Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interaktionsanalyse in Gruppen: Anwendung und Herausforderungen

Interaction analysis in groups: application and challenges

  • Hauptbeiträge
  • Published:
Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die systematische Beobachtung von Gruppen ist ein wichtiger Schritt um zu verstehen, wie Menschen gemeinsam zusammenarbeiten. Wie treffen Gruppen Entscheidungen? Welche Lösungen setzen sich durch? Oder welche Verhaltensweisen bzw. Äußerungen tragen dazu bei, dass eine Person als Leiter/in der Gruppe angesehen wird? Seit den 1950er-Jahren wird in der Gruppenforschung die systematische Interaktionsanalyse zur Beschreibung von Gruppenprozessen herangezogen, um derlei Fragen zu beantworten. Grundlegend ist hierbei die feingliedrige und detaillierte Beschreibung der Verhaltensweisen in Gruppen. Im Rahmen des vorliegenden Beitrags wird zunächst vorgestellt, welche Schritte bei der Interaktionsanalyse in Gruppen sowohl für Forschungs- als auch für Praxiszwecke zu beachten sind. Aufbauend hierauf werden Ergebnisse einer exemplarischen Fallstudie vorgestellt, die den Mehrwert interaktionsanalytischer Auswertungsmethoden verdeutlicht. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Ausblick auf kommende Herausforderungen und einer Diskussion dazu, wie die Verknüpfung zwischen interaktionsanalytischer Forschung und Praxis verbessert werden kann.

Abstract

The systematic observation of groups is an important step towards understanding how people work together. How do groups make decisions? Which solutions prevail? Or which behaviors indicate who is perceived as the group leader? Since the 1950s, interaction analysis is used to describe how group processes unfold. Fundamental to interaction analysis is the detailed coding of specific group behaviors. In this article, we first provide a guideline describing the necessary steps for carrying out interaction analysis in groups, both for research and practice purposes. Next, we present findings from an exemplary field study which highlight the added value of interaction analytical methods for describing group processes. The article closes with an outlook on future challenges and a discussion about how the collaboration between research and practice can be improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  • Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P., & Williamson, S. A. (1979). SYMLOG: a system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Beck, U. (1997). Soziale Interaktion in Gruppen: Struktur und Prozessanalyse. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Beck, U. (2001). Methods for diagnosing interaction strategies: an application to group interaction in conflict situations. Small Group Research, 32, 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boos, M. (1995). Die sequentielle Strukturierung sozialer Interaktion. In W. Langenthaler & G. Schiepek (Hrsg.), Selbstorganisation und Dynamik in Gruppen (S. 209–221). Münster: LIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boos, M., & Jonas, K. J. (2008). Medienvermittelte Kommunikation. In B. Batinic & M. Appel (Hrsg.), Medienpsychologie (S. 195–217). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS): Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfer in Interaktionen. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15(4), 279–306. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00200.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck, C. D., Jöri, H., & Vogt, M. (2008). Assessment-Center : Entwicklung und Anwendung. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, F. (1994). Eine Methode zur Analyse von Interaktionsprozessen beim Problemlösen in Gruppen. Gruppendynamik, 25, 149–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: a time-based system for analysis of group interaction processes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Voelpel, S. C. (2015). Talking yourself into a leader role? Verbal behavior and leader emergence in self-managed teams. Paper presented at the 17th Congress of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), Oslo.

  • Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S. (2006). Kompetenzen messen, bewerten, entwickeln. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S., Tiscar-Lorenzo, G., Montasem, K., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2009). Act4teams: Die nächste Generation der Teamentwicklung. In S. Kauffeld, S. Grote & E. Frieling (Hrsg.), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung (S. 191–215). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S., Handke, L., & Straube, J. (2016). Verteilt und doch verbunden: Virtuelle Teamarbeit. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation, 47, 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Gibson, C. B., & Kim, K. (2012). Across borders and technologies: advancements in virtual teams research. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Hrsg.), Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (S. 789–858). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Strack, M., Stein, A., & Boos, M. (2011). Effective coordination in human group decision making: MICRO-CO: a micro-analytical taxonomy for analysing explicit coordination mechanisms in decision-making groups. In M. Boos, M. Kolbe, P. Kappeler & T. Ellwart (Hrsg.), Coordination in human and primate groups (S. 199–219). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Nohynkova, R., Manser, T., Spahn, D. R., & Grote, G. (2012). Speaking-up is related to better team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions: an observational study. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 115, 1099–1108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., & Manser, T. (2013). Co-ACT-A framework for observing coordination behavior in acute care teams. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22, 596–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M. J., & Spahn, D. R. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1254–1267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 270–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (2. Aufl.). Thousand Oak: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture: differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 252–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Beck, S. J., & Kauffeld, S. (2015a). Emergent team roles in organizational meetings: identifying communication patterns via cluster analysis. Communication Studies, 67, 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meinecke, A. L., Rowold, J., & Kauffeld, S. (2015b). How transformational leadership works during team interactions: a behavioral process analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 1017–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Chiu, M. M., Lei, Z., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: a statistical discourse analysis. Group & Organization Management doi:10.1177/1059601116628720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, Z., Waller, M. J., Hagen, J., & Kaplan, S. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41, 491–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangold International (2014). INTERACT Benutzerhandbuch. Arnstorf: Mangold International. www.mangold-international.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangold International (2016). Obansys. http://itunes.apple.com Version 1.3.1, mobile application software. Zugegriffen: 15.08.2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Altermatt, T. W. (2001). Observation and interaction over time: some methodological and strategic choices. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes (S. 525–556). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meinecke, A. L., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2015). Social dynamics at work: meetings as a gateway. In J. A. Allen, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock & S. G. Rogelberg (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of meeting science (S. 325–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Noldus, L. P. J. J., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendriksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G. (2000). The Observer Video-Pro: new software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, S. B. F., Schunn, C. D., & Kim, K. H. (2011). Conflict under the microscope: micro-conflicts in naturalistic team discussions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4, 314–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., & Dobosh, M. (2010). Exploring conflict management processes in jury deliberations through interaction analysis. Small Group Research, 41, 408–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS)–a new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 12–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderberg, L., Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2009). Meetingkultur unter der Prozesslupe: Besprechungsoptimierung in der IT. In S. Kauffeld, S. Grote & E. Frieling (Hrsg.), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung (S. 216–232). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachowski, A. A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suter, G., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Meetings im kulturellen Vergleich: Deutsche brauchen Klarheit, Schweizer gute Zuhörer. PERSONALquarterly, 65, 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. W., & Johnson, S. D. (2008). Phases and patterns of group development in virtual learning teams. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 595–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Spielmannstraße 19, 38106, Braunschweig, Deutschland

    Annika L. Meinecke M.Sc. &  Simone Kauffeld

Authors
  1. Annika L. Meinecke M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simone Kauffeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annika L. Meinecke M.Sc..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meinecke, A.L., Kauffeld, S. Interaktionsanalyse in Gruppen: Anwendung und Herausforderungen. Gr Interakt Org 47, 321–333 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-016-0347-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-016-0347-1

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation