Tuckman Tweaked: A Revised Model of Group Development

If you’ve ever taken a class or read a book on team development, you’re probably familiar with Tuckman’s stages of group development: forming, storming, norming, and performing (Smith 2005). According to this model, successful teams move through stages of group development on their way to becoming high performance teams. Within each stage lies both interpersonal and task challenges that the team, guided by the team leader, must effectively manage before moving on to the next stage.

The new and improved model

Although I’ve found this model useful, I’ve taken the liberty of tweaking Tuckman’s model to enhance its applicability to groups, teams, and their leaders. My change, described below, differs primarily in the third stage, where I’ve divided norming into two separate stages: good norming and bad norming. I’m calling this new version, Tuckman Tweaked: A Revised Model of Group Development.

The Forming Stage

According to Tuckman, the forming stage is the first phase of team development. As the name implies, much of what goes on at this early stage has to do with forming the team, both in terms of relationship building and in task development and implementation. All teams experience the forming stage in one manner or another. Typically, a new team in the early stages of development, would fall into this category.

As you can see in Figure 1, the forming stage often includes an initial level of excitement and anticipation among team members. This accounts for the artificially high positioning of the forming stage on the Relationship axis. However, don’t be fooled; it is too early to see people’s true personalities or group dynamics. It is very common for team members in the forming stage to be on their best behavior with one another. In fact, typically there is little disagreement at this stage, let alone much testing of individuals or the team leader. This is because in the forming stage team members are still assessing the team and their role within it.

It is also possible for an experienced team in any of the advanced stages to return to forming, particularly when there are changes in team membership, or changes in the roles within the team.

What teams want to know in the Forming Stage

There is a plan and they have a role within that plan
Specific performance expectations
How they fit in within the group
Rules of group membership
A competent team leader is leading the group

In other words, they need to know that their ship has a direction, a purpose, a place for them, and a skilled captain at the helm to lead them.

Once teammates are comfortable with one another over a period of time and have clarity on their roles, responsibilities, and tasks, they naturally will gravitate towards the next stage: storming.

What could prevent a team from moving beyond Forming?

Not all teams are destined to move beyond the forming stage. Here are some of the reasons why:

High turnover
No effort given to building relationships
Infrequent meetings
Virtual team with little to no interaction
Micro-managing team leader fosters a dependency on him/herself
Team members primarily work independently of each other
Immature teams
No direction or leadership

The Good Norming Stage

A team can successfully storm its way to good norming by effectively addressing issues and working through conflicts. Once in good norming, the synergistic team quickly gains its balance and enters this tranquil phase as everything begins to settle into place. Team members find standard ways to do routine things, they drop the power plays and grandstanding, and everyone makes a conscious effort to work together. The newly formed norms are constructive in nature and foster teamwork and open communication.

What teams want to know in the Good Norming Stage

Team members can build on their successes from the storming stage
Team members can continue to raise issues and address disagreement and conflict
The team leader’s level of trust and confidence in the team grows, giving way to a coaching and empowering leadership style
Team members are able to take on greater roles and responsibilities within the team
There will be a continued commitment to teambuilding, and ongoing efforts to enhance relationships
New and exciting challenges await the team as it moves forward
The team and team leader are committed to moving on to the performing stage

What could prevent a team from moving beyond Good Norming

Comfort level with the present team atmosphere or unwillingness to “rock the boat” by bringing up new concerns or problems
Team leader eases up on continuous improvement efforts
Team members are not invested in becoming a high-performance team
Individual efforts and accomplishments gradually become more important than the efforts and accomplishments of the team

The Performing Stage

In this fourth phase, the team goes about its business with smooth self-confidence. By now, team members have learned to disagree constructively, take measured risks, make adjustments and trade-offs, and apply their full energy to a variety of challenges. Each team member also takes on greater responsibility within the team, making it more and more difficult to know who the actual team leader is anymore. But what really distinguishes a team in the performing stage is the overriding commitment level that each member has to both the team results and to each other.

It’s important to note that reaching the performing phase doesn’t mean smooth sailing forevermore. A team can experience a stormy period at any time—when it’s under unusual pressure, for example, or when things aren’t going as well as expected. The team may even temporarily return to the forming stage if it adds or loses members or when roles change. But what distinguishes a team in the performing stage from other teams is that they have the experience and the first-hand knowledge of what it takes to move through each stage in order to get back into performing. And what’s more, they are able to apply those lessons to any challenge or setback they may face.

What teams want to know in the Performing Stage

Team leader is willing to delegate and further empower team members
There is a team and organizational commitment for ongoing professional and personal development
Team members are willing to take on greater responsibility within the team
New and exciting challenges will continue to come their way

What could prevent a team from staying in the Performing Stage

A significant change in membership, i.e., an influential member or the team leader leaves
An unresolved conflict emerges that divides the team
Team structure gives way to a more traditional work group format
New team leader takes over and does not gel with the team
Team feels neglected or abused by the organization

The Ending Stage

Tuckman later added a fifth phase, adjourning, that involves completing the task and breaking up the team. I prefer to use the term ending since adjourning infers that the team has decided to call it quits. In reality, a team can experience an ending at any time, and not necessarily by their own choosing.

What teams want to know in the Ending Stage

Reason(s) the ending has occurred
What happens next
There is an opportunity to celebrate and/or put closure on the team
Lessons learned are explored
The team’s contributions were appreciated by the organization

What could prevent a team from having an effective Ending Stage

The team experiences an abrupt ending with no closure
Lack of communication between the team leader and the team about what happens next
Failure to assess the team’s performance and lessons learned
Lack of appreciation

Some final thoughts

The purpose of the Tuckman Tweaked model is to provide an additional framework for analysis and discussion on group development. I want to emphasize that this is a fluid model; meaning that teams can move back and forth through the various stages. It is also a dynamic model where a team as a whole could be in one stage while a subset within the team could be at an entirely different stage. This is why team members may not always agree as to which stage their team is currently residing.

Smith, M. K. (2005) ‘Bruce W. Tuckman – forming, storming, norming and performing in groups, the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/thinkers/tuckman.htm. Last updated: November 16, 2006.

Geese Giesen