Tuckman's Stages of Group Development

25 min

Five strangers, one project

Five S6 students from different classes are told to research waste management at their school and present findings in six weeks. In week 1 they are polite and unsure; nobody wants to take charge. In week 2 two of them argue about the method, and one stops coming. By week 3 they have agreed on roles and meeting times. In weeks 4 and 5 they collect and analyse data efficiently. After the presentation in week 6, they feel both relieved and a little sad that the group is ending.

This pattern is so common that in 1965 the American psychologist Bruce Tuckman gave its stages memorable names.

Definition

Group development: the changes in a group's structure, relationships and ways of working over its life.

Group norms: the shared, often unwritten rules about how members should behave in a group, such as arriving on time or letting everyone speak.

Cohesion: the forces that hold a group together: members' liking for one another, commitment to the task and pride in the group.

1. Origin of the model

Tuckman (1965) reviewed 50 published studies of small groups, most of them therapy groups and training groups, and found that two strands developed in parallel: the group structure (how members relate) and the task activity (how they work). He summarised them in four stages. In 1977, with Mary Ann Jensen, he added a fifth stage, for groups that come to an end.

2. The five stages

Stage	Relationships	Task	What a leader should do
Forming	Polite, cautious; members depend on the leader and test what is acceptable	Finding out what the task is and how to approach it	Direct: set clear goals, introduce members, explain the task
Storming	Conflict over roles, leadership and ideas; cliques may form	Resistance to the task's demands	Coach: bring disagreements into the open and settle them fairly
Norming	Cohesion grows; members accept one another and agree norms	Open sharing of information and ideas	Support: encourage participation, protect the new norms
Performing	Roles are flexible and serve the task; trust is high	Solutions emerge; work is efficient	Delegate: step back and remove obstacles
Adjourning	Mixed feelings: pride, relief, sadness at separation	Completing and handing over the work	Recognise: review lessons, celebrate, close properly

Storming is not a failure. A group that hides all disagreement may move straight to a false "norming" in which nobody challenges poor ideas. Well-handled conflict helps a group clarify its goals and roles.

3. Evaluating the model

Strengths. It is simple and memorable, it matches many people's experience, and it helps leaders and members expect conflict instead of panicking about it. It is widely used in training for teachers, health workers, managers and sports coaches.
Its evidence base is thin. It came from a literature review dominated by therapy and training groups, not from systematic observation of many kinds of group, and it was never designed to be tested as a precise theory.
It is too linear. Groups can skip stages, stay stuck in one, or cycle back, for example when a new member joins or the task changes (the dashed arrow in Figure 1).
Deadlines change the pattern. Connie Gersick (1988) observed eight project teams with fixed deadlines. Instead of gradual stages, each team kept the approach set at its first meeting until almost exactly halfway to its deadline, then made a sudden transition and worked intensely to finish. She called this punctuated equilibrium.
Culture. In cultures that discourage open disagreement with others, "storming" may be quiet and indirect, showing as absence or silence rather than argument.

Mind Tools: "Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing: Bruce Tuckman's Team Stages Model Explained". Watch for the signs of each stage and the advice for leaders, and compare them with the table above.

Warning

Spell and order the stages correctly: forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning. A frequent exam error is to put norming before storming. Remember that rules (norms) come after the storm.

Tip

Apply, don't just list. In a scenario question, quote the evidence for each stage ("two members argued about the method: storming") and then say what the leader should do at that stage. That shows application, not memory.

Important

Discuss. Think of a group you have belonged to: a class committee, a sports team, a choir. Did it pass through Tuckman's stages in order? Where did it differ, and why?

✦

Practice

Define group norms and cohesion.
Name Tuckman's five stages in order and state the year each set was proposed.
Identify the stage: (a) members argue about who should present; (b) the group finishes the report and holds a small farewell; (c) members introduce themselves and wait for the teacher to explain.
Explain why storming can be useful to a group.
Describe the leader's role in the forming and performing stages.
What did Gersick (1988) find, and how does it challenge Tuckman?
A cooperative of young tailors has new members every few months. Using Tuckman's model, predict the problems this may cause and suggest a solution.
Evaluate Tuckman's model as an explanation of group development.

Show answersHide answers

Norms: shared, often unwritten rules for how members should behave. Cohesion: the forces that hold a group together, such as liking, commitment to the task and pride.
Forming, storming, norming, performing (1965); adjourning (added 1977, with Jensen).
(a) Storming; (b) adjourning; (c) forming.
It brings different views and hidden disagreements into the open, so the group can clarify goals, roles and methods; avoiding it can lead to false agreement and poor decisions.
Forming: direct, by setting goals, explaining the task and introducing members. Performing: delegate, by stepping back, trusting the group and removing obstacles.
Project teams with deadlines kept their initial approach until the midpoint, then changed suddenly and worked intensely (punctuated equilibrium). This challenges the idea of a gradual, fixed sequence of stages.
Each new member may send the group back to forming or storming as roles and norms are renegotiated, slowing work. Solution: an induction routine (a mentor, explaining norms), and planned team-building whenever members join.
Strengths: simple, matches experience, useful for leaders, widely applied. Weaknesses: based on a review of mainly therapy groups; little rigorous testing; too linear; groups cycle back; Gersick's deadline teams followed a different pattern; cultural variation in conflict. Judgement: a useful description and teaching tool, not a precise scientific model.

Sources and credits

Works described: Tuckman, B. W. (1965), "Developmental sequence in small groups", Psychological Bulletin 63; Tuckman, B. W. and Jensen, M. A. C. (1977), "Stages of small-group development revisited", Group and Organization Studies 2; Gersick, C. J. G. (1988), "Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development", Academy of Management Journal 31.
Video: "Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing: Bruce Tuckman's Team Stages Model Explained", Mind Tools, embedded from YouTube.

Written by Ganzaa: the text, the diagram (Figure 1), the table and the exercises.

1Five strangers, one project

21. Origin of the model

32. The five stages

43. Evaluating the model

Five strangers, one project

1. Origin of the model

2. The five stages

3. Evaluating the model