Team diagnosis

The team diagnosis is used, among other things, in the context of personnel development and is part of the team development process. It serves as the basis for the conception of team development measures. Without a team diagnosis, the evaluation of a team development measure in the sense of a success control is not possible.

Classification of the diagnosis phase in the team development process

definition

Team diagnosis “is the targeted and methodically planned collection of information about the work group , the group members and their relationships to the organizational context. It analyzes aspects of the current state and the target state in teamwork . It is used to justify, control and provide feedback on planned or already implemented interventions in the context of team development ”.

aims

The team diagnosis has the following goals in practice:

General information about the current situation of the teams in the company
Initiation of the dialogue
Institutionalized feedback
Analysis of strengths and weaknesses
Inventories and needs assessment for team development measures
Planning basis for a team development process
Initiation and support of team development processes
Support of team supervision
Support of coaches in their feedback function
Development of team members into good diagnosticians, sensitization for group-internal processes
Review or evaluation of team development measures
Benchmarking
Identification of starting points for improvement
Members learn to verbalize processes in the group (strengths, weaknesses)

Diagnostic tools

Diagnostic instruments reveal “what cannot be seen with the naked eye when simply looking at a group or a group discussion”. Group diagnostic instruments make it possible to gain knowledge of the composition of a group and the processes running in it.

There is a wide range of diagnostic tools:

Individual interviews
Group interviews (group discussions) with the whole team or sub-groups
Problem catalogs
Sensing meeting in which representatives of different levels or instances report in a kind of role play what you “think or talk about” about the team, what “you are worried about” and “what you would most like to see changed” or similar.
Use of self-created questionnaires or short questionnaires on specific problem areas (e.g. information, quality of the meetings, opportunities to participate, leadership in the team, etc.)
Use of standardized questionnaires - for example on general job satisfaction - with subsequent discussion of the results in the group (survey feedback method)
Behavioral observations and so-called process analyzes, in which a certain work unit is viewed critically in order to learn from it for the future and to derive opportunities for improvement
Evaluation of critical incidents and analysis of operational processes and processes
Content analysis of company documents (memos, minutes, etc.)
Spontaneous queries and mood barometer
So-called projective methods, e.g. making a caricature or collage ("Present your team as a machine") or as a journalistic task ("Write a report about the situation in your group in the style of the BILD newspaper!")
Force field analyzes to examine the field of influence to which a group is exposed: all affected persons, groups or instances are recorded on a pin board and their cross-connections and relationships (expectations, assessments, power relations, etc.) are drawn in

These diagnostic instruments are divided into process and structure analysis methods. The course of a group process is observed with the help of process-analytical methods, while structure-analytical methods reflect a state of the group.

Process analytical methods

The process analytical methods include behavior observations and process analyzes . Certain work units are “critically examined” in order to map the actual situation and derive opportunities for improvement. For this purpose z. B. a meeting, a working day or an entire project can be used. With the help of structured questions such as B. "What was or worked well?" "Where was the problem?" "Were there also dissenting opinions taken up constructively?" Or "What is good, what went less well?" The analysis is carried out. This type of analysis shows little standardization.

In contrast, there are standardized procedures for process analysis or behavioral observations that arise from small-group research, including:

Interaction Process Analysis (IPA)
System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups ( Symlog )
Conference coding (KONFKOD)
Cognitive Mapping ( Cognitive Map )
Kassel Competence Grid (KKR)
Act4teams
Discussion Coding Tool (ICD) 1

In addition, a group can be examined with regard to its structure with the help of a process analysis method. For this purpose, interaction and communication processes are recorded and documented by video camera and tape for the purpose of a time-shifted analysis. This material is then coded (transcripts) in order to provide the basis for systematic behavioral observations by trained observers.

Structural analysis methods

The structural analysis procedures include questionnaires, rating sheets or lists of adjectives that reflect the current state of a team. Questionnaires are among the most popular methods due to their frequent use in practice. The perceptions of the team members as well as their behavioral dispositions with regard to learning, thinking, problem solving and values are queried. In contrast to the process analysis methods, the findings of the structure analysis methods are based on the subjective perceptions of the team members questioned. The structural analysis questionnaire instruments include:

TeamPuls® 2.0,
Team climate inventory (TKI),
Questionnaire for working in a team (FAT),
teamCheck

Process vs. structural analysis methods

The use of process and structure analysis methods is associated with certain advantages and disadvantages, which are illustrated below:

	Process analytical methods	Structural analysis methods
focus	Objective reality	Subjective perception of group members
methodical approach	Behavior observation	questionnaire
advantages	High information value Attention to detail Adequate mapping of complex phenomena No or little reactivity Acquisition of group structures via data aggregation	High standardization Little expenditure of time Little need for resources Easy to use for long-term studies Subjective assessments (anger etc.)
disadvantage	Little standardization Time consuming High demand for resources Coding training required "Sip" effect	Rough picture High reactivity with repeated use Memory effects - especially when there are short intervals between missions No information about micro processes

literature

Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team Diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe.
Kauffeld, S .; Schulte, EM (2011): Teams and their development. Work, organizational and personnel psychology.
Kauffeld, S .; Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2008): Team diagnosis and team development. Successful group work.
Balz, H.-J .; Spieß, E. (2009): Cooperation in Social Organizations. Basics and tools of teamwork. In: Modules in Applied Psychology. Edited by Hartung, J .; Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K.Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Individual evidence

^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 51.
↑ Balz, H.-J .; Spieß, E. (2009): Cooperation in Social Organizations. Basics and tools of teamwork. In: Modules in Applied Psychology. Edited by Hartung, J .; Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K.Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. P. 134.
^ Kauffeld, S .; Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2008): Team diagnosis and team development. Successful group work. P. 50.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 33.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 53.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 103.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 54f.
^ Kauffeld, S .; Schulte, EM (2011): Teams and their development. Work, organizational and personnel psychology. P. 153.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 55.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P.56.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 153.
^ Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 57.

[1] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 51.

[2] Balz, H.-J .; Spieß, E. (2009): Cooperation in Social Organizations. Basics and tools of teamwork. In: Modules in Applied Psychology. Edited by Hartung, J .; Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K.Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. P. 134.

[3] Kauffeld, S .; Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2008): Team diagnosis and team development. Successful group work. P. 50.

[4] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 33.

[5] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 53.

[6] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 103.

[7] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 54f.

[8] Kauffeld, S .; Schulte, EM (2011): Teams and their development. Work, organizational and personnel psychology. P. 153.

[9] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 55.

[10] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P.56.

[11] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 153.

[12] Kauffeld, S. (2001): Team diagnosis. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. P. 57.