Tuckman’s Stages of a Group Revisited

In recent years it has become fashionable for social and organizational psychologists to pooh-pooh Tuckman’s stages of a group model. Nevertheless, it remains the most cited team and group development model the world over. It’s natural to ask, what accounts for such staying power in a field so renowned for models de jour.

A Recap of Tuckman’s Original Four-Stage Model

Although Bruce W. Tuckman (1938-2016) was best known for his article “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,” first published in 1965,¹ his areas of academic expertise were educational research and educational psychology. The initial four-stage model was the product of Tuckman’s work immediately after grad school at the Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, MD. He and a small group of social psychologists were commissioned to study small-group behavior as it might apply to U.S. Navy small-crew vessels and stations. The group conducted no original research, but rather reviewed 50 articles, many of them psychoanalytic studies of psychotherapy groups and sensitivity-training or human-relations training groups (T-Groups).

While searching for a developmental sequence that fit most groups in these studies, Tuckman initially called the four stages: 1) orientation/testing/dependence; 2) conflict; 3) group cohesion; and 4) functional role-relatedness. These labels didn’t exactly roll of the tongue. So, Tuckman later renamed the stages forming, storming, norming, and performing and history was made. These four stages have been group development mainstays for decades now, the rhyme scheme contributing in no small measure to their memorability and popularity. Here’s how Tuckman initially described the four stages:

Forming—Groups initially concern themselves with orientation accomplished primarily through testing. Testing helps identify the boundaries of interpersonal and task behaviors. Testing also involves defining and establishing dependency relationships with leaders and other group members as well as with pre‑existing standards.

Storming—The next phase is characterized by interpersonal conflict and polarization, which tend to boil over into the task sphere. These behaviors create resistance to group influence and task requirements.

Norming—Resistance is overcome in the third stage, in which in-group feeling and cohesiveness develop. As new standards evolve, new roles are adopted. In the task realm, group members begin to more openly express honest and personal opinions.

Performing—The new interpersonal structure now gears up for work. Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into tasks. Structural issues have been resolved, and the new structure can more fully focus on task performance.

Is There a Fifth Group Stage?

In 1977, Tuckman and Mary Ann Jensen proposed an update to the popular model, based on a new literature review.² They reported that 23 newer articles “tended to support the existence of the four stages” while also suggesting a fifth stage. Tuckman and Jensen called this stage adjourning. Adjourning basically involves dissolution, that is, terminating roles, completing tasks, and reducing dependency. Others in the group dynamics field have called this stage mourning, since former group members often experience loss, especially when a group is dissolved suddenly or with little planning.

How Valid and Useful is Tuckman’s Model?

Although Tuckman’s four- and five-stage models have found their way into many textbooks, not every social or organizational psychologist embraces them. For one thing, Tuckman’s model suffers the same criticisms as any stage-theory or lifespan model: by trying to paint a universal picture, it over-generalizes. Groups, claim the critics, aren’t so straightforward. As with all human processes, every group deviates from any stage theory. What’s more, there are usually overlaps between stages. Not only are the lines fuzzy, but the stages can also be nonlinear. Group members are always balancing the needs of accomplishing tasks and building relationships, and the focus between the two is constantly shifting. In other words, in real life, group development unfolds more like a spiral than as a series of clear-cut steps.

The other major criticism takes aim at the model’s catchy labels. The concern is that facilitators and trainers too often project these labels onto groups where the labels don’t fit and aren’t helpful. This is less a critique of the model’s validity than an example of how slogans and models sometimes encourage intellectual laxity and mislabeling.

All things considered, I’ve found that Tuckman’s model can be a helpful starting point for small groups and teams. There do seem to be generally predictable developmental processes for some kinds of small groups and, when group members gain appreciation for these processes, the group or team tends to gain some tolerance, patience, and flexibility, which might help it gel sooner than it otherwise would have. Two simple yet powerful prompts for any group or team experiencing growing pains are: 1) “Where are we currently in terms of this model?” and 2) “What do we need to do to move to the next level?”

I find the Tuckman model to be an apt model when aptly applied. And I’m not alone, since it’s still thriving after more than 60 years.

Footnotes

1. Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 384-399.
2. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), pp. 419–427.