Volume 1, Issue 8

Welcome back to the Red Tulip Press! This week, it’s all about teams. We’ll be taking a look at Tuckman’s “classic” model of team development, then exploring some limitations and and alternatives of the model that might help you think more deeply about the relationships and interactions in your teams.

TUCKMAN’S 5-STAGE MODEL OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT

Bruce Tuckman was a psychological researcher who specialized in group dynamics. In 1965, he developed a model for group development containing five linear phrases.

The Explanation

Let’s begin by reviewing the characteristics of each stage of Tuckman’s linear team development model.

• Stage 1: Forming: In this stage, a particular group of people comes together as a team for the first time. A number of emotions are common during this stage, ranging from excitement about joining the team, to curiosity about the other members of the team, to anxiety about one’s ability to perform within the team. During this stage, a team leader may help the group determine roles and responsibilities or, in the absence of a designated leader, team members may begin to form official or unofficial ground rules or working together. Relationships among team members are generally friendly and respectful at this stage.
• Stage 2: Storming: As team members begin to get more familiar with each other, the “honeymoon” phase of the Forming stage begins to wane. Differences in personality, working styles, and opinions on how to proceed with the work at hand may lead to frustration and conflicts. This stage often reveals gaps in the team’s collective understanding of its goals, working agreements, and performance expectations. With the help of a leader or other mediator, the team will need to work to clarify desired outcomes, define roles and responsibilities, and develop tactics for managing conflict.
• Stage 3: Norming: Eventually, team members move past the turmoil of the Storming stage and coalesce around a set of behaviors and expectations that will uniquely define the team. Trust and psychological safety grow, and team members become more comfortable communicating honestly with one another and dealing with conflicts as they arise. As team members become more familiar with one another’s strengths, weaknesses, and working styles, productivity generally increases along with group cohesion.
• Stage 4: Performing: At this stage, members begin to feel as if they are truly part of a team, a greater collective whole. Team members are able to balance they structured processes they’ve established as a group with the flexibility needed to perform efficiently and effectively and adapt to change. Intrinsic motivation toward the team’s goals is present, and little supervision is required; rather, leaders can turn their attention toward stimulating creativity and innovation and steering the team toward a clear future vision.
• Stage 5: Adjourning (Mourning): While some “Performing” teams may continue working together indefinitely, other teams have a finite lifespan and may dissolve once a project or initiative is complete. In the case of the latter, the team moves into this final stage. Alongside a sense of accomplishment and pride at what the team has achieved, common emotions in this stage can also include a sense of loss or feelings of uncertainty about the future, especially if they have formed strong relationships with their teammates.

The Synthesis

Here are a few key takeaways to note about the Tuckman team development model:

First, while Tuckman outlined the stages as occurring linearly, in practice it’s actually common for teams to move back and forth between stages. While there are certain situations, such as a formation of a unique cross-functional team to execute a highly specific initiative, that may bring together a group of people who have little to no experience working with one another, the reality is that most teams evolve their membership slowly over time as new members join and other members leave. The departure and replacement of just one member of a highly established, well-performing team could potentially send the whole group back to the Storming phase. External factors, such as a change in team’s mandate or directive from leadership, could also easily disrupt established group dynamics.

Second, researchers have identified weaknesses to the model which bring into question its efficacy as a tool for modeling team dynamics. Tuckman’s original model was developed based on his research into therapy and training groups, not teams tasked with achieving a particular organizational goal. His model was also based on smaller, co-located groups, long before the days of virtual and distributed teams, meaning that the particular challenges for these groups are unaddressed. Additionally, 2007 study tracking the progress of 321 teams through Tuckman’s stages found that only 2% of them actually progressed through all five stages.

Finally, it’s helpful to note that there are several alternative models of team development that have been proposed as alternatives to Tuckman’s. These include:

• Punctuated-Equilibrium Model: Rather than progressing in a smooth, upward trajectory through the Tuckman stages, this model suggests that groups instead tend to remain in a state of relative equilibrium until a source of disruption (such as an impending critical deadline or dramatic change in project requirements) forces rapid evolution of the team’s working practices.

• Group Systems Theory: Based on the principles of systems theory, this model identifies three key inputs to group development: 1) Relevant background factors, or the characteristics that each team member brings to the group; 2) Internal influences, or the factors that influence member behavior, like the work environment, communication styles, and interpersonal conflict; and 3) Consequences, or the output of the team’s efforts. Team members will continually update and evolve their behavior in response to these three inputs, leading to gradual changes and development in the team itself.
• Dynamic Reteaming: While Tuckman’s model leads us to believe that high-performing teams can only develop over time in an environment of relative stability, this approach developed by Heidi Helfand turns this underlying assumption on its head and advocates for periodic deliberate reteaming of individuals. This practice, Helfand argues, avoids stagnation and siloing, stimulates creativity and innovation, and strengthens organizational agility in the face of constant change and uncertainty.

The Nutshell

Tuckman’s original model of team development remains a useful tool for introducing the many and varied factors at work in group dynamics, and can help both team members and leaders be prepared to work through challenges. However, given the complexity of behavioral processes at work in any given team, along with the myriad of other internal and external influences that can impact a team’s development, we shouldn’t lock ourselves into any one way of thinking about team dynamics - Tuckman’s or otherwise.

Further Reading

https://hr.mit.edu/learning-topics/teams/articles/stages-development

https://www.mindtools.com/abyj5fi/forming-storming-norming-and-performing

https://www.thecoachingtoolscompany.com/get-your-team-performing-beautifully-with-this-powerful-group-development-model/

https://www.agilealliance.org/resources/experience-reports/dynamic-reteaming-how-we-thrive-by-rebuilding-teams/

https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/hrstrategicprojectmanagementtheory/chapter/4-5-in-depth-look-tuckmans-model-five-stages-of-team-development/

https://agile-mercurial.com/2019/04/16/tuckmans-model-5-stages-of-team-development-and-practical-limitations/

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725856.pdf

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504567.pdf