in TW attitude according to the demographic and organizational variables.

3) Identify the personal and environmental determinants that affect on the professionals attitudes towards teamwork in welfare institutions.

4) Estimate the current levels of the professionals' attitudes towards teamwork in the social welfare institutions.

1.6 Study questions:

The current study seeks to answer the following questions 1. What are the main personal and organizational determinants that

affecting on the professionals towards teamwork? 2. What are the main components of the professionals' attitudes

towards teamwork in the social welfare institutions?

1.7 Study hypotheses:

1. There is a statistically significant association between organizational determinants and professionals attitudes towards teamwork.


- ٩ -

HO:( µµµµ1 ==== µµµµ1)

Hαααα:( µµµµ1 ≠≠≠≠ µµµµ1)

2. There is a statistically significant difference in TW attitudes according to the demographic and organizational variables?

Ho :( µµµµ1 = µµµµ1)

H αααα:( µµµµ1 ≠≠≠≠ µµµµ1) H αααα:( µµµµ1 ≠≠≠≠ µµµµ1)

Ho :( µµµµ1 = µµµµ1)

Profession

Sector

Age

Marital

Education

Teacher

S-worker

Doctor

Nurse

Solidarit

Heath care

Youth

University

30 to 50

Less 30

Married

Female

Male

Gender

Income

Experience

Less (500)

500 to 1000

Over 1000 Less than

(10)

Over (20)

POST G

(10) to (20)

Under G

High

HIGHT S

Attitude component

B component

A component

C component

Over 50

Affect Component

ognitionCComponent

Behavior Component Personal determines

Organizational determines

Affect Component

Cognition Component

Behavior Component Personal determines Organizational determines

Single

FIG (3):Hypotheses2: Development

FIG(2) :Hypotheses1: Development

HO :( µµµµ1 ==== µµµµ1)

H αααα:( µµµµ1 ≠≠≠≠ µµµµ1)

HO :( µµµµ1 ==== µµµµ1)

Hαααα:( µµµµ1 ≠≠≠≠ µµµµ1)

Affect Component

Cognition Component

Behavior Component Organizational determines

FIG (2):Hypotheses1: Development


- ١٠ -

1.8 Research Methodology:

1.8.1 Study Population:

A study population is a group of individuals taken from the general population who share a common characteristic, such as age, sex, or educational level, experience. This group may be studied for different reasons. ( George A, 2000, 504) The current study population is consisted of all professionals in welfare organizations.

1.8.2 Sample

The study was applied on (405) of professionals from social welfare fields in Fayoum governorate, the highest percentage (48.6%) teachers, (21.0%), social workers,(17.0%) doctors, at least (13.3%) nursing staff.

1.8.3 Delimitation of the study

1.8.3.1 Local Delimitation

The current study was applied on welfare organizations in Fayoum governorate.

1.8.3.2 Human Delimitation

They had been applied on a sample that represented by (405) from professionals.

1.8.3.3 Time Delimitation

The current study has taken a period near to six month effective from august 2009 to January 2010.

1.8.4 Limitations of This Study

The most significant limitation of this study is that it focused solely on welfare organization in Fayoum governorate. In order to rectify this limitation, the study is being expanded to include all professions. This measure is based on the three dimensions of professionals' attitude about teamwork. The questioner consist of (44) items, namely affective, behavior, and cognitive components, (A-B-C), and (23) items namely the team work determinations, and (8) items namely demographic variables, total items (75), Responses to these items were made on a 5-point Likert format ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree

1.8.5 Study Variables:

- Independent variables

- Demographic variables. - Personal determinants. - Environmental determinants. - Organizational determinants. - Dependent variables:

- Affective components.

- Behavioral components. - Cognitive components.

- Professional attitude towards teamwork.


- ١١ -

1.8.6 Scale validity and Reliabilities.

The term reliability refers to the precision of measurement. More specifically, it relates to the consistency or generalizability of measurement. While reliability refers to the psychometric consistency of an instrument or how well it measures some entity, validity has more to do with the entity itself. That is, in addressing validity, psychometricians deal with the utility of an instrument for specific purposes. The manner in which such utility is addressed varies by the purpose of the instrument, but, in the end, a case must be made that the instrument(s) in question “behave” in a manner that is deemed useful by its potential users

1.8.6.1 Validity and Reliability of teamwork attitudes.

The reliability of the questionnaire was tested according to Cronbach Alpha measurements; the reliability coefficient (Alpha) of each element of teamwork attitude was as follows: affective components (0.83); behavior components (0.80); and the cognitive components (0.72), The reliability coefficients of all the three elements of teamwork were above 0.80, which concurs with the suggestion made by Nunnally (1978).

2.7605 .79745 (0.83)

2.7531a .61862 **.423 (0.80)

2.9987 .74853 *.425 **.436 (0.72)

2.8374 .65788 **.477 **.832 **.743 (0.81)

Affective ComponentsBehavior ComponentsCognitive ComponentsTeamwork Attitude

MeanStd.

Deviation A B C T-W-A

Table.1.1. Mean, St- Deviations, Valaidity and Rel iabilities in Full Sample (N = 405)a.

1.8.6 .2 Validity and Reliability of teamwork attitudes.

The reliability coefficient (Alpha) of each element of teamwork determinants was as follows: personal determinant (0.721); external environment determinant (0.802); and the internal environment determinant (0.823), The reliability coefficients of all the three elements of teamwork determinant were above 0.741.

2.2954 .82555 (0.721)3.1685 .50942 **.523 (0.80)3.2037 .60685 *.635 **.521 (0.82)2.7407 .47448 **.634 **.654 **.760 (0.74)

Personal DeterminantsExternal environment determinantsInternal environment determinantsTeamwork Determinants

MeanaStd.

Deviation P E I T-W-D

Table.1.2. Mean, St- Deviations, Valaidity and Reli abilities in Full Sample (N = 405)a.


- ١٢ -

2. Data analysis:

For the questionnaire, the statistical package for the social sciences

(SPSS), Amos and Sy-stat was used to analyze the data. Its advantages

include a PC friendly version and ability to deal with survey data in a variety

of statistical programmers. Percentages standard deviation, Mann - Whitney,

Kruskal- Wallis, Friedman and chi-square test have been used.

2.1. Sample description:

Table show the background variables of the sample that involved in the

study presented in this thesis. Frequencies, percentages valid per, and cum

per have been used to describe the respondents. Out of (405) responses.

2.1 Demographic variables

Count

Teacher 197 48.6 48.6 48.6Doctor 69 17.0 17.0 65.7Nurse 54 13.3 13.3 79.0Social worker 85 21.0 21.0 100.0

Total 405 100.0 100.0Social solidarity 12 3.0 3.0 3.0Youth sector 15 3.7 3.7 6.7University sector 12 3.0 3.0 9.6Educational sectors 228 56.3 56.3 65.9Health sector 138 34.1 34.1 100.0

Total 405 100.0 100.0male 246 60.7 60.7 60.7female 159 39.3 39.3 100.0

Total 405 100.0 100.0less than (30) 48 11.9 11.9 11.9from (30) to (50) 273 67.4 67.4 79.3over (50) 84 20.7 20.7 100.0

Total 405 100.0 100.0Married 354 87.4 87.4 87.4Single 51 12.6 12.6 100.0

Total 405 100.0 100.0high school 90 22.2 22.2 22.2undergraduate 270 66.7 66.7 88.9Postgraduate 45 11.1 11.1 100.0



Total 405 100.0 100.0Middle level 78 19.3 19.3 19.3Executive level 243 60.0 60.0 79.3high level 84 20.7 20.7 100.0

Total 405 100.0 100.0

Profession

Sector

Gender

Age

Marital

Education

Income

Experience

Management level

Sub-variables Freq PerValid

PercentCum

Percent


- ١٣ -

2.1.1 Gender :

Data contained in the previous

table showed the distribution of the

sample according to Gender, the

percentages confirm that (60.7%)

represents the dominant male, on

the other side the least percentage

of females (39.3%), the

percentages shown in the table

simulates the population of the

study according to the Gender

variable, Males represent the

percentage of dominant for

professionals in social welfare

organizations.

male

60.73%

female

39.27%

2.1.2 Professions :

Current study included four basic

professions, the highest percentage

(48.6%) represented teachers,

followed by the percentage

(21.0%), which represents social

workers working in diverse areas of

welfare, and (17.0%), which

represents doctors, the percentage

of at least (13.3%) included

nursing staff working in field of

health care, Previous results reveal

the representation of the sample

about the study population, that

professionals in social welfare fields

in Fayoum Governorate.

Teacher

48.65%

Doctor

17.02%

Nurse

13.31%

Social worker

21.02%


- ١٤ -

2.1.3 Sectors :

í

í

í

í

í

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

î

î

î

î

î

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

ð

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

3.0 3.7 3.0

56.3

34.1

100.0

study included five sectors, the largest percentage (56.3%) represented

professionals at educational field, the following (34.1%) professionals at

health care field, and then percentage(3.7%) represented the youth sector,

percentage (3.0%) accounted for professionals working in the field of social

solidarity, the percentage at least (3.0%) represented university field.

2.1.4 Age:

age average of professionals was

(47.4%) years, and in greater

detail shows that the sample

included three stages less than

(30) for more than (50),

percentage of dominant (67.40%)

represented the age group of (30)

to (50) years, followed by

percentage (20.70%) which

represented more than (50) years,

percentage of at least (11.9%)

represented less than (30) years.

less than (30)

11.90%

from (30) to (50)

67.40%

over (50)

20.70%


- ١٥ -

2.1.5 Education:

percentages represent the

distribution of sample according to

educational levels, Study included

three educational levels less than

undergraduate to postgraduate

levels, the data indicate that the

percentage of dominant (66.7%) is

a university education, followed by

percentage (22.2%)that represents

pre-university education and the

percentage of at least (11.1%)

represent the post-graduate,

Previous results reveal the

representation the sample about

the study population in the

educational level variable.

high school

22.20%

undergraduate

66.70%

Postgraduate

11.10%

2.1.6 Income :

Data indicate that the average

income is (875) EGP, the highest

percentage (63.7%) represents the

level from (500) to (1000) EGP,

followed by the percentage

(25.2%), which represented more

than (1000) EGP, the least

percentage at (11.1%) accounted

for less than (500) EGP, Previous

results reveal the representation of

the sample about the study

population in the income variables.

less than (500)11.10%

from (500) to (1000)

63.70%

over (1000)25.20%


- ١٦ -

2.1.7 Experience :

data reveal that the average years

of experience has reached (16.7)

years, the display also stressed

that the study included three

groups of experience, from less

than (10) for more than (20) years,

the percentage of dominant

(55.6%) represented the

experience from (10) years to (20)

years, followed by percentage

(30.4%) the experience years more

than (20), the percentage at least

(14.1%) years of experience less

than (10) years.

less than (10)

14.09%

from (10) to (20)

55.54%

over (20)

30.37%

2.1.8 Management levels :

Data in the chart indicates the

distribution of the sample according

to management levels, the highest

percentage at (60.0%)

represented the executive

management level, followed by

percentage at (20.7%), that

represented the professionals in

the Senior Management,

percentage at least (19.3%)

represented professionals in the

Middle management level, Previous

results reflects the representation

of the sample about the study

population, in the managements

levels.

Middle level

19.30%

Executive level

60.00%

high level

20.70%


- ١٧ -

2.2. Variables cross tabulation:

2.2.1. Professional * welfare sectors cross tabulation:

2.1.2 Profession * Welfare sector Crosstabulation

197 19748.6% 48.6%

69 6917.0% 17.0%

6 48 541.5% 11.9% 13.3%

12 15 6 31 21 853.0% 3.7% 1.5% 7.7% 5.2% 21.0%12 15 12 228 138 405

3.0% 3.7% 3.0% 56.3% 34.1% 100.0%

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Teacher

Doctor

Nurse

Socialworker

Total

Socialsolidarity

Youthsector

Universitysector

Educationalsectors

Healthsector

sector

Total

Data in the table reflects the distribution of professions on the social

welfare sectors, the numbers refer to the spread of social workers to different

fields of social welfare, it was found that the percentage of dominant (7.7%)

in the educational field, followed by the percentage (5.2%) in health care

sector, and the proportion of percentage (3.7%) to the youth sector, the

percentage (0.3%) of the Social Solidarity, and the least percentage (1.5%)

for staff at the university. The health care sector showed that the percentage

of doctors dominant (17.0%), followed by the percentage (11.9%) for

nursing staff, and the least percentage (5.2%) for social workers.

2.2.2. Professional* experience cross tabulation:

2.1.3 Profession * Experance Crosstabulation

29 109 59 1977.2% 26.9% 14.6% 48.6%

16 35 18 694.0% 8.6% 4.4% 17.0%

5 36 13 541.2% 8.9% 3.2% 13.3%

7 45 33 851.7% 11.1% 8.1% 21.0%

57 225 123 40514.1% 55.6% 30.4% 100.0%

Count% of TotalCount% of TotalCount% of TotalCount% of TotalCount% of Total

Teacher

Doctor

Nurse

Socialworker

Profession

Total

less than (10) from (10) to (20) over (20)Experance

Total

Data in the table showing the distribution of the sample depending on the

relationship between the type of professions and the years of experience, the

percentage (26.9%) of teachers in the years of experience (10) to (20)

years, and the percentage (1.2%) for nursing staff in the years of experience


- ١٨ -

less than (10) years, The percentages confirm that the diversity of years

according to the population of the study.

2.2.3. Professional* Gender cross tabulation:

2.1.4 Profession * Gender Crosstabulation

122 75 19730.1% 18.5% 48.6%

44 25 6910.9% 6.2% 17.0%

31 23 547.7% 5.7% 13.3%49 36 85

12.1% 8.9% 21.0%246 159 405

60.7% 39.3% 100.0%

Count% of TotalCount% of TotalCount% of TotalCount% of TotalCount% of Total

Teacher

Doctor

Nurse

Socialworker

Profession

Total

male femaleGender

Total

Percentages in table refer to the distribution of professionals according to

the Gender, the percentage of dominant (30.1%) for male of teachers,

followed by the percentage (18.5%) for teachers female, the least

percentage (5.7%) represented the nursing staff female.

2.2.4. Experience* management levels cross tabulation:

2.1.5 Experience * Management level Crosstabulati

15 30 33 783.7% 7.4% 8.1% 19.3%

24 150 69 2435.9% 37.0% 17.0% 60.0%

18 45 21 844.4% 11.1% 5.2% 20.7%

57 225 123 40514.1% 55.6% 30.4% 100.0%

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Middle level

Executive level

high level

M -level

Total

less than(10)

from (10)to (20) over (20)

Experience

Total

Percentages in the previous table indicated to the years of experience in

the intersection with the professionals management levels, data showed the

percentage of dominant at (37.0%) of the Executive Director level for years

of experience (10) to (20) years, at least percentage (4.4%) of professionals

in the senior management level for years experience less than (10) years.

Data reveal that there is a direct correlation between years of experience and

advancement in the management level of social welfare fields.


- ١٩ -

2.3 Q.1. What are the main personal and organizational determinants

that affecting on the professionals towards teamwork?

2.3.1 The Ranking of the personal determinants :

2.3.1.1 The Ranking of the personal strengths:

Dimension of the personal strengths items consists of five items have

been confirmed validity and reliability, the following table refer to validity and

reliability of the five items represents the axis statistically.

2.2.1. The Ranking of the Strengths a

I Initiative seriously in the teamwork 4.32 3.0000 3.0000 4.0000Professional knowledge enable me towork through team

3.50 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

Professional experience enable me towork through team

2.81 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I am training to work through teamenvironment

2.36 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Professional skills enable me to workthrough team

2.00 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles

Chi -Square= 727.97 Asymp . Sig= .00 df= 4 N=405a.

Friedman test showed that the rank from (1) to (5), the data indicates

that there is significant statistical difference at a level less than (0.01)

between the five items, the table shows that the initiative to work through

the team in the first order of importance by mane rank (4.32), followed by

an item of professional knowledge in relation to the team at (3.5), and the

provision of professional experience with an average (2.81), and for training

at (2.35), the fifth item in the order of professional skills by mane rank

(2.00).

2.3.1.2 The Ranking of the personal weaknesses:

2.2.2. The ranking of the Weaknesses a

I am afraid of the professional identityfrom the team work

3.34 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

Teamwork strengthens the professionover the other

2.48 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Teamwork weaken my personality 2.13 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000Teamwork negatively affect theprofessional status

2.05 1.0000 2.0000 2.0000

First

Second

Third

Fourth

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles



- ٢٠ -

Data in the table refer to Friedman's test results in dealing with the axis

associated with weaknesses in the personal, statistical treatment showed

acceptance of four main items has been tested validity and reliability factors,

the results of the current statistical test showed that there is a significant

statistical difference at a level less than (0.01) between all items, the test

showed that the first order, "afraid about professional identity" by main rank

(3.34), followed by the item associated with the dominance of the profession

on the other by main rank (2.48), and item associated with the impact of

teamwork on the professional identity by (2.13), the last item related to the

concern the negative impact to team work on the functional status of

professionals at (2.05).

2.3.2. The Ranking of the organizational determinants

2.3.2.1. The Ranking of the Environmental determinants

Environmental determinants were divided into two dimensions, the first the

determinants of the internal - environment, and the other the determinants

of the external –environment.

2.3.2.2.1The Ranking of the internal environment determinants.

2.2.3. The ranking of the Internal environment determinant s a

Networks of internal environmentenable teamwork

4.61 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000

Facilities available for the team work 3.97 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000Social welfare services required towork through team work.

3.89 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000

Internal regulations impede teamworkenvironment

3.63 3.0000 3.0000 4.0000

type of the tasks requiring to workthrough teamwork environment

2.47 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

Daily work stress adversely affect theeffectiveness of teamwork

2.43 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Sixth

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles

Chi-Square = 727.97 Asymp . Sig = .00 df= 4 N=405a.

Friedman test results indicate that there are five items have been confirmed

validity and reliability factors, the results showed no differences at the level

of statistical significant (0.01) among the five main items, the results showed

that the item "network of human relations at work facilitate cooperation

through teamwork by main rank (4.61) followed by the teamwork as a

requirement to provide for social welfare services at an average (3.97), in


- ٢١ -

the order in the sixth and final item on the daily pressure of work in relation

to the work puts the average (2.43).

2.3.2.2.2 The Ranking of the external environment

Determinants of external environment was divided into two dimensions, the

first opportunity and the other representing the threats

2.3.2.2.2.1 The Ranking of the opportunities.

2.2.4. The ranking of the Opportunities a

Professional management is committedto working through team

2.00 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000

teamwork environment is a feature ofthe work in the Egyptian society

1.00 4.0000 4.0000 5.0000

Incentives for teamwork available 1.00 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000Welfare Services based on teamwork 1.00 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

First

Second

ThirdFourth

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles

Chi-Square = 727.97 Asymp . Sig= .00 df= 4 N=405a.

Friedman test showed that the opportunities consisted of four main items,

test results showed that there were significant differences statistically

significant at a level less than (0.01) among the items that make it the

centerpiece, the data indicate that the item's commitment to professional

management team-work, such as the first order average of (2.00) , in the

order in the fourth and final item teamwork requirement to provide social

welfare services at an average (1.00).

2.3.2.2.2.2 The Ranking of the threats

Data in the table refer to the four items that reflect the threats that associated with the external environment in relation to teamwork.

2.2.5. The ranking of the Threats a

Facilities of teamwork is not availablein the Egyptian society

3.65 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000

Welfare Services are not based onteamwork

2.27 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Organizational climate encourages theindividual work

2.19 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Obstacles to teamwork available in theEgyptian Environmental

1.90 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

First

Second

Third

Fourth

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles



- ٢٢ -

Friedman test confirmed the effectiveness of four items that represent a

major external threats that affect teamwork in social welfare institutions, the

results showed that the item that the system of social welfare in Egypt are

not based on teamwork has achieved an average of the first rank (3.65), the

fourth-ranking item, which refer to the teamwork of multiple constraints in

the system of social welfare Egyptian by man rank (1.90),Test indicates that

there is a statistically significant differences at the level of (0.01) among the

items that reflect the threats associated with the external environment.

2.4 Q.2. What are the main components of the professionals'

attitudes towards teamwork in the SW institutions?

2.4. The Ranking of the attitude component:

Professionals attitudes towards teamwork were divided into three components: cognitive component, affective component and behavior or skill component, the following tables reveal the ranking of those components.

2.4.1 The Ranking of the cognitive component:

2.2.6. The ranking of the Cognitive component a

In teamwork, conflict should always beavoided

9.17 4.0000 4.0000 5.0000

Teamwork accomplishes a task moreeffectively and efficiently thanindividual

7.49 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000

Teamwork contributes to the refinementof professional skills

7.43 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000

Teams always outperform individuals 5.96 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000Teamwork is better than group work 5.61 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000Teamwork based on the diversity. 5.51 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000Teamwork always involves workingtoward a common goal

5.49 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

Teamwork requires respect for otherprofessional disciplines

5.12 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

Personal goals can be achievedthrough teamwork environment

5.00 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

Teamwork contribute to thedevelopment of professional practice

4.96 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

Teamwork contribute to develop the professional performance

4.26 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

First

Second

Third

FourthFifthSixth

Seventh

Eighth

Ninth

Ten

Eleventh

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles


Using the Friedman test showed that the cognitive component to the

professionals attitude in social care institutions about teamwork consisted of

eleven items, the test revealed that there is significant differences at a level

less than (0.01) between the study sample, including response refers to the


- ٢٣ -

validity and reliability of the items, the test confirmed that the rank of items

(1) to (11), Friedman test showed that the arrangement was the first item

which reflects the inverse relationship among teamwork and conflict by main

rank (9.17), in the order the last item, which refers to the direct correlation

among the teamwork and performance of professionals in social care

institutions by rank (4.26)

2.4.2 The Ranking of the affective component.

2.2.7. The ranking of the Affective component a

Work through the teamwork environment can effectively investresources environment

11.37 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000

Teams make better decisions thanindividuals

9.79 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I think that teamwork helps to betterperformance of the tasks

9.19 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

A good team member providesemotional support to all other members

9.09 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I think that I can maintenance my professional identity in teamwork

8.94 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I prefer working as part of a team toworking alone

8.93 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I think that the teamwork environmentable us to manage time well

7.88 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I think that the Teamwork able us tomeet the real needs of the patient

7.73 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

I think that teamwork contribute toimproving the service provided

7.35 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I believe that team environmentenables us to focus on the tasks andsolving problems

7.10 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Work through the teamwork environment can be the right of welfare

6.84 2.00000 2.00000 3.00000

We feel comfortable and relaxed withone another

6.76 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I am feeling the Common responsibilityof the teamwork environment 6.53 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I think that the Teamwork contributes tothe refinement of professional skills

6.45 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I feel an integral part of the Teamwork 6.06 1.00000 2.00000 3.00000

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Sixth

Seventh

Eighth

Ninth

Ten

Eleventh

Twelfth

Thirteenth

Fourteenth

Fifteenth

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles


Friedman test results demonstrated reliability and validity of fifteen

items reflect the affective component of the professional attitude towards

teamwork in social welfare, the test confirmed that the items starting from

(1) to (15), Friedman showed that there is a statistical difference at a level


- ٢٤ -

less than (0.01) between responses to the items, the show confirmed that

the item that reflect the relationship among teamwork and citizens rights in

care by main rank (11.37), item fifteenth and last impression that

professional part of the team by main rank at (6.06).

2.4.3 The Ranking of the behavioral component.

2.2.8. The ranking of the Behavioral component a

I can accept criticism 14.52 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000I listen before I respond to an opinion ofa team member

12.90 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000

We all show equal commitment to ourobjective

10.79 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I use appropriate and respectfullanguage

10.70 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I strive to learn from my team members. 10.61 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

We trust each other 10.53 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000To keep my identity in my work with theteam

10.44 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

I often make suggestions forimprovement in the team performance

9.93 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

I am prepared to acknowledge mistakes 9.83 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

We remain united even when wedisagree

9.39 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

Final power in teamwork always restswith the leader/ coordinator

9.11 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000

I strive to seek a solution to a problemthat brings consensus to the team

8.81 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Teamwork will contribute to improvingthe service

7.87 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

My career has grown from theteamwork environment through

7.83 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I am performing my work through theEnvironment team

7.52 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I am prepared to help colleagues withtheir daily tasks

7.33 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I often voice my opinion in teammeetings

7.12 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

I am prepared to share all relevantinformation with my colleagues

5.76 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Sixth

Seventh

Eighth

Ninth

Ten

Eleventh

Twelfth

Thirteenth

Fourteenth

Fifteenth

Sixteenth

Seventeenth

Eighteenth

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles

Chi -Square= 1313.58 Asymp . Sig= .00 df = 17 N=405a.

Friedman Test showed validity and reliability of fifteen items that reflect

the behavioral component of the trends towards teamwork of professionals in

the field of social welfare, the test revealed that the items of the START (1)

to (15), Friedman showed a statistical difference at a level less than (0.01 )

between the responses of the sample on the axis associated with some

behavioral components of teamwork, the statistical test showed that the item

which reflects the professionals to accept criticism within the team


- ٢٥ -

environment with an average (14.52), in the order in the fifteenth and the

last is the item that refers to the skill of the exchange of information between

professionals in the teamwork average (5.67).

2.4.4 The Ranking of (A.B.C) components

Data in the table refers to the Rank of the components of professionals

attitudes toward teamwork in social welfare organizations, using the

Friedman test showed that the components of (1) to (3)

2.2.9. The ranking of the Teamwork attitude a

Cognitive component 2.33 2.4545 2.9091 3.5455Behavioral component 1.84 2.3333 2.7222 3.1667Affective component 1.82 2.2000 2.6667 3.4000

FirstSecondThird

ItemsMeanRank 25th

50th(Median) 75th

Percentiles


Friedman test revealed a significant difference in responses at a lower level

of (0.01), the test demonstrated validity and reliability of the three axes, the

data in the table confirms that the cognitive component has the first order

(2.33), followed by behavioral component in the order (1.84), in the order in

the third and final Emotional component (1.82).

2.5 HYP. There is a statistically significant association between

organizational determinants and professionals attitudes towards TW.

- Independent variables : (TW attitude)

- Dependent variables : (Personal determinants., environment determinants)

) µµµµ1 ==== µµµµ1 ( HO: 1. NULL HYPOTHESIS:

) µµµµ1 ≠≠≠≠ µµµµ1 ( Hαααα: 2. Alternative hypothesis:

2.5.2. TW attitude and personal determinants.

2.3.1.Results of Multiple Regression : Independent Variable : Teamwork attitude . a

.271 .073 .324 3.563 .000

.381 .089 .345 4.263 .000-9.62E-02 .175 -.072 -.548 .584

.608 .222b .484 2.737 .006

Affective componentCognitive componentBehavioral componentTeamwork attitude

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: personal Determinantsa.

F = 160.69 * Sig = 0.000 * Adjusted R Square = .543* R Square =.546 * R=.739b.


- ٢٦ -

Using multiple regression we tried to find the correlation between the (A-

B-C) variables and the Personal determinants. The variables had a very high

adjusted R² of .543 (F=160,69; significance F=.0000) which shows that our

model has good explanatory power with regard to these correlates of

determinants. Integrity had the highest Beta cognitive component (.345),

which was followed by affective component (.324) and behavioral component

(.072). The rest of the variables had quite lower Beta’s with benevolence

being the highest (.582). The regressions of each dimension individually, has

shown that the one that is higher correlated to the personal determinations

variable is the teamwork (adjusted R²=.543), while the rest of the

dimensions follow with close values. Test showed a rejection of the null

hypothesis and accepts the alternative hypothesis: there is a statistically

significant association at a level less than (0.05) between the personal

determinants as independent variable with the attitude towards teamwork of

professionals in social welfare institutions.

2.5.2. TW attitude and environment determinants.

As the regression results the environment determinants dimension had an

adjusted R² of .755 (F=132.44, Significance F=.0000). These factors have

subsequently the lowest correlation with attitude towards teamwork, highest

Beta (1.880), which is followed by behavior component, with .1.455 and

cognitive component, with .687. Environment determinants also affects

(Beta=.519) affective component, Results revealed the rejection of null

hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis: there was a statistical

correlation at a level less than (0.05) between environmental determinants

and professionals attitude towards teamwork.

2.3.2.Results of Multiple Regression : Independent Variable : Teamwork attitude . a

.239 .024 .519 5.110 .000

.399 .064 .687 6.230 .0001.024 .126b 1.455 8.140 .000-1.243 .159 -1.880 -7.809 .000

Affective componentCognitive componentBehavioral componentTeamwork attitude

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: environment determinantsa.

F = 132.44 * Sig = 0.000 * Adjusted R Square = .565* R Square =.570 * R=.755b.


- ٢٧ -

2.6.HYP. There is a statistically significant difference in TW attitudes

according to demographic and organizational variables.

- Independent variables : (Demographic and organizational variables)

- dependent variables : (TW professionals attitudes). (ABC)

) µµµµ1 ==== µµµµ1 ( HO: 1. NULL HYPOTHESIS:

) µµµµ1 ≠≠≠≠ µµµµ1 ( Hαααα: 2. Alternative hypothesis:

2.6.2. TW attitude and the Gender.

Table below shows the results of the Mann-Whitney U test, to determine

if there is significant statistical difference between (male-female) on the all

main dimension that contains the attitude towards teamwork.

246 213.66 52561.50 16933.500 .022159 186.50 29653.50405246 214.47 52759.50 17406.000 .014159 185.25 29455.50405246 211.74 52089.00 17406.000 .061159 189.47 30126.00405246 213.52 52525.50 16969.500 .024159 186.73 29689.50405

malefemaleTotalmalefemaleTotalmalefemaleTotalmalefemaleTotal

Cognitive Components

Affective Components

Behavior Components

Teamwork attitude

NMeanRank

Sum ofRanks

Mann-Whitney U

Asymp.Sig.

(2-tailed)

2.4.1. Teamwork attitude and the respondent Gendera.

Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if there is significant statistical difference between Male – Female respondents on the all main dimension that contains the teamwork attitude. data shows that there is significant statistical difference between male – female respondents on the teamwork attitude, the mean rank of male response is (52525.50) while the male response rank is (29689.50), thus we can say that there is significant statistical difference between tow sub-groups shown by the (.00) significance probability, which is considerably less than (0.05) threshold. So we reject the null and Accept alternative hypothesis that there is a significance difference between Male- Female respondents as two independent variable.

2.6.2. TW attitude and the current level of Education. Data in the table refer to test results Kruskal-Wallis test to determine the statistical differences in responses on the components of the trend towards team work according to the variable level of education (high school - undergraduate - postgraduate).


- ٢٨ -

90 175.35 6.473 .039270 210.7345 211.90

40590 189.65 1.751 .417

270 205.4845 214.80

40590 189.15 1.629 .443

270 206.7345 208.30

40590 181.55 3.949 .139

270 208.4545 213.20

405

high schoolundergraduatePostgraduateTotalhigh schoolundergraduatePostgraduateTotalhigh schoolundergraduatePostgraduateTotalhigh schoolundergraduatePostgraduateTotal

Cognitive Components a


Behavior Components

Teamwork Attitude

NMeanRank

KruskalWallis Test

Asymp.Sig.

(2-tailed)

2.4 .2. Teamwork attitude and the respondent Educational L evel.a.

Test showed a statistical In three components (ABC) the results indicates that there was no significant differences between the three subgroups (secondary school - undergraduate - postgraduate) because the significance probability above (0.05) threshold. So we reject alternative and accept the null hypothesis that there is no significance difference between three educational levels as three independent variable.

2.6.2. TW attitude and the educational level.

57 239.16 6.342 .042225 197.18123 196.89405

57 239.32 8.162 .017225 190.88123 208.34405

57 243.03 7.843 .020225 195.16123 198.79405

57 244.84 9.185 .010225 192.24123 203.29405

less than (10)from (10) to (20)over (20)Totalless than (10)from (10) to (20)over (20)Totalless than (10)from (10) to (20)over (20)Totalless than (10)from (10) to (20)over (20)Total



Behavior Components

Teamwork Attitude

NMeanRank

KruskalWallis Test

Asymp.Sig.

(2-tailed)

2.4.3. Teamwork attitude and the respondent Experience .a.

Table shows the results of Kruskal-Wallis test to determine if there is significant statistical difference between the experience levels of respondents that contain three categories (less than (10) – from (10) to (20) – over (20) years) and all questioner dimensions, Using Kruskal-Wallis to test the occurrence of significant differences between the three levels and the all three components of attitude (ABC). The results indicates that there was no significant differences between the three subgroups, because the significance probability above (0.05) threshold. The Results enable us to


- ٢٩ -

reject alternative hypothesis and accept null hypothesis that there is no significance difference between all subgroups as three independent variable.

2.6.2. TW attitude and the current level of management.

Table below shows the results of Kruskal-Wallis test to determine if there is significant statistical difference between the current level of management of respondents that contain three categories (executive level – middle level – high level) and all questioner dimensions.

78 174.21 7.506 .023243 204.98

84 224.00405

78 200.69 .088 .957243 204.41

84 201.07405

78 196.77 .871 .647243 207.43

84 195.98405

78 188.75 1.537 .464243 205.17

84 209.96405

Middle levelExecutive levelhigh levelTotalMiddle levelExecutive levelhigh levelTotalMiddle levelExecutive levelhigh levelTotalMiddle levelExecutive levelhigh levelTotal



Behavior Components

Teamwork Attitude

NMeanRank

KruskalWallis Test

Asymp.Sig.

(2-tailed)

2.4.4. Teamwork attitude and the respondent Management le vel .a.

Using Kruskal-Wallis to test the occurrence of significant differences between the all three sub-group executive, middle and high level. In three components (ABC) or professional teamwork attitudes, the results indicates that there was no significant differences between the three categories (executive level – middle level – high level) on the (TWA), because the significance probability above (0.05) threshold. This Result enables us to reject alternative and accept null hypothesis that there is no significance difference between three subgroups as three independent variable.

2.6.2. TW attitude and the kind of profession.

Table below shows the results of Kruskal-Wallis test to determine if

there is significant statistical difference between the teamwork attitudes of

respondents that contain four categories (teacher – doctor – nurse – social

worker) and all questioner dimensions. Using Kruskal-Wallis test to test the

occurrence of significant differences between the four professions and the all

three components of attitude (ABC). The results indicates that there was no

significant differences between the four subgroups, because the significance

probability above (0.05) threshold. The Results enable us to reject


- ٣٠ -

alternative and accept null hypothesis that there is no significance difference

between all subgroups as four independent variable.

26 50.10 3.815 .02861 66.5440 75.54

3 44.0013029 63.43 3.222 .03659 94.2041 71.90

4 83.8813321 49.29 2.731 .04362 83.4720 59.72

4 58.3810720 38.88 4.505 .02145 93.1019 51.29

3 45.5087

TeacherDoctorNurseSocial workerTotalTeacherDoctorNurseSocial workerTotalTeacherDoctorNurseSocial workerTotalTeacherDoctorNurseSocial workerTotal



Behavior Components

Teamwork Attitude

NMeanRank

KruskalWallis Test

Asymp.Sig.

(2-tailed)

2.4.5. Teamwork attitude and the respondent Professiona.

2.6.2. TW attitude and the kind of welfare sectors.

12 226.50 5.282 .26015 200.4012 245.75

228 209.27138 187.16

12 185.00 5.288 .25915 207.3012 243.00

228 211.08138 187.27

12 222.00 3.548 .47115 216.9012 241.25

228 206.53138 190.68

12 212.50 5.714 .22215 204.4012 249.75

228 210.16138 186.13

Social solidarityYouth sectorUniversity sectorEducational sectorsHealth sectorSocial solidarityYouth sectorUniversity sectorEducational sectorsHealth sectorSocial solidarityYouth sectorUniversity sectorEducational sectorsHealth sectorSocial solidarityYouth sectorUniversity sectorEducational sectorsHealth sector



Behavior Components

E-learning Attitude

NMeanRank

KruskalWallisTest

Asymp.Sig.

(2-tailed)

2.4.6. Teamwork attitude and the Welfare Sectora.


- ٣١ -

Table shows the results of Kruskal-Wallis test to determine if there is

significant statistical difference between the welfare sectors of study of

respondents that contain four categories (social solidarity, youth, university

and health sectors) and all dimensions. Using Kruskal-Wallis test to test the

occurrence of significant differences between the all three sub-groups. In

three components (ABC) the results indicates that there was no significant

differences between the four sectors, because the significance probability

above (0.05) threshold. This Result enables us to reject alternative and

accept null hypothesis that there is no significance difference between three

subgroups as four independent variable.

Summary A Study entitled: The professionals attitudes towards teamwork (TW) in

social welfare organizations (SWO), the study applied on fayoum governorate

south Egypt, The research sample was limited to (405) of professionals in

social welfare institutions, , research methodology indicates that the study

belong to the pattern of descriptive studies, results showed weak of attitude

components towards teamwork, the results also confirmed that the cognitive

component achieve the first order by mean rank (2.33), behavioral

component the second rank at (1.84), affective component achieved the

third and final rank at (1.82), Results confirmed that the determinants of the

external environment that affected on the attitude towards teamwork has

achieved the first mean rank at (2.34), followed by the determinants of the

internal environment at (2.28), and come in the third and final the personal

determinants at (1.37), the multi regression Test showed a rejection of the

null hypothesis and accepts the alternative hypothesis: there is a statistically

significant association at a level less than (0.05) between the personal and

environmental determinants as independent variable with the professionals

attitude towards teamwork, to determine the statistical differences the Mann-

Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test showed a reject the null and Accept

alternative hypothesis that there is a significance difference in the

professional attitude according Gender, experience, the kind of professions.


- ٣٢ -

References Allport, G., (1935) attitudes. In Murichson, G. Lorcestor, (ed) A Hand book of social psychology, clark university press, worcester, massacausetts. Ann Orloff (2008). Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy, University of Ulster, UK. Anne Delarue and Peggy De Prins, (2004) Teamwork in Vlaanderen: universele praktijk of selectief toegepast principe?p 116 - 136, in G. Van Hootegem and B. Cambre, Overwerk(t), Leuven, Acco Anne Delarue, Peggy De Prins. (2004) Teamwork in Vlaanderen: universele praktijk of selectief toegepast principe?p 116 - 136, in G. Van Hootegem and B. Cambre (2004), Overwerk(t), Leuven, Acco Bacon, N. and Blyton, P. (2005) ‘Worker responses to teamworking: Exploring employee attributions of managerial motives’, in International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 16, No. 2. Barker, J. R., (1999) The discipline of teamwork: Participation and concertive control , London, Sage. Bateman, B., Wilson, F. C., & Bingham, D. (2002). Team effectiveness – development of an audit questionnaire. The Journal of Management Development, 21(3/4), 215-226. C. Paris, E. Salas, and J. Cannon-Bowers. (2000) Teamwork in multi person systems: a review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43(8). C. Prince, D. Baker, L. Shreshtha, and E. Salas (1995). Situation awareness in team performance. Human Factors, 37. Campion, A., Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, C., (1993) ‘Relation between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing an effective work group’, in Personnel Psychology , Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 823-850 Christine Glover (2000) Teamworking in Primary Healthcare, final report, Published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the British Medical Association. D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin-Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M. D. (2005, May). The conceptual basis for inter-professional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Inter-professional Care, 19(Supplement 1), 116-131 Delarue, A., Stijn, G. and Van Hootegem, G., (2003) Productivity outcomes of teamwork as an effect of team structure , Working paper, Steunpunt OOI, Catholic University of Leuven, available at: Dileni Gunewardena (2001) Urban Poverty in South Asia: What do we know? What do we need to know?, Paper prepared for Poverty Reduction and Social Progress: New Trends and Emerging Lessons Regional dialogue and consultation on WDR2001 for South Asia April 4-6, 1999, Rajendrapur, Bangladesh.


- ٣٣ -

Fröbel, P. and Marchington. M.,(2005) ‘Teamworking structures and Worker perceptions: a cross-national study in pharmaceuticals’, in International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 256-276. G. Stasser, D. Stewart, and G.Wittenbaum. (1995) Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(1). Galve Górriz, C. and Ortega Lapiedra, R., Equipos de Trabajo y Performance (2000): Un Análisis Empírico a Nivel de Planta Productiva [Teamwork and business performance: An empirical analysis at production plant level], Faculty of Economics and Business Science, University of Zaragoza, Spain. George. Argyrous,(2000): Statistics for Social and Health Research, With a Guide to S.P.S.S, London, British Library Cataloguing. Grady, G., & Wojner, A. W. (1996). Collaborative practice teams: The infrastructure of outcomes management. AACN Clinical Issues, 7(1), 153-158 Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338 Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315- 342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall http://www.ondernemerschap.be/documents/pdf/wp_productivity_outcomes_of_teamwork .pdf JINMAN KYONNE, (2007) THE ROLE OF TEAMWORK IN PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE CASEWORKERS’ INTENTIONS TO LEAVE, A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia Joakim Palme, (1998) Institute for Future Studies, Sweden Lane Kenworthy. Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 188, K. Smith-Jentsch, J. Johnson, and S. Payne. (1998) Measuring team-related expertise in complex environments. In J. Cannon-Bowers and E. Salas, editors, Decision making under stress: Implications for individual and team training. American Psychological Association. Kam-shing Yip(2004) Medicalization of Social Workers in Mental Health Services in Hong Kong British Journal of Social Work (2004) 34, 413-435 British Journal of Social Work 34/3 © BASW Trading Ltd http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract Kuipers, B.S., (2005) Team development and team performance: Responsibilities, responsiveness and results. A longitudinal study of teamwork at Volvo trucks Umeå , Dissertation, University of Groningen, Netherlands, available at: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/277970806 Kuipers, B.S., (2005) Team development and team performance: Responsibilities, responsiveness and results. A longitudinal study of


- ٣٤ -

teamwork at Volvo trucks Umeå , Dissertation, University of Groningen, Netherlands, 2005, available at: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/277970806 Kuipers, B.S., (2005) Team development and team performance: Responsibilities, responsiveness and results. A longitudinal study of teamwork at Volvo trucks Umeå , Dissertation, University of Groningen, Netherlands,, available at: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/277970806 Laura L. Ellingson (2002) Communication, Collaboration, and Teamwork among Health Care, Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture Professionals, Volume 21 , No. 3 Lemieux-Charles L, Murray M, Baker GR, Barnsley J, Tasa K, and Salahadin AI. (2002) The effects of quality improvement practices on team effectiveness: A mediational model. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 23:533-553. Michael Malone , (2004) Professionals' Attitudes and Perceptions of Teamwork Supporting People with Disabilities, Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, Springer Netherlands, Volume 11, Number 2 /9 Nunnally, J.C (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.), New York: McEvan-Hill. Ovretveit J (1997) “How to describe inter-professional working” In: “Inter-professional Working for Health and Social Care” (eds J. Ovreteit, P Mathias & T. Thompson), pp 9-33. MacMillan London Pritchard P, Pritchard J. (1994) Teamwork in primary and shared care: a practical workbook. Oxford Medical Publications. Oxford. R. Stout, J. Cannon-Bowers, E. Salas, and D. Milanovich. (1999) Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41. Robert G. Hayden, (1985) Social Welfare In The Third World: A Study From Germany , Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, Volume 2, Issue 1 & 2 Autumn.. Baden-Baden, Nomos Publishing Co. Ruth Blackman, (2006). Social Welfare as Empowerment, Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados 7th Annual Conference March 29-31, 2006 Sherbourne Conference Centre, Barbados Sundstrom, E. K., DeMeuse, P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 2, 12-33.


- ٣٥ -

Appendix (1) Study Questioner

SECTION 1 ; Demographic variables : Please answer the following questions by circling t he appropriate number:

Count

Teacher ( )Doctor ( )Nurse ( )Social worker ( )

Social solidarity ( )Youth sector ( )Universitysector ( )

Educationalsectors ( )

Health sector ( )( )

male ( )female ( )

less than (30) ( )from (30) to (50) ( )over (50) ( )

Married ( )Single ( )

high school ( )undergraduate ( )Postgraduate ( )

less than (500) ( )from (500) to(1000) ( )

over (1000) ( )

less than (10) ( )from (10) to (20) ( )over (20) ( )

Middle level ( )Executive level ( )high level ( )

Profession:

Sector:

Gender:

Age:

Marital:

Education:

Income:

Experience:

Demographic variables

Management level:

Sub-variables


- ٣٦ -

StrengthsI am training to work throughteam environment

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Professional knowledge enableme to work through team

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Professional skills enable me towork through team

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Professional experience enableme to work through team

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I Initiative seriously in theteamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

WeaknessesI am afraid of the professionalidentity from the team work

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork weaken mypersonality

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork strengthens theprofession over the other

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork negatively affect theprofessional status

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Daily work stress adverselyaffect the effectiveness ofteamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

type of the tasks requiring towork through teamworkenvironment

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Facilities available for the teamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Internal regulations impedeteamwork environment

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Social welfare services requiredto work through team work.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Networks of internalenvironment enable teamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Opportunitiesteamwork environment is afeature of the work in theEgyptian society

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Professional management iscommitted to working throughteam

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Incentives for teamworkavailable

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Welfare Services based onteamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

ThreatsOrganizational climateencourages the individual work

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Obstacles to teamwork availablein the Egyptian Environmental

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Welfare Services are not basedon teamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Facilities of teamwork is notavailable in the Egyptian society

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

personalDeterminants

Internalenvironmentdeterminants

externalenvironmentdeterminants

Strongdisagree

disagree

Neutral agree

Strongagree


- ٣٧ -

Cognitivecomponent

Teamwork based on the diversity. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork contributes to therefinement of professional skills

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

In teamwork, conflict should alwaysbe avoided

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teams always outperform individuals ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork is better than group work ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Personal goals can be achievedthrough teamwork environment

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork always involves workingtoward a common goal

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork accomplishes a taskmore effectively and efficiently thanindividual

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork contribute to develop the professional performance

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork contribute to thedevelopment of professional practice

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork requires respect for otherprofessional disciplines

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Affectivecomponent

I am feeling the Commonresponsibility of the teamworkenvironment

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I believe that team environmentenables us to focus on the tasks andsolving problems

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teams make better decisions thanindividuals

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I prefer working as part of a team toworking alone

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

A good team member providesemotional support to all othermembers

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I think that teamwork contribute toimproving the service provided

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I think that teamwork helps to betterperformance of the tasks

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I think that I can maintenance my professional identity in teamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I think that the teamwork environment able us to manage timewell

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I think that the Teamwork contributesto the refinement of professionalskills

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I think that the Teamwork able us tomeet the real needs of the patient

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Work through the teamwork environment can effectively investresources environment

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork attitude

Strongdisagree

disagree

Neutral agree

Strongagree


- ٣٨ -

Affectivecomponent

Facilities of teamwork is notavailable in the Egyptian society

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Work through the teamwork environment can be the right ofwelfare

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I feel an integral part of theTeamwork

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

We feel comfortable and relaxedwith one another

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Behavioralcomponent

I am performing my workthrough the Environment team

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

My career has grown from theteamwork environment through

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Teamwork will contribute toimproving the service

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

To keep my identity in my workwith the team

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Final power in teamwork alwaysrests with the leader/coordinator

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I often make suggestions forimprovement in the teamperformance

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I often voice my opinion in teammeetings

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I am prepared to share allrelevant information with mycolleagues

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I am prepared to help colleagueswith their daily tasks

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I can accept criticism ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I am prepared to acknowledgemistakes

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I listen before I respond to anopinion of a team member

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I strive to learn from my teammembers.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I use appropriate and respectfullanguage

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I strive to seek a solution to aproblem that brings consensusto the team

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

ThreatsWe all show equal commitmentto our objective

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

We trust each other ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

We remain united even when wedisagree

Teamworkattitude

Strongdisagree

disagree

Neutral agree

Strongagree


- ٣٩ -

Biography

Dr. Ahmed farouk is an associate professor

in the faculty of social work – social work

education department and director of the

community service and environment

developing center (CeC) at University of

Fayoum, ARE. Dr. Farouk’s current research

inter-ests are in the areas of welfare, health

care, social policy and social work research.

E-mail : [email protected]

Alte mail : [email protected]

نحو العمل في مجاالت الرعاية االجتماعية اتجاهات المهنيين : الدراسة عنوان :ملخص الدراسة تجاهـات ال المعرفية واالنفعاليـة والـسلوكية مكوناتالقياس ، تمثل الهدف الرئيس في "الفريقيلدراسة نحو العمل من خالل بيئة الفريق، تنتمي االعاملين في مجاالت الرعاية االجتماعية المهنيين

وطبقت على عينة ، واعتمدت على المسح االجتماعي بالعينة،إلى نمط الدراسات الوصفية التحليليةمن المهنيين العاملين في مجاالت الرعاية االجتماعية بمحافظة الفيوم جنوب مصر، ) ٤٠٥(قوامها

نحـو ن االتجاهات، وتوصلت إلى أن اتجاهات المهنيي لقياس)C-B-A (واعتمدت على نموذج : المعرفـي ج اختبار فريدمان على أن المكـون أكدت نتائ توصف بالضعف، كما العمل الفريقي

cognitive component )C( للعمل الفريقي قد حققت الترتيب األول بمتوسط ترتيبي قـدره )B( behavior component: يليه من حيث القوة المكون المهـاري أو الـسلوكي ) ٢,٣٤(

، وأتي في الترتيب الثالث واألخير من حيـث األهميـة المكـون )٢,٢٨(ره بمتوسط ترتيبي قد ، وعلى الجاني األخر أكـدت )١,٣٧( بمتوسط قدره )componentaffective )A: االنفعالي

على رفض الفرض الصفري وقبول الفرض Multiple Regression المتعددنتائج االنحداربين المحـددات ) ٠,٠٥( عند مستوى معنوية أقل من حصائياًإالبديل الذي مؤداه توجد عالقة دالة

الشخصية للمهنيين ومحددات بيئة العمل الداخلية والخارجية كمتغيرات مستقلة واالتجاه نحو العمل : من خالل بيئة الفريق في منظمات الرعاية االجتماعية، كما أظهرت نتائج اختبار كرسكل ويلس

Kruskal-Wallis testلفرض الصفري وقبول الفرض البديل القائل بوجود فروق عن رفض افي اتجاهات المهنيين نحـو العمـل الفريقـي ) ٠,٠٥( عند مستوى معنوية أقل من إحصائياًدالة

.اإلداري المستوى – سنوات الخبرة – جنس المبحوث –تختلف تبعا لنوع المهنة

a- professor: ahmed farouk mohammeda- professor: ahmed farouk mohammed s-w field department –...

Documents