What makes a team effective? What are the steps that teams go through in order to perform and reach common goals? Is there a shortcut to creating a well-oiled team?
In order to find answers to these questions, let’s first dive into the world of group dynamics theory.
Group dynamics is a well-researched field with more than 8 million hits on Google Scholar. We are going to focus our attention on the research of Bruce Tuckman "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups” (1965) and the interpretation of Tuckman's model by Susan Wheeler in her book “Creating Effective Teams” (2014). While we're focusing on these two models here, it's worth noting that these are just a part of a broader and rich field of group dynamics theories that delve into aspects like team cohesion, leadership styles, and the role of external factors. That being said, we believe these two models are an essential starting point for better understanding group dynamics:
Tuckman's Team Development Model
Tuckman initially outlined a 4 stage-model of the group development process experienced by all teams. Later, a fifth stage was added to his model.
Now, let’s dive into the concrete stages:
Forming is the process of the team coming together in the beginning. This is characterised by a strong need for safety and inclusion. This is also the stage where the culture of the team begins to form; First, agreements on how the team will work together are made and teamwork processes are initiated (usually, by a mutual goal). Members seek to get to know each other; They are polite, follow rules, take few risks, and seek inclusion in the group.
Storming usually begin to happen when people are feeling more comfortable in the group and begin to open up. At this point, friction and conflict arise. There might be questioning of the process, of the leadership, or of other team members. Tension emerges around differing interpretations of tasks and objectives. Members start questioning their influence on the team and the other members. This can take many forms – from inner thoughts of an individual to the whole group yelling at each other.
Norming: every storm comes to an end, and that is what norming represents. In this stage, sense of commitment and trust is established, moving the team beyond their differences. It’s characterised by a increased focus on work, mature negotiations around roles, structure, methods, etc. Conflicts may still arise, but they are dealt with in a calmer fashion. During this stage, teamwork is driven by the wish to get past previous disagreements and get work done. The team may re-visit and discuss the team culture, optimise work routines, and learn more about each, all in order to strengthen the team spirit and trust and moving closer to the common goal.
Performing is where teams shine! They know each other well by now, and have tested the waters. They have experience with solving conflicts and (re)establishing agreements. At this stage, there is more energy and time that can be invested into work and achieving the set goals. Teams are comfortable with conflicts and handle them with ease; They are more flexible thanks to the high degree of trust, and the communication is honest and open.
Adjourning is the last, and later added, stage. Some may argue that this is not a stage in its own right, but rather a conclusion and farewells. Yet, as the termination of a team is an important moment in the team life cycle, we think it deserves being included in the model. Even if the team may reconvene at a later point for another project or goal, it is important to notice the end of a process. This stage may arise when the goal is achieved, project has come to an end, or one or more people of the team move on. As termination can be accompanied by feelings of loss and sadness (which is why this stage is sometimes referred to as mourning), it’s important to take time and create space for wrapping up and closure. Evaluations of the team, work, and learnings from the shared experience have their place at this stage. Embracing reflections, giving feedback, and celebration are all part of adjourning.
The stages may appear linear, but they aren’t necessarily; Sometimes, teams go back and forth between stages. For example, at any point where there is a new member joining the team, the team may return to forming and storming for a while. If a person leaves the team before the end of a project, this might bring imbalance in the team and can provoke a return to the storming phase or a culmination in adjourning. There are many reasons teams switch between stages, and it serves a team best to openly communicate and bring awareness to which stage the team identifies with at the moment. While the optimal stage for effectiveness in a team is during the performing stage, the team dynamics are best supported when the team members are flexible and capable of accommodating needs and adapt to a new situation.
Sometimes, we perceive a team to reach the performing and adjourning stages without going through storming. It is likely that the storming stage did happen, but most of the storming has peaked between only certain team members, or, the team may well be building up for an extended norming stage. Especially when taking on the role as the team leader, it is worth taking note of unresolved and un-communicated tension building up within or between members of the team. A team leader has the unique responsibility and position to initiate open communication and facilitate conflict resolution to find common ground, establish agreements, and resolve issues before they grow into stalemates.
Integrated Model of Group Development
Another model that is often used in these contexts is Susan Wheeler's Integrated Model of Group Development (IMGD). This model builds upon the works of Bruce Tuckman and the psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion, but then through her own empirical observations takes it even further. She proposes that all teams develop through 4 stages equivalent to the human life cycle:
Dependency and inclusion - childhood
Counter - dependency and fight - adolescence
Trust and structure - young adulthood
Work and productivity - adulthood/maturity
Wheeler argues that similar to the dynamics involved in parents adapting their parenting style according to the stage of their child, leaders ought to adapt their leadership style to reflect the maturity of the team development stages.
Tuckman's and Wheelan's respective models share many characteristics, so it's good to be aware of the existence of both as they're sometimes used interchangeably.
Points of Critique
Before concluding, it might be worth mentioning a few caveats. This model – like all models – is a simplification of the world leaving out things such as:
External Factors: The model does not account for external factors that can influence group dynamics, such as organisational culture, leadership style, or environmental pressures. These external factors can have a significant impact on how a group progresses through its stages.
Continuous vs. Discrete Process: Tuckman's model implies that group development is a discrete process with distinct stages. However, in reality, group dynamics are often continuous, and teams may revisit earlier stages as they face new challenges or changes in their environment.
Cultural Variations: The model's applicability may vary across different cultural contexts. Cultural norms and values can influence how groups form and evolve, and this should be considered when using the model in diverse settings.
Not a One-Size-Fits-All Solution: Tuckman's model should be viewed as a framework rather than a rigid prescription. It's a tool to help understand group development, but it may not provide all the answers for managing and guiding teams effectively.
Evolving Perspectives: The validity and relevance of Tuckman's model have been debated over time. Some contemporary experts argue that the model may not fully capture the complexities of modern team dynamics, and alternative models or approaches may be more appropriate in certain situations.
As you apply Tuckman's model, keep in mind that it's only one piece of the puzzle That being said, we at The VALE believe that the model captures something quite important about how groups develop over time, and understanding it thoroughly is thus an essential tool in every leader's toolbox.
Conclusion
So, have we found a shortcut to creating an effective team? Not exactly. Effective teams are not built overnight, nor can they bypass the inevitable phases of storming and norming. But understanding these stages and how to navigate them as a leader can certainly expedite the process and make the journey less turbulent. The role of a leader in this is pivotal; it's the glue that holds the team together and propels it towards common goals."
After understanding the fundamentals of the model itself, the next level is of course to understand how you as a leader could and should relate to it. What a leader can to make the most of each stage and progress through the stages more smoothly is critical for leaders to understand. Effective leadership and facilitation significantly impact a group's development, and leaders should be prepared to adapt their approach accordingly.
However, the role of a leader in navigating these stages is far more complex than what can be covered in a single post. For our current course participants, you'll be diving deeper into this crucial aspect of leadership in the upcoming sessions. And if you're not yet part of our community but find these insights compelling, consider enrolling in our future courses at The VALE, where we explore this and a myriad of other leadership topics.
Sources:
Alvares, S. A. (2019). Tuckman was wrong! Doc Norton on reteaming models. InfoQ. https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/04/tuckman-team-model-wrong/
Hyper Island (2001) Creating Effective Teams - The Detailed Curation. Hyper Island. https://www.hyperisland.com/blog/creating-effective-teams-the-detailed-curation
Ivanov, A. (2015). On Creating Effective Teams by Susan A. Wheelan. Integral Coaching, Medium. https://medium.com/integral-coaching/on-creating-effective-teams-a-guide-for-members-and-leaders-by-susan-a-wheelan-a274a11b8c7b
Nguyen, B. L. (2021). The Tuckman’s model for team is overrated. Here’s why. Medium. https://medium.com/sprynkl/the-tuckmans-model-for-team-is-overrated-here-s-why-402bb95e2536
The Open University (2020). Working in Diverse Teams. OpenLearn. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68106§ion=3
PsychologyWriting (2022). Tuckman’s Theory of Group Development. Psychology Writing. https://psychologywriting.com/tuckmans-theory-of-group-development/
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). 'Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,' Psychological Bulletin, 63(6). 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100