Case Study: Annelie Hörberg at Lantmäteriet
Background
This case describes how Lantmäteriet uses the GDQ as part of Effective Teams, a programme originally developed in collaboration with Partsrådet.
Lantmäteriet has around 2,200 employees. More than half of them have completed at least two GDQ measurements, and in two of the three core business areas, teams have gone through the full GDQ process. Participation is demand-driven: managers reach out to in-house certified GDQ practitioners when they experience a need for team development.
The initiative to introduce GDQ did not come from a single source, it emerged through dialogue between managers and employee representatives and was later brought forward as a proposal to senior management.
“I’ve been told that it was a mix of managers and the union who discovered this and suggested it to leadership.”
One part of the organisation is known for being proactive and regularly putting forward improvement initiatives—this was also the case here. At the time, the HR Director quickly supported the initiative, and for a period, participation in Effective Teams and the GDQ became mandatory in certain parts of the organisation.
A few years earlier, team-based ways of working had already been introduced in one business area. The Effective Teams programme and the use of the GDQ helped move that ambition closer to real, functioning teamwork.
Process
The GDQ process at Lantmäteriet follows a clear and structured flow.
It begins when a manager contacts an in-house GDQ practitioner to clarify the need, set expectations, and frame the process. The team is introduced to GDQ, and the survey is distributed with a clear message: GDQ provides insight and direction, while the team owns both results and development.
After the measurement, results are analysed together with the manager.
The core intervention is a full-day, in-person workshop. The day combines grounding in IMGD, dialogue-based feedback on selected GDQ results, and focused work on two to three priority areas. Teams work in smaller groups to turn insights into concrete, actionable behaviours.
Approximately six months later, the team completes a follow-up GDQ measurement and a half-day workshop. When teams actively work with their agreed focus areas, clear movement toward later stages of group development is visible.
Results
Teams that take ownership of their development show clear progress between the first and second GDQ measurement. Improvements are visible both in the data and in everyday collaboration.
Teams report improved well-being, a stronger sense of direction, and clearer ways of working together. As teams mature, the workshops also change in character: discussions move faster, energy in the room increases, and teams are better able to organise themselves and make decisions.
“How team members behave is closely linked to the stage the team is in,” Annelie notes.
Less mature teams may express needs in broad terms, such as wanting to “improve communication,” while more mature teams describe exactly what that means in concrete, observable behaviours.
Key insights
One of the strongest learnings from Lantmäteriet’s work with GDQ is that ownership matters. Teams that take responsibility for their results and agreed focus areas show clearer and more sustainable development.
The case also highlights the importance of helping teams identify potential obstacles to working with their priorities—and to create concrete plans for how to follow up and measure progress over time.
GDQ provides a shared language and a research-informed structure for understanding team development. Combined with strong facilitation skills and motivational interviewing techniques, it enables teams to actively engage in the process, stay involved over time, and translate insight into real behavioural change.
“GDQ gives direction while the team that does the work.”