Assess how the team works, not just the people who form it
A team can be made up of excellent professionals and still struggle to coordinate, decide, communicate or achieve results.
Systemic Team Assessment analyzes the team itself as an entity, making it possible to understand how it works collectively and how it relates to the organization.
Select which aspects you want to measure, compare perceived state and desired state and turn the results into concrete conversations and improvement priorities.
We don't ask who performs best. We ask how we are working together.
Many talent tools start from the individual:
- What is this person like?
- What competencies do they have?
- How do they behave?
Systemic Team Assessment starts from a different question:
What is happening in the system formed by all these people together?
That is why the assessment does not aim to point out “which member has the problem” or “who is performing worst”.
It analyzes collective matters such as communication, roles, coordination, decision-making, identity, organizational support, objectives or feedback.
The team is the unit of analysis.
Six areas to understand collective functioning
The model organizes the assessment into 6 major areas and 24 dimensions. The actual report uses precisely this structure and represents perceived state and desired state together.
| Area | What it helps you understand | Dimensions |
|---|---|---|
| Interaction | What the interpersonal and communicative dynamics are like | Communication · Camaraderie · Conflicts · Attitude |
| Structure | How the team organizes itself internally | Roles · Leadership · Responsibility · Coordination |
| Functioning | How it approaches work and decisions | Proactivity · Decision-making · Work pace · Focus |
| Identity | How it understands who it is and what its place is | Vision & Mission · Values · Position · Unity |
| Integration | How it relates to the organization | Resources · Internal communication · Support · Contribution |
| Performance | How it is oriented toward objectives and results | Objectives · Planning · Feedback · Results |
You don't always need to measure the same thing
Select the areas and elements relevant to your project
The model has the six areas and their 24 elements, but the project can select which aspects it wants to measure.
This makes it possible to adapt the assessment when the objective is especially related, for example, to:
instead of forcing you to always use exactly the same configuration.
Illustrative example: selector of the assessment’s areas and elements.
Assess what you need to understand about the team, without turning the diagnosis into an unnecessarily rigid questionnaire.
What each area covers
Interaction
How do we relate and communicate?
Communication · Camaraderie · Conflicts · Attitude
This area analyzes the interpersonal dynamic that exists within the group. The report goes deeper into these dimensions and lets you observe both the current perception and the level the team itself considers desirable.
The question is not only “do we communicate?”, but: how do we communicate, how do we manage differences and what kind of relationship are we building?
Structure
Are we clear about how we should organize ourselves?
Roles · Leadership · Responsibility · Coordination
It analyzes the team's internal organization. The report studies matters such as clarity of roles, suitability of leadership to the team's needs, fulfillment of agreements and coordination of work.
A team can have good relationships and still function poorly because no one knows clearly enough who decides, who does what or how activities should be coordinated.
Functioning
How do we make the work move forward?
Proactivity · Decision-making · Work pace · Focus
The report defines it as the way the team approaches its work and makes decisions.
Here we can detect matters related to the capacity to react, participation in decisions, pace, prioritization and maintaining focus.
Identity
Do we really feel like a team?
Vision & Mission · Values · Position · Unity
Working together does not necessarily mean feeling part of a unit. This area goes deeper both into internal identity and into understanding the place the team occupies within the organization.
The question is: are we merely people working together or do we truly share a purpose and a collective identity?
Integration
What relationship does the team have with the organization?
Resources · Internal communication · Support · Contribution
This is one of the aspects that makes the assessment especially interesting. It does not only analyze what happens inside the team: it also asks about its relationship with the organization, including the availability of resources, communication between team and company, perceived support and the connection with organizational objectives.
Not all of a team's problems originate within the team itself.
Performance
Are we turning our effort into results?
Objectives · Planning · Feedback · Results
The report observes clarity and alignment regarding objectives, planning, the quality of feedback received and the relationship between collective effort and results.
This makes it possible to connect internal dynamics with the team's ultimate purpose: making collective work work.
Knowing how we are is not enough
Participants rate two perspectives. The report compares both across the six areas as well as their dimensions.
PERCEIVED STATE
How do we function today?
DESIRED STATE
How do we want to function?
Distance matters because an isolated score can be misleading.
A result of 70 may seem reasonable. But if the team believes it should be at 90, there is a significant gap.
From six areas to 24 dimensions
Start with the global view. Then find where to look.
Interaction
Structure
Functioning
Identity
Integration
Performance
Illustrative example: perceived vs. desired state by area.
The general radar shows all 24 dimensions simultaneously and makes it possible to quickly identify where the biggest differences between the current and desired perception lie.
It is probably the most powerful visualization in the whole assessment.
An average doesn't always explain what is happening
As with Organizational Monitor, we should not settle exclusively for average scores. Imagine two teams:
TEAM A
Average = 7
TEAM B
Similar average, but very unequal perception
The distribution of responses can help you understand whether there is consensus, dispersion, polarization or groups living a different reality.
The report includes general distributions, by areas and at the detailed level of the 24 dimensions.
A diagnosis of the team, not a ranking of its members
The assessment does not aim to generate:
Participants contribute their perceptions to build a picture of the collective functioning.
This fosters conversations such as:
- What are we doing well as a team?
- Where do we see a gap?
- What do we agree on?
- Where do we have different experiences?
- What should we change together?
Instead of: “who is causing the problem?”
This product makes a lot of sense when the report is not the end
The results can be used to build conversations around matters such as communication, roles, coordination, leadership, decisions, focus, identity, resources, feedback, objectives and other assessed dimensions.
The report should not tell the team what to do. It should help it better understand where it needs to converse and act.
Systemic and DISC answer different questions
Understand the people. And understand the system they form.
DISC of Teamwork
What does each person contribute and how do they tend to work?
It can identify the 11 teamwork styles and visualize them on a DISC Map.
Systemic Team Assessment
How is the team functioning as an entity?
It analyzes the six areas and 24 collective dimensions.
Knowing all the people on a team does not necessarily mean understanding how that team works.
A team can have good profiles and still function poorly
We can have people who are capable, motivated, complementary, experienced and well evaluated individually.
And still find:
That is why not every collective problem is solved by evaluating individuals.
What Talent360 delivers
Different ways to work with the results
Group report in PDF
It presents a structured reading of the team. The actual report includes general state, overall score, area assessment, detail of the six areas, response distributions and final assessment.
On-screen charts
They allow you to visually consult the results directly from the platform.
On-screen data
They make it easier to go deeper into areas and elements without relying exclusively on the PDF.
Excel export
It lets you download the data for analysis, reporting or additional work.
Read the diagnosis in the report, explore the data on the platform or keep analyzing it with your own tools.
From the global result to the detail
General State
An initial view of the six major areas.
24-dimension radar
Visualizes the whole system together.
Assessment by area
Compares perceived and desired state in each major dimension.
Detail by dimension
Lets you understand which specific elements lie behind a score.
Illustrative example: overall team state and area-by-area scoring.
Different ways to apply it
Team development
Get a baseline before starting an improvement process.
Teams in difficulty
Helps separate individual perceptions from truly collective problems.
New teams
Lets you learn how joint functioning begins to be built.
Management teams
Analyzes matters of coordination, leadership, identity, decisions and organizational contribution.
Reorganizations
Helps understand how a team is functioning after changes in structure or composition.
Remote or hybrid teams
Lets you explore communication, coordination, pace, resources and functioning.
Team coaching processes
Provides structured information to guide conversations and priorities.
High-performing teams
Helps detect how far apart current functioning is from what the team itself considers desirable.
Not every problem is internal
A low result in Integration may be related to:
It would make no sense to ask the team to “work better together” if the main problem is that it lacks the necessary resources, information or support.
That is why the assessment explicitly incorporates the team ↔ organization relationship.
A score shows a collective perception, not an automatic cause
If a team gets a low result in leadership, that does not automatically mean “the leader is bad”.
If a gap appears in coordination, we also don't automatically know “who is failing”.
The results show how the collective perceives its functioning.
The correct sequence is:
Not:
Frequently asked questions
Understand what the team needs to function better
Analyze interaction, structure, functioning, identity, integration and performance; compare how the team is perceived with how it wants to function and turn the gaps into better conversations and priorities.