Forming. Storming. Norming. Performing. You may well have heard these stages of group maturity before, but do you know where the theory came from?
This article is inspired by the Teamcraft podcast episode, available wherever you get your pods.
In 1965 a young psychologist, freshly minted with a PhD from Princeton, joined the Naval Medical Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. His role as a research psychologist was to investigate the best team behaviours for small crews on naval vessels. Handed a stack of fifty research papers to pore through for clues, his groundbreaking analysis resulted in the model that was to make him famous; Bruce Tuckman’s ‘Stages of Group Development’.
Tuckman’s four stages (later joined by a fifth, ‘adjourning’), known as the Tuckman Team Model, is never far from being mentioned in any conversation about teams. Most managers have heard of ‘storming, norming, something, something’, but haven’t heard of the man who invented it, or looked into the fascinating history behind his most famous model.
This article isn’t so much an explanation of what Tuckman’s model is, as it is an exploration of how a slightly misunderstood concept has become such a common reference point in understanding teamwork. Here we delve into the origins, implications, and the nuanced journey through the stages of this influential model.
The history of the Tuckman Model
Bruce Tuckman grew up in New York, gaining his bachelor’s degree in psychology from the Renesselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1960, and his PhD from Princeton in 1963. Having received his PhD, he joined the US Naval Medical Institute in Bethesda, Maryland as a research psychologist.
At the time, the group that Tuckman joined was researching the behaviour of groups crewing small naval vessels. Handed a stack of fifty articles by his supervisor to review, Tuckman set to work on analysing the papers, and his 1965 paper “The Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,” introduced the now well known forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development.
I was fortunate to have an experienced and talented boss by the name of Irwin Altman, who had been collecting every article he could find on group development. He turned his collection over to me and suggested that I look it over and see if I could make anything out of it.
Bruce Tuckman
The most startling fact of Tuckman’s paper — in the context of today’s use of his model as a touchstone for many group maturity discussions — is that it is neither experimental or empirical, and he never claimed it was or set out for it to be. In fact, as Tuckman himself says in his introduction:
The purpose of this article is to review the literature dealing with the developmental sequence in small groups, to evaluate this literature as a body, to extrapolate general concepts about group development, and to suggest fruitful areas for further research.
Bruce Tuckman
Tuckman set out to review the fifty papers, identify descriptive stages of social, interpersonal and task activities and then, having proposed his four stage model, fit the stages he identified to his proposed model. Having carried out his analysis, Tuckman felt that he had found a good fit between the observed stages and his model, and recommended that his work was extended with further study.
To cloud the water some more, the papers that Tuckman analysed were not really focused on ‘teams’ as we think about them today — certainly they were not groups that always had ‘shared intentionality’, or a goal they were jointly committed to. The papers in Tuckman’s stack had a strong bias towards ‘group therapy’ studies, with titles like “Some Observations Made During Group Therapy”, “Group Therapy with the Blind” and “Group Psychotherapy with Asthmatic Patients”. Tuckman himself described these groups:
In the group-therapy setting the task is to help individuals better deal with their personal problems. The goal is individual adjustment. Such groups contain from 5 to 15 members, each of whom has some debilitating personal problem, and a therapist, and the group exists for 3 months or more
Bruce Tuckman
It’s with an understanding of this background that we should seek to understand and use Tuckman’s model; his research was not empirical and the groups being studied were not ‘teams’ in the modern use of the word. Rather, these were groups of individuals, receiving help with personal challenges, usually facilitated by a therapist or other professional over the course of several months.
Even with the analysis completed, Tuckman still faced the challenge of having the paper published. In his own words, this was something of a struggle:
“There still remained the task of getting the paper published and that was no mean feat. Lloyd Humphreys, then editor of the Psychological Bulletin, turned it down, offering me constructive editorial criticism but concluding that the reviewed studies themselves were not of sufficient quality to merit publication. I was persistent, though, and rewrote the manuscript per his recommendations and sent it back to him despite his initial outright rejection. I pointed out that I was not trying to justify the collected articles but to draw inferences from them
Bruce Tuckman
Tuckman couldn’t have foreseen that his simple model, as useful and groundbreaking as it was, would take a position as a foundational framework for understanding team dynamics.
The backbone of team dynamics
Even with this new knowledge that Tuckman’s model was not ruthlessly empirical, its catchy stage names offer a lens through which to view the lifecycle of teams. The model guides us through the evolution from initial formation, where unfamiliarity and anxiety prevail, to the ultimate goal of high performance. Each stage, marked by distinct characteristics and challenges, can be somewhat identified in the journey many teams inadvertently undertake.
Almost yearly, I receive a request from someone to use parts of the article or at least the terms ‘forming,’ ‘storming,’ ‘norming,’ and ‘performing’ in print. Again, quotability may be the key to success
Bruce Tuckman
Forming: the birth of a team
In the forming stage, teams grapple with uncertainty. Familiarity among team members is low, anxiety is high, and mutual trust is yet to be established. Leadership in these new teams is undefined and the teams start seeking, or jostling for leadership roles, gently at first but with increasing vigour as the team progresses towards the storming phase.
It’s important to remember that in Tuckman’s research, teams were usually facilitated (often by a professional therapist) who would have adopted a leadership role by default in this forming stage. Also unusually for modern teamwork settings, these teams were new all at once. Most teams in work and social settings see a more gradual flow of new and departing members, meaning that the ‘forming’ stage is never quite so clear as it was in Tuckman’s contributing papers.
We should remember that humans are biologically predisposed to seek social norms and establish rules when in novel and unfamiliar settings. This instinct drives team members to seek a leader, often leading to a natural jostling for leadership positions within the group. The forming phase sets the stage for leadership to emerge, often through unspoken negotiations and power dynamics.
Finally, perhaps more so than in Tuckman’s settings, ‘real’ teams have a greater interdependence between the work to be done and the group dynamics; Tuckman’s group therapy patients tended to be seeking individual, rather than group outcomes.
Storming: the crucible of conflict
In the storming phase, teams undergo a period marked by testing boundaries, jostling for leadership, negotiation, and the emergence of conflict. The team’s cohesion is put to the test, with conflicts and subgroups and power hierarchies surfacing. It’s a phase where the team’s resilience is tested.
A key aspect of the storming phase is the struggle for power, where social dynamics become more pronounced. This testing behaviour leads to the formation of subgroups; first dyads (teams of two people), then triads (groups of three) within the team, each potentially holding different views on power structures and leadership.
Conflict during the storming phase can arise from dissatisfaction with the group’s direction. This may stem from differing opinions within the team regarding these goals. Typically, subgroups form around those who support or detract from the objectives. While these subgroups may not be problematic in themselves, they often become the focal points of varying opinions, sometimes leading to long lived factions within the group.
Norming: acceptance and cohesion
Emerging from the storming phase, the team enters the norming stage, marked by a shift from individual to collective identity. This phase in Tuckman’s group development model represents a pivotal transition from conflict to collaboration within a team. This stage is characterized by a shift from the jostling for individual position or comfort to collective cooperation, often initiated by an emergent leader who encourages the group to reconcile differences and move forward pragmatically.
During the norming phase, team members have typically expressed their emotions and established their individual identities within the group. This emotional outpouring in the storming phase paves the way for a more collaborative environment, where the focus shifts from personal agendas to the collective goals of the team. After the turbulence of the storming phase, a sense of team spirit and unity emerges.
This stage marks the team’s shift from an “I” mentality to a “we” mentality. Team members start to prioritize the group’s objectives over their individual ambitions, a process that requires a notable suppression of personal goals and desires. This shift is often challenging and is seen as a substantial achievement for any team.
The norming phase is also a period of acceptance. After the high energy and emotional toll of the storming phase, team members begin to accept their roles and positions within the group. This acceptance includes recognizing leadership roles, either in assuming them or conceding to them. It’s a time when the team starts to stabilize, moving away from the high arousal and conflict of storming towards a more harmonious and productive environment.
However, reaching this stage is not guaranteed for all teams, as some may struggle to move beyond the intense emotional dynamics of the storming phase. The successful transition to norming is critical for a team to eventually reach the performing stage, where optimal collaboration and efficiency are achieved.
So, now we’ve accepted that we’re a group, but we’re still not performing.
Performing: the pinnacle of teamwork
In the performing stage, the team operates with a high degree of autonomy and efficiency, with the focus shifting from individual accomplishments to collective success. This stage epitomizes the best of high-performing teams
The performing phase is marked by members effectively accomplishing tasks without impeding each other’s work, demonstrating a clear understanding of each other’s roles and how they contribute to the group’s overall objectives. Conflicts, when they arise, are managed inclusively and sensitively, reflecting a strong sense of psychological safety within the team.
A strong identifier of the performing phase is that team members have come to view the team itself as a valuable asset that must be nurtured and protected. Earlier stages of team development, like the storming phase, often involve members prioritizing their individual skills and sovereignty. However, as the team matures, members start to see the team itself as an asset worth investing in. This change in perspective leads to a more collaborative approach to resolving conflicts and making decisions, where the focus is on the collective benefit rather than individual gain.
Another key characteristic of the performing stage is the flexibility in leadership roles. Unlike the storming phase, where there is a struggle to establish and test leadership, in the performing phase, leadership roles can shift dynamically without issues of ego. Team members willingly cede authority in certain situations, allowing others to take the lead based on the needs of the moment. This fluidity in leadership is indicative of a high-performing team and is deeply rooted in mutual respect and psychological safety.
Effective decision-making in high-performing teams often involves a diversity of views and an ability to deliberate effectively to reach a consensus. The outcome of such deliberations may not necessarily align with any individual member’s initial viewpoint but rather represents a collective decision that benefits from the various perspectives within the team. This process exemplifies the essence of the performing stage in Tuckman’s model, where the sovereignty of the team’s decision-making is paramount, and the outcome is a product of collaborative effort rather than individual dominance.
Beyond the model: The “Adjourning” Stage
In 1977, Tuckman revisited his model with Mary Ann Jensen, at the time a doctoral student at Rutgers with Tuckman. Tuckman and Jensen added a fifth stage, known as ‘adjourning’ (“for which a perfect rhyme could not be found” said Tuckman).
Adjourning represents the stage where a team concludes its project or collaboration, the team’s work is completed or the team is dissolved. The members may go their separate ways, or they may stay together to form a new team.
Although some, more poetic, practitioners sometimes refer to this phase as ‘mourning’ to better rhyme with the original four stages, it is not about the death or end of a team in a negative sense but rather a reflective process aimed at understanding and evaluating the team’s journey. While the team members may feel sadness and loss, it is the role of the leader in the adjourning stage to encourage two important behaviours: critical reflection and celebration.
Critical reflection in the adjourning phase is akin to the ‘retrospective’ used by many modern teams. It’s a process where the team reviews and analyzes its performance, decisions, and actions throughout the project. This introspection is crucial for developing metacognition within the team, allowing members to understand how they accomplished their goals and identify areas for improvement. It’s a time for the team to look back on the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of their collaboration.
Celebration is the second essential aspect of adjourning. It’s crucial for teams to recognize and celebrate the completion of their work. This celebration provides a sense of closure and accomplishment, marking the end of a project or a phase in the team’s life. It’s not necessarily the end of the team itself, but rather the conclusion of a particular journey they embarked on together.
It’s interesting that the principles of lean and agile methodologies resonate strongly with the adjourning phase. The core principle of continuous reflection in agile teams has been drawn from the idea of ‘hansei’ or self-reflection in the Toyota Production System; a learning process to recognise mistakes and determine what actions can be taken to avoid re-occurrence in the future. Similarly, the Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) methodology, born at Intel and popularised by Google, incorporates both reflection and celebration as key principles, encouraging teams to quickly assess their achievements, learn from their experiences, and move forward after a brief celebration.
After thoroughly appraising your work and owning up to any shortfalls, take a breath to savor your progress. Throw a party with the team to celebrate your growing OKR superpowers. You’ve earned it.
John Doerr, Measure What Matters
While the adjourning stage has something to add to Tuckman’s original model, it’s telling that it is frequently forgotten. People who remember Tuckman’s stages often don’t focus on this last phase, partially because it happens infrequently, and perhaps also because it doesn’t sit naturally with the simplicity of the earlier four stages
A modern reflection on the Tuckman Model
Although we’ve spent time to reflect on each of Tuckman’s stages, it’s essential that we understand its limitations. Tuckman never intended for every managerial discussion about team maturity to invoke his model — he was reviewing literature about group therapy to help small boat crews. His original paper is coming up to 60 years old, and the world of teams research, management theory and organisational psychology has moved on by an enormous amount.
The four original stages are catchy and (mostly) easy to remember. We can identify helpful positive and negative traits in teams and map them to stages, giving us a common language to discuss the performance and maturity of teams. But Tuckman’s model is not empirical, not based on observational research, and by his own admission in the introduction to the paper, a starting point for more research.
Tuckman’s inspiration for his original paper was to give team’s research a sense of progression. Most research available to him at the time saw teams fixed in a single point. His model allowed teams to demonstrate progress, moving along a time axis.
While small-group processes have been given great attention in recent years by behavioral scientists, the question of change in process over time has been relatively neglected
Bruce Tuckman
One of the most common criticisms of Tuckman’s model is also responsible for its allure; its apparent simplicity and unidirectional progression from ‘forming’ to ‘performing’ suggests that teams can move up a podium: bad > better > still better > best. Teams either move ‘up’ a stage in maturity, or get stuck where they are.
Of course the reality is not only that teams move backwards and forwards in Tuckman’s stages, but that modern teams are consistently dynamic. Real teams don’t behave like Tuckman’s stages suggest they will, and instead ebb and flow with different behaviours over time. Teamwork is an ongoing process, and encountering conflicts in later stages should not be seen as a failure but as a natural part of team dynamics. Teams grow, they change, people join, people leave. There is stress, and there is success, and then we rinse and repeat. Teams are complex, and Tuckman’s model is simple.
Viewing teams as complex, self-organizing systems with emergent characteristics adds another layer to understanding group dynamics, and later researchers, theorists and authors have explored this. Teams experience fluctuations in performance and stability, influenced by both positive and negative inputs. Conflict, an inevitable part of teamwork, can be both beneficial and detrimental, depending on its nature. Embracing the idea of continuous team development and the inevitability of conflict can lead to a more nuanced and realistic approach to understanding and managing team dynamics.
All criticism aside, Tuckman’s model offers a valuable framework. Seen as a fluid guide to understanding team dynamics rather than a rigid roadmap, it has something to offer, and the model should be applied with this flexibility in mind.
A hat tip to Tuckman
Tuckman’s contribution to teams research was groundbreaking and long lasting, but readers are advised to use his model with care, and like the heirloom that it is.
To learn more about Tuckman’s model and teamwork, check out the Teamcraft podcast on Spotify, Apple, Youtube and wherever you get your pods:
- Episode info
- Episode on Apple
- Episode on Spotify
- Video on Youtube