Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
Tuckman's Stages of Group Development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, (Adjourning) — Theory, Critiques, and Examples
Background of Tuckman's Team Development Model
Bruce W. Tuckman's stages of group development — often called Tuckman's model of team or group development — is one of the most renowned frameworks for understanding how teams evolve over time. First published in 1965, Tuckman's original model identified a four-stage progression that small groups experience: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. These descriptive terms, all rhyming in the "-ing" form, quickly caught on in both practice and academia for their memorable summary of team growth. In a 1977 update (co-authored with Mary Ann Jensen), Tuckman added a fifth stage called "Adjourning", acknowledging the importance of group dissolution and closure at the end of a team's life cycle. Today, the full five-stage model — commonly known as "Forming–Storming–Norming–Performing–Adjourning" — remains widely taught and "the most predominantly referred to and most widely recognized in organizational literature" on group development. It is frequently cited as a foundational theory for managers and HR professionals seeking to understand team dynamics.
Tuckman's model was born in an era when group behavior was gaining attention in the workplace but solid research on team development was scarce. Tuckman, a psychologist, synthesized findings from over 50 articles on small-group development — spanning therapy groups, training ("T-group") workshops, and natural task groups — and observed strong commonalities in how groups evolved despite differences in context. He noted that groups universally seemed to face both task-related and social-emotional challenges, and that these aspects unfolded in a predictable sequence of stages. For example, early in a group's life, members are concerned with orientation to the task and dependency on a leader; later, they grapple with conflicts and resistance; eventually, if they persevere, they establish cohesion and focus on task accomplishment. Tuckman's 1965 paper distilled these patterns into a simple stage model that gave practitioners a "common language" and "a simple means of discussing and exploring team dynamics". The catchy alliterative names (Forming, Storming, etc.) and the intuitive progression they describe contributed to the model's rapid diffusion in management practice. Tuckman himself remarked that the naming scheme's "quotability" helped fuel the model's popularity, alongside the genuine need for guidance on team development at the time.
Not only did the model spread among consultants and team leaders in the 1970s and 1980s, but it also gained traction in academic research in subsequent decades. By the late 1990s and 2000s, references to "Tuckman's stages" were ubiquitous in studies of team processes, appearing in contexts from project teams and leadership teams to public health partnerships and virtual teams. A retrospective analysis noted that Tuckman (1965) had been cited in over 1,196 academic publications and Tuckman & Jensen (1977) in over 544 publications as of 2008 — a testament to the model's enduring influence in scholarly literature. Even more telling is its sustained use among practitioners: in one survey of 150 team development professionals, Tuckman's model was the single most commonly cited framework, mentioned by 16% of respondents (among dozens of available models). For HR and leadership practitioners, the Tuckman model has remained popular because it is accessible, easy to understand, and flexible enough to apply in many settings. As researchers McMorris et al. observed, one strength of the model is "its ease of use at the practitioner level" — it offers a practical, common-sense lens through which to view how a team is developing.
In essence, Tuckman's framework proposes that any team, whether a project group, department team, task force, or even a therapy group, must navigate certain developmental challenges in roughly sequential stages to become effective. Below, we delve into each of Tuckman's group stages in detail — Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning — explaining what each entails and how teams and leaders can recognize and navigate them. We will then examine modern critiques and extensions of the Tuckman model, including alternative theories (such as Gersick's punctuated equilibrium) and the addition of the Adjourning stage and other proposed refinements. Throughout, we integrate academic research findings and a few real-world examples to provide a comprehensive, manager-friendly understanding of Tuckman's model of team development.
Figure: Diagram of Tuckman's Linear Model of Group Development, showing the progression through Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning stages in a cycle. In Tuckman's framework, teams typically start in the Forming stage and ideally advance through to Performing, before ultimately disbanding in Adjourning. Notably, while the stages are often presented as a linear sequence, teams do not always move neatly forward — they may slip back to earlier stages or stall if new challenges or changes arise. For example, a high-performing team might regress to a storming phase if there is a major change (such as a new leader or a shift in goals), or a team may linger in a conflict stage without ever reaching full performance. The model should thus be seen as a useful roadmap rather than an ironclad law: it highlights typical characteristics and issues at each phase of group development, helping leaders diagnose team dynamics and intervene appropriately, while recognizing that real teams might loop or recycle through stages as circumstances demand.
Stage 1: Forming — Orientation and Introduction
The Forming stage is the starting point for any new group or team. At this stage, the team is just coming together, and members are typically meeting one another and beginning to understand the team's purpose. Characteristics of Forming: Group members tend to display polite, guarded behavior as everyone is figuring out "who's who" and what is expected. Individuals are usually dependent on a designated leader (or on existing authority structures) for guidance and direction. Because the group is not yet sure of its norms or how to proceed, there is often a strong desire to avoid conflict or controversy — interactions are generally tentative and polite, with members on their best behavior and keen to be accepted by the others. Members are essentially sizing each other up and "feeling each other out." Common sentiments include excitement and optimism about the team's potential, but also uncertainty or anxiety about one's role in the group and how the team will function. In Tuckman's words, the Forming stage involves orientation to the task: members attempt to understand the group's mission and define the tasks at hand, identifying what information and ground rules are needed to proceed. Simultaneously, there is a "testing and dependence" dynamic in the social realm: individuals are testing the waters to see what behaviors are acceptable to the leader and to one another, and they often act very deferential, seeking guidance and approval. At this early phase, the group is essentially assembling itself, and interpersonal relationships are in a tentative, exploratory state.
From an organizational perspective, Forming is a crucial time for establishing clarity and building relationships. Team members typically learn about the project or goals, clarify the team's purpose, and begin discussing how they might collaborate. However, they have not yet begun substantive work on the task — instead, much of the discussion centers on defining the team's mission, setting initial objectives, and brainstorming initial plans. Because everyone is new to each other, members often share their backgrounds, skills, and personal introductions. There is a tendency to focus on commonalities and positive impressions at first. For example, a newly formed cross-department project team might hold a kickoff meeting where each member introduces themselves, talks about their expertise, and expresses enthusiasm for the project. In this meeting, conversations likely remain nonconfrontational — disagreements are avoided as the group seeks a comfortable, inclusive atmosphere. Any serious or sensitive topics may be skirted in favor of safe, general discussion. This aligns with the notion that during Forming, "discussion centers on defining the scope of the task, how to approach it, and similar concerns," while deeper or more contentious issues are put aside until the team feels more at ease.
Team leader's role in Forming: Because members are looking for structure and guidance, the leader (or project manager, supervisor, etc.) plays an especially prominent role at this stage. It's important for the leader to provide clear direction, define the team's objectives, and outline how the team will operate. Establishing basic ground rules and norms in this phase can set the team up for success — for instance, agreeing on how decisions will be made, what the communication channels are, and what each person's initial responsibilities will be. Effective leaders in the Forming stage tend to be more directive: they may facilitate introductions, help the team draft a mission or team charter, and ensure everyone understands the broader goal. As one technical teamwork guide notes, "the forming stage, when everyone is getting to know each other, is a good time to create a set of shared expectations or a team charter" — this helps give the new group a sense of direction and unity. Leaders should also encourage open communication and make sure all members feel welcomed and included from the outset. At this point, team members are often eager but also anxious; thus, a leader's emphasis on confidence-building and optimism can help. According to one educational resource, during Forming the leader should "provide structure and task direction, allow for get-acquainted time, and create an atmosphere of confidence and optimism" for the team. By clearly articulating the team's mission and showing that they are prepared to guide the group, the leader satisfies the team's dependency needs and helps the group move forward.
Signs of progress out of Forming: Tuckman suggested that to move from Forming to the next stage, team members must start to relinquish the comfort of superficial pleasantries and be willing to engage with potentially uncomfortable differences or conflicts. In practical terms, this means the team begins to "risk the possibility of conflict" by discussing real issues rather than only polite introductory topics. When team members feel safe enough to express dissenting opinions or raise tough questions, it's a signal that the team is transitioning out of the honeymoon phase of Forming. For example, imagine our project team after a few meetings: initially everyone agreed easily on broad ideas, but now a couple of members carefully voice different viewpoints about the project approach. This willingness to voice disagreement indicates the team is entering the next phase — Storming — where conflicts and competition emerge. In summary, Forming is characterized by enthusiasm and polite avoidance of controversy, high dependence on a leader, and an orientation period where the group is laying its foundation. It ends when members collectively start addressing the more challenging aspects of the work or team relationships, even at the cost of possible conflict.
A newly assembled marketing project team at a company provides a classic example of the Forming stage. In their first meeting, the atmosphere is upbeat and courteous. Team members introduce themselves, highlighting their roles (one is a graphic designer, another a copywriter, etc.) and expressing excitement about collaborating. The project manager presents the project's high-level goals — say, launching a new product campaign — and everyone nods in agreement. At this point, no one raises concerns or tough questions; instead, discussion revolves around scheduling the next meetings, sharing contact information, and perhaps brainstorming a few general ideas. The team is orienting to its task and testing interpersonal dynamics gently. After the meeting, some members might still be unclear about how exactly they will work together or who will take on which detailed responsibilities, but they all leave on a positive note. This team will remain in the Forming stage until they begin to grapple with differences in vision or approach — something that is likely to happen once real work on the campaign starts.
Stage 2: Storming — Conflict and Competition
The Storming stage is often the most challenging phase of group development. As its name suggests, this stage is characterized by stormy weather in the team: members start to confront each other's ideas, jostle for positions and influence, and reveal differing working styles or opinions. Characteristics of Storming: After the initial cordiality of Forming wears off, underlying differences and tensions surface. Team members may argue or become openly critical of each other as they voice their opinions and vie for the group's direction. This stage often features intragroup conflict — disagreements with one another and sometimes challenges to the leader's authority — as individuals assert their personalities and stakes in the project. It's not unusual to see cliques or sub-groups form during Storming, as people find allies who share their viewpoint. Emotions can run high; members might feel frustrated, defensive, or impatient with the lack of progress and the ongoing disputes. For example, one person might strongly push for a particular approach while another opposes it, leading to conflict that can become personal if not managed. Tuckman described the Storming phase as an "intragroup conflict" stage where "group members become hostile toward one another and toward the leader... as a means of expressing their individuality and resisting the formation of group structure". In other words, people resist the initial structure or hierarchy (established in Forming) and struggle to define their own roles and influence, even if it means tension.
On the task front, Storming is when the team often encounters difficulty in making progress because members are not yet working cohesively. There may be disagreements on what the goals should be, how to achieve them, or who should do what. It's common for teams in Storming to experience lack of consensus, missed deadlines, or inefficiencies as energy is diverted into internal conflict rather than productive work. Meetings may become arenas of debate, with team members revisiting decisions or questioning the plan. It's worth noting that some teams might experience Storming primarily as subtle friction or passive resistance, rather than explosive arguments — for instance, members might show signs of resentment, withdraw from participation, or complain in side conversations. But whether loud or quiet, the core issue in Storming is that the team has not yet unified and figured out a way to collaborate through differences. This is a "make-or-break period" in many ways: if the team cannot find a way to resolve conflicts and focus on the task, it may stall here indefinitely.
In fact, research and practical experience confirm that some teams never move beyond Storming, resulting in persistent low morale and subpar performance. Teams composed of very inexperienced or inflexible members are especially at risk of getting stuck in this turbulent stage.
Common struggles during Storming:
- Clash of opinions and personalities: As members start voicing honest opinions, they often discover differences in how they think the team should operate. For example, two members might have conflicting ideas about the project strategy, leading to arguments. Personal working styles (e.g., aggressive vs. passive, or detail-oriented vs. big-picture) can collide. Personality clashes and power struggles are common as people stake out their positions.
- Lack of role clarity: During Storming, individuals might question who is responsible for what. There can be competition for leadership or key roles — multiple people might want to take charge, or conversely, some responsibilities may be neglected as members assume "someone else will do it." The uncertainty about roles can fuel conflict until roles are reestablished or clarified.
- Resistance to control: Team members often show resistance to the constraints of the group's emerging structure. This might manifest as pushback against the leader's instructions or against team rules set earlier. It's part of asserting independence — as Tuckman noted, expressing individuality by resisting group formation. A classic scenario is team members challenging the project leader's decisions: "Why are we doing it this way? Shouldn't we do it my way instead?" Such challenges, while disruptive, are part of the process of negotiating how the team will function.
- Emotional responses: Frustration, stress, and anxiety are rife in Storming. Members may feel overwhelmed or dissatisfied. Confidence in the team can dip as people wonder if they'll ever get past the conflicts. There can be irritation at teammates' behavior (e.g., seeing someone as overbearing or, conversely, as not pulling their weight). As one resource puts it, during Storming members often think "we're not getting anywhere" amid the chaos. It's critical to recognize these feelings as normal for this stage.
Team leader's role in Storming: In this stage, the leader or manager's skills in conflict resolution and facilitation become paramount. Rather than directing tasks as in Forming, the leader now should focus on coaching the team through conflict — encouraging open dialog, ensuring all voices are heard, and guiding the team toward compromise and consensus. It's important that the leader does not shy away from acknowledging the conflict; instead, they should help channel it into constructive problem-solving. For example, if two factions in the team disagree, the leader might facilitate a session to list pros and cons of each viewpoint, fostering understanding rather than personal attacks. The leader may need to set or reinforce ground rules for respectful communication, reminding the team that disagreement should be about ideas, not personal insults. As the WCU group development guide suggests, leaders in Storming can introduce methods for effective listening, giving and receiving feedback, and conflict resolution, helping team members develop these skills. Another key task for the leader is to reclarify goals and roles that may be in dispute. By reestablishing a shared sense of purpose ("This is our mission and why it matters") and renegotiating responsibilities ("Let's clearly define who owns which part of the project"), the leader can reduce some ambiguity that feeds conflict.
It's also during Storming that leadership can begin to foster shared leadership. While one person might still be leading, the concept of "shared decision-making" should be promoted — for instance, by involving team members in resolving their disputes and making choices together, rather than the leader dictating all answers. This empowers members and helps move toward the next stage. A study of team development in a multidisciplinary research group found that surviving the storming phase was greatly aided by having a common mission and shared values — these created unity and "buffered" the negative effects of conflicts. Leaders can capitalize on this insight by reminding the team of their common goal and how each person's contribution serves that goal, thus refocusing energy away from interpersonal friction and back to the task.
Outcome of Storming: If successfully navigated, the Storming stage leads to greater clarity and unity. Tuckman noted that resolving this phase is marked by the beginning of cooperation: once individuals have had their say and the team has struggled through conflict, members start adjusting their behavior, compromising, and learning to work together for the common good. Storming effectively ends when the team establishes norms and roles that everyone accepts and commits to, which segues into the Norming stage. In practical terms, you might recognize the end of Storming when debates that once were heated become more civil and productive, or when the team finally makes a decision everyone can live with. Often there's a moment of realization, like "Okay, we've been fighting over approach A vs B — let's combine ideas or decide on one and move forward." At that point, the team has decided how to deal with disagreements (through compromise or agreed processes) and can shift focus back to accomplishing tasks.
It's worth noting that not all groups experience an intense Storming phase. In Tuckman's original research, only about half the groups studied showed a clear "intragroup conflict" stage, while others appeared to skip directly from initial orientation to a cohesive mode. This could be due to various factors — some teams might have mild conflicts easily resolved, or the presence of a strong shared vision can smooth over differences. However, managers should generally expect some storming behavior and not assume their team will avoid it entirely. Importantly, even teams that reach later stages can re-enter Storming if new issues arise. As mentioned, bringing in a new team member or leader, or encountering a major change like a sudden setback, can cause the team to regress to a Storming-like state where norms are challenged again. Effective teams learn to recognize these regressions and address them, cycling back through Norming if needed.
Consider a software development team that has moved past the pleasantries of Forming and is now trying to design a product. Soon, conflict erupts: the frontend developers and backend developers clash over how to architect the system. Meetings become contentious — one group insists on a particular framework while another strongly opposes it. Team members start showing frustration; voices get louder in debate, and some sarcastic comments fly around. One developer complains that the project manager is favoring the other side. Progress stalls as every decision turns into a debate. This is the Storming stage in full swing — the team is essentially "storming" about roles (who gets to decide architecture), about task approach, and even about leadership. The project manager steps in to mediate: he acknowledges the conflict and sets up a brainstorming session where each side presents their reasoning. He encourages active listening and forbids personal attacks. Over a few such discussions, the team gradually realizes that both sides have valid points. They agree on a compromise solution (using parts of each proposed framework) and clarify that the backend lead will make final technical decisions after consulting the team. Tensions begin to subside as everyone feels heard and a direction is set. By addressing the conflicts and clarifying decision-making authority, the team starts to leave the Storming phase and head towards Norming with a clearer structure and more mutual respect.
Stage 3: Norming — Cohesion and Cooperation
In the Norming stage, the team begins to gel. Having survived (or at least mitigated) the turmoil of Storming, members start to establish agreed norms, group cohesion, and effective ways of working together. This is the phase where the team really starts to feel and act like a team as opposed to a collection of individuals. Characteristics of Norming: There is a noticeable shift from conflict to cooperation. Members develop a renewed appreciation for each other's strengths and begin to trust one another. Personal differences are still present but are now accepted or managed through agreed-upon rules and processes. A key hallmark of Norming is the emergence of consensus — the team finds ways to make decisions and solve problems with input from everyone, rather than being split by factions. Communication becomes more open and respectful, and the tone among members is more friendly and supportive. As Tuckman described, Norming is marked by a "development of group cohesion": team members accept the group, accept the individuality of fellow members, and identify as part of a team. They establish an entity with a common identity through agreement on rules and clarification of roles. In practical terms, this means the team likely has clear norms (explicit or implicit) about how to interact — for example, norms might include "We listen without interrupting," "We value everyone's ideas," or "We resolve disagreements by looking at data." Roles and responsibilities are clearer now, reducing ambiguity: each member knows what their contribution should be and understands others' roles as well.
During Norming, team morale and unity increase. Members often feel relieved that the worst of the conflict is behind them. There can be a sense of camaraderie — inside jokes may develop, social bonds strengthen, and the team may even begin to form friendships. It's not that all conflict vanishes, but any dissent that arises is more constructive in nature. A study noted that "resolved disagreements and personality clashes result in greater intimacy, and a spirit of co-operation emerges" in the Norming phase. This captures the essence: having resolved the earlier clashes, the team experiences closeness and a willingness to work together. Members are more likely to offer help to one another, share resources, and acknowledge each other's contributions. The focus shifts toward group objectives rather than individual agendas. For example, whereas in Storming a person might have been more concerned with having their idea adopted, in Norming they are satisfied that the team's agreed plan is a good one and they now concentrate on doing their part to make the team succeed.
On the task side, Norming typically brings improved productivity and effectiveness compared to the previous stage. The team establishes efficient processes and routines for collaboration. They might, for instance, set a regular meeting schedule, adopt tools for sharing work (like a project management board or Gantt chart), and agree on how to handle changes or issues. Because communication is more streamlined and people know their roles, the work starts to progress more smoothly. Information flows better among team members — they check in with each other, keep one another updated, and coordinate their efforts. The sense of accountability to the group grows: members feel responsible not just for their own task but for contributing to the team's overall success. Peer pressure can become positive; team members want to pull their weight because they don't want to let their teammates down.
Establishment of norms: The term "Norming" itself highlights that the group is setting standards of behavior (norms). These norms can cover a range of aspects: communication etiquette, decision-making methods (e.g., do we vote? strive for unanimous agreement? delegate to an expert?), conflict resolution mechanisms, quality standards, and so on. For instance, a norm might be "We will respond to team emails within 24 hours" or "If we have a disagreement, we will first try to resolve it within the team before escalating." Often these norms develop organically as a result of lessons learned during Storming. If in Storming two members kept clashing and slowing progress, the team might norm around "Let's make sure we hear from both of you, and then as a team decide on a direction — once decided, everyone commits." By Norming stage, these guidelines become part of the team's culture. According to Tuckman's observations, in Norming "group members listen to each other... and use information from everyone," indicating an inclusive, participative climate. The group has learned to balance the task work with teamwork: discussions now include both what the team is doing and how they are working together, reflecting on and refining their collaboration.
Team leader's role in Norming: At this point, the leader can start to step back a little as the team becomes more self-regulating. Leadership becomes more shared or participative. Tuckman's model (and later research) suggests that as the team matures, the leader's style should shift from directive to more consultative and delegating. In Norming, the leader's role often transitions into one of facilitator or enabler: they ensure that the team's agreed processes are maintained, provide resources or remove obstacles, and support the team's decisions. The leader might still need to gently nudge the team toward performance, perhaps by setting stretch goals or encouraging the team to optimize their processes further, but they generally do not need to micromanage. It's also a good time for the leader to foster the development of team members' skills and perhaps rotate some responsibilities to grow capabilities (since trust is higher now). The concept of shared leadership becomes evident — team members themselves start taking initiative in guiding discussions or handling issues, rather than deferring everything to the official leader.
The leader should, however, remain vigilant to ensure the team doesn't relapse or that any emerging issues are quickly addressed. For example, if one member is still slightly disengaged or someone quietly harbors resentment, the leader might facilitate a dialogue to bring that out and resolve it, maintaining the cohesion. In Norming, the leader can focus on reinforcing positive norms: praising the team for collaborating well, highlighting successes achieved through teamwork, and thus cementing the team's confidence. Celebrating small wins is often recommended in this stage to strengthen team spirit.
One caution during Norming is that teams may become too focused on harmony and avoid necessary debate (a phenomenon sometimes called "groupthink" if extreme). As one source notes, "the danger here is that members may be so focused on preventing conflict that they are reluctant to share controversial ideas." A good leader will ensure the team maintains a healthy balance — preserving the newfound harmony while still encouraging diverse viewpoints and creative thinking. Essentially, the team should not become complacent; some constructive disagreement is still important for innovation and thorough decision-making, even in Norming.
Transition to Performing: A team in the Norming stage is on the verge of true high-performance. The key difference between Norming and the next stage (Performing) is often the degree of autonomy and high trust the team achieves. Norming sets the foundation — the team knows how to work together; to move to Performing, they will take that stable foundation and excel in executing their tasks and adapting to challenges smoothly. Not all teams will reach a distinct Performing stage; some may remain in a comfortable Norming state, doing the job but not reaching maximum potential. But if Norming is successful, the team increasingly exhibits confidence, momentum, and synergy, signaling readiness to perform.
Returning to our software development team example: after intense debates, the team eventually settled on a hybrid approach and clarified roles (as described in Storming). Now in the Norming stage, the atmosphere in the team has improved significantly. The backend and frontend developers have come to respect each other's expertise — they schedule a brief daily check-in to synchronize their work and resolve any minor issues quickly (a new norm they established). The team agreed on coding standards and a version control protocol so that their work integrates smoothly (norms around work process). They've also set a rule that if someone is stuck on a problem for more than a few hours, they will ask for help, to avoid delays. These norms make collaboration more efficient. Team meetings, which were once battlegrounds, are now productive work sessions: members share updates, raise concerns in a constructive manner, and volunteer to help if someone is overloaded. For instance, a developer might say, "I'm a bit behind on my module," and a teammate responds, "I can spare some time tomorrow to pair program with you on that." There is a sense of unity — "we're in this together." Socially, the team has gotten friendlier too; they might grab lunch together and have relaxed conversations, reflecting growing cohesion. The project manager observes that he no longer needs to intervene in every decision — the team is capable of reaching agreements on their own and only loops him in for major approvals or external alignment. This software team has clearly entered Norming: roles are clear, norms are set, conflicts are resolved more calmly, and they are making steady progress on the project with everyone cooperating.
Stage 4: Performing — Productivity and Effectiveness
The Performing stage is the pinnacle of team development in the Tuckman model — at this point, the group is fully functional, self-regulating, and excels at achieving its goals. Not all teams reach this stage, but those that do are often highly successful in their endeavors. Characteristics of Performing: The team now operates with a high degree of autonomy, collaboration, and confidence. Having established trust and norms in the previous stage, team members are motivated and knowledgeable about their tasks, and they focus energy on accomplishing the team's objectives rather than on interpersonal issues. The group's structure is well-defined and accepted, so there's no longer any question about who does what or how things should proceed — the emphasis is on results. Communication flows freely and is task-oriented; even when disagreements arise, they tend to be handled in a mature, constructive way that doesn't disrupt momentum. In fact, dissent and debate may still occur (as it's a sign of a healthy team to consider different views), but it is "expected and allowed as long as it is channeled through means acceptable to the team." In other words, a Performing team can disagree without falling into disorder — they have mechanisms to resolve differences quickly and keep moving forward.
During Performing, the team often achieves a state of "flow" in their work. There's a high level of productivity, creativity, and problem-solving. Team members often handle complex tasks and make decisions without needing much supervision or external oversight. They are interdependent — each member reliably contributes their part, and they coordinate seamlessly. Tuckman described this stage as one where "a variety of methods of inquiry are used and members adjust their behavior to serve the greater goals of the group," with a strong emphasis on "functional role relatedness". This means team members are flexible and adaptive, stepping up to fill gaps or help each other as needed, all in service of the team's objectives. People are less concerned about individual credit or trivial issues; the common goal is paramount, and roles might even become more fluid as everyone is focused on doing what it takes to succeed. In a Performing team, members often anticipate each other's needs and share a mental model of what needs to happen. This might manifest as team members proactively offering assistance, or adjusting their work when they see another part of the project needs attention, without waiting to be asked.
One key indicator of performing is the team's ability to handle new challenges or scope changes effectively. Because the group dynamics are strong, the team can absorb disturbances (like a sudden change in requirements or a tight deadline) and respond in a united, agile manner. They trust each other's competence and thus can divide work or adapt strategy on the fly. In an organizational setting, a performing team often achieves outcomes that exceed expectations — they might reach goals ahead of schedule, produce higher quality output, and innovate in their solutions. Members feel a sense of pride in the team's accomplishments. Morale is generally high in this stage, and members often describe the experience as rewarding or even fun because everything "clicks." A performing team is often self-motivating; they require minimal intervention from leaders because they drive themselves with their enthusiasm and commitment.
Team leader's role in Performing: The leader's posture during Performing is primarily one of delegation and monitoring. Since the team is competent and aligned, the leader can entrust the team with significant decision-making power. The leader steps in mostly to provide resources, remove roadblocks, or offer guidance on high-level issues. They also serve as a liaison between the team and the broader organization, protecting the team if needed from outside disruptions and ensuring they have what they need to maintain performance. In a high-performing team, leadership can even be shared or rotated — for example, different members might take the lead for specific tasks or expertise areas, and the formal leader is comfortable with this distribution of leadership because it benefits the team's results.
However, the leader is still important in recognizing and reinforcing the team's success. Providing positive feedback, recognizing contributions, and keeping the team's work visible to the organization can sustain their motivation. Additionally, a savvy leader will look ahead to potential changes (like team turnover or project completion) and prepare the team, which includes planning for the Adjourning stage eventually. Essentially, in Performing, the team can almost self-manage, and the leader acts as a supportive coach and boundary manager rather than a director.
It should be noted that Performing is not a static stage — the team must continue to nurture its health. Members must maintain the norms and trust they built; if complacency or conflict sneaks back in, they need to address it. But a true performing team has the resilience and internal protocols to do so. Also, if the team's composition or context changes significantly, they might temporarily regress to an earlier stage (as discussed before), but a performing team often can return to high performance faster due to their strong foundation.
In long-standing teams, performing may represent a plateau of high effectiveness that lasts a while, possibly until the team's purpose is fulfilled or membership changes. Some literature suggests that few first-time teams truly reach the Performing stage, especially within a limited project timeframe. Teams that do often have had time to cycle through multiple projects or challenges, developing a deep synergy. For instance, a team that has been together for years might hit a performing stride on their third or fourth project together, having carried lessons from past experiences. In contrast, a short-term project team (say a few months long) might realistically get to a solid Norming level and perform adequately, but perhaps not reach the seamless virtuosity that characterizes a true Performing stage.
Peak performance behaviors: To illustrate how a performing team functions, consider how decisions are made and how conflicts are handled at this stage: Decision-making tends to be quick and consensus-driven. If an issue arises, any team member is capable of initiating problem-solving, and others rally to resolve it collaboratively. The team might use efficient techniques like quick huddles or problem-solving frameworks to deal with obstacles. There is also often a strong focus on quality and continuous improvement — a performing team doesn't just do the work, they often seek to optimize how they work. For example, they might implement improvements on the fly, like automating a routine task or adjusting their meeting structure to save time, demonstrating a proactive and self-improving mindset. Members hold each other accountable in a positive way; peer accountability supplements any external oversight. If someone misses a deadline, the team addresses it constructively ("What happened and how can we support you or adjust?") and adapts.
Let's continue with our software development team. By the time they reach Performing, the product launch deadline is nearing, but the team is firing on all cylinders. They have fully integrated their work — the frontend and backend components are syncing perfectly because the developers coordinate changes in real-time. The team has a rhythm: daily stand-up meetings are quick because everyone is aware of each other's status through their collaborative tools, and issues are usually resolved outside of meetings in an ad-hoc but efficient manner. When a critical bug is discovered close to launch, the team springs into action: rather than panicking or blaming, they immediately isolate the problem, assign tasks based on who has the expertise, and communicate continuously. Within a day, the bug is fixed and tested. The project manager barely needed to get involved — the team identified the issue and resolved it proactively, informing the manager of the solution after the fact. This kind of self-directed problem-solving shows they are in the Performing zone. Furthermore, team members are highly motivated: a tester works extra hours voluntarily because they're personally invested in the product's success, and a developer from another module jumps in to assist with code review on the bug fix because they have some relevant knowledge. The team's output is high quality; they not only meet the deadline but also implement a couple of bonus features that stakeholders requested late in the game, thanks to their efficiency. The atmosphere is confident and upbeat — the team has a strong "we got this" attitude. They even take time to reflect on their process, noting a few improvements for the next project (like further streamlining their integration testing), illustrating continuous improvement. At this stage, outsiders who observe the team work are impressed by how coordinated and competent they appear — decisions are made quickly, everyone seems to know what others are doing, and there's a clear shared vision. This is a high-performing team in action, delivering excellent results with synergy and minimal friction.
Stage 5: Adjourning — Dissolution and Reflection
Adjourning (sometimes called "Mourning" in early references) is the final stage added to Tuckman's model, describing how the team disengages after the work is completed. Not originally in the 1965 model, this stage was formally identified in 1977 by Tuckman & Jensen to acknowledge that a team's life has an end point and that the ending phase has its own importance. Characteristics of Adjourning: In this stage, the project or task is essentially finished, and the team's focus shifts from performance to wrapping up and dissolving the group. Team members begin to disengage from the team roles and relationships. There is often a sense of completion, accompanied by mixed emotions. On one hand, there can be feelings of satisfaction and pride in what the team has accomplished; on the other hand, there may be sadness or a sense of loss because the team is breaking up. The term "mourning" was sometimes used because members might mourn the end of a positive team experience. This is particularly true for high-performing, close-knit teams — having bonded through the stages, they have possibly formed friendships and a strong group identity, so saying goodbye is emotionally significant.
Typically, in Adjourning the team will engage in activities to conclude their work: final reports, documentation, delivering the completed product or results to stakeholders, and possibly a debrief or evaluation of the project. It's a time for reflection on what was learned. Many teams will hold a wrap-up meeting or retrospective to discuss the project's successes, challenges, and lessons for the future. It's also common to have some form of celebration or recognition — for example, a team dinner, an award, or simply verbal praise and thank-you's — to acknowledge the team's efforts and achievements. A planned and positive conclusion can provide closure, allowing members to leave on a high note.
If the team's disbanding is not handled well, members might feel abrupt loss or even stress (especially if their future assignments are uncertain). But in healthy Adjourning, there's a clear termination process. "The final stage, adjourning, involves the termination of task behaviors and disengagement from relationships," as one summary notes. A planned conclusion should ideally include "recognition for participation and achievement and an opportunity for members to say personal goodbyes." This helps members transition out of the team role and perhaps onto new teams or projects with a sense of closure.
Team dynamics in Adjourning: Communication in this stage may become a bit more informal and reflective as the pressure is off (assuming the work is done). Team members might reminisce about challenges they overcame or moments they enjoyed. The urgency of task-focused interaction drops. If some team members will continue to work together in the future, they might also start shifting focus to future collaboration; if not, they exchange contacts and farewells. There could also be anxiety for some individuals, for example if they are uncertain about their next role or will miss the camaraderie of the team. In corporate settings, sometimes high-performing teams that disband can lead to employees feeling a letdown afterward — akin to finishing a big, intense endeavor and suddenly not interacting with that group daily. Thus, acknowledging these feelings is important.
Leader's role in Adjourning: The team leader or manager plays a key part in guiding the team through closure. They should ensure that all loose ends are tied up: the final deliverables are completed, documentation is in order, and any remaining tasks (like handing over to another group or archiving project materials) are assigned. Importantly, the leader should provide recognition and appreciation for the team's work. This can involve giving out certificates, writing positive performance evaluations, or simply expressing gratitude in front of the team and stakeholders. Recognizing each member's contributions helps everyone feel that the time spent was valued. The leader might also facilitate the retrospective discussion, helping the team extract lessons learned in a constructive way that can benefit future projects (for the individuals or the organization). Additionally, if team members are transitioning to new projects or teams, a good leader will help in that transition — perhaps by recommending members for future roles, or even helping team members cope with the change (especially if layoffs or reassignments are involved).
In some cases, Adjourning can involve not just disbanding, but also celebrating and reinforcing what was good. For example, if a team developed particularly effective processes, the leader might document these as best practices and share them with other teams. If certain norms led to success, the leader can highlight them so team members carry those norms into their next teams. Thus, Adjourning is also a time to capture the value created by the team beyond just the immediate project deliverable — including relationship networks formed and personal growth experienced.
For the individuals, this stage also means letting go and moving on. Ideally, each member leaves with a sense of accomplishment, some new knowledge or skill, and perhaps professional connections or friendships they can maintain. The term "mourning" underscores that even in a professional context, there can be genuine emotional impact when a team disbands. Consider, for instance, a high-performing startup team that has worked closely for a year to launch a product — once the product ships and people go different ways, they often feel nostalgia and a bit of emptiness. Recognizing this emotional component, wise organizations sometimes allow teams a moment of ceremony — even as simple as a team lunch on the last day — to provide closure.
Imagine the software development team we've been following has successfully launched their product. The launch is a success, and the project is officially completed. In the weeks afterward, the team undergoes Adjourning. They hold a final project retrospective meeting where they discuss what went well (e.g., "Our communication improved a lot mid-way, which saved us") and what could be better in future projects ("Next time, involve the QA team earlier"). The project manager thanks everyone for their hard work and specifically acknowledges how each person contributed (perhaps highlighting that the UI designer's creativity was crucial, the backend lead's late-night debugging saved the day at one point, etc.). The company's VP of Engineering attends to congratulate the team, showing organizational recognition. The team also has a small celebration — they go out for a celebratory dinner at a local restaurant, share some laughs about the project's stressful moments, and toast to their success. There's a bittersweet feeling because, after this celebration, the team members will be assigned to different new projects. They exchange personal contact information and promise to keep in touch. Some express that they'll miss working together daily. Over the next week, the team's Slack channel, once buzzing constantly, goes quiet as everyone shifts to new channels for their next teams. This illustrates Adjourning: the team is wrapping up, being acknowledged, saying farewells, and disbanding. If the process is handled well, each member moves on with a positive impression of the project and possibly looking forward to applying what they learned to their next endeavor. This helps the organization too, because members carry forward effective team practices (and good morale) into other parts of the company. In our example, the project manager might compile a brief "lessons learned" document and share it with other managers, ensuring that the knowledge from this team doesn't dissipate entirely when the team disbands.
Adjourning in different contexts: It's worth noting that not all teams have a clear adjourning. Permanent teams (like a standing department or a long-term operational team) might not adjourn until a major reorganization or until someone leaves the company. In those cases, "adjourning" could be experienced at a smaller scale when a project within the team ends, or when a team member departs (the team as known is essentially ending and reforming without that person). But Tuckman's Adjourning stage is most visible in project-based teams, committees, task forces, etc., that form for a purpose and disband after achieving it. In any case, acknowledging an ending is beneficial. As Tuckman and Jensen emphasized, the separation phase is an important part of the small group life cycle — how it's handled can affect people's readiness and enthusiasm for future team assignments. A positive adjourning can reinforce the overall experience as successful and developmental for members, whereas a neglectful adjourning (no recognition, abrupt cutoff) might leave a sour note.
In sum, Adjourning reminds us that teams are not meant to last forever; being mindful of the process of closure is key. It's the stage to celebrate achievement, learn from the experience, and provide closure — so that each team member can transition confidently to their next challenge, carrying forward the growth they've gained from being part of the team.
Modern Critiques and Extensions of Tuckman's Model
Tuckman's stages of group development have stood the test of time in popularity, but they are not without criticisms and limitations. Over the decades, many researchers have examined the model, tested it, and in some cases proposed alternative frameworks. Here we discuss some major critiques of the Tuckman model and also note extensions or refinements that have been suggested in the literature.
- Sequential (Linear) Progression Assumption: One key critique is that Tuckman's model assumes all groups progress through the stages linearly, in the fixed order, and that they must complete one stage to move to the next. In reality, teams often do not follow a single universal sequence of stages for all situations. Several scholars have pointed out that some groups may skip stages, regress to earlier stages, or follow different patterns altogether. For example, what if a team never experiences a significant "storming" conflict — can it still perform well? Or, as one critique posed, "what happens when a group fails in the norming stage? The Tuckman model suggests that a group cannot move into the performing stage without first completing the norming... [thus] the group would fail to accomplish their task". Real life shows that some groups do reach outcomes despite imperfect norming or ongoing conflicts; conversely, some groups might oscillate between storming and norming multiple times. Empirical evidence is mixed — Tuckman's own review noted that only about 50% of studies observed a distinct conflict stage in groups, with some groups apparently moving from initial forming-like behavior straight to a structured mode (norming) without high conflict. Other research (e.g., Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951, or Fisher, 1970s) suggested groups often cycle between task-oriented and relationship-oriented phases throughout their life, rather than one big sequence. In sum, the rigidity of the sequence is seen as a limitation: real group development can be messier and more dynamic than the tidy Forming→Storming→Norming→Performing progression.
- Timing and Duration of Stages: The Tuckman model does not specify time frames for each stage, which has been noted as a shortcoming. Groups can spend vastly different amounts of time in each stage — one team might storm for months, another for just an intense meeting; one team might norm quickly and perform for a long time, whereas a short-term project team might barely get to perform before adjourning. Because the model lacks any indication of how long stages last or what triggers the shift to the next stage, it's less predictive and more descriptive. Connie Gersick's research in 1988 explicitly critiqued this aspect: her work found that teams often went through a punctuated change (a sudden transition at the midpoint of their timeline) rather than gradual stage progression, and that time and deadlines were critical drivers of team behavior. Gersick's Punctuated Equilibrium Model (PEM) showed teams having an initial inertia period, then a burst of reorganization mid-project, then another period of execution — quite different from Tuckman's evenly spaced stages. This suggests that temporal factors (how far along the project is, proximity of deadlines) can override a neat stage-by-stage evolution. Modern project management often observes that teams might kick into a high-performance gear as deadlines loom (a finding consistent with Gersick's model). Thus, Tuckman's model may underplay the role of time pressure and other external pacing factors in group development.
- Assumption of Stage Completion for Success: Tuckman's hypothesis implies a group needs to resolve issues at each stage (especially Storming and Norming issues) to become an effective Performing team. Critics have questioned whether this is always necessary. In some instances, groups can perform adequately even with unresolved tensions — for example, a team might still produce a good outcome due to individual brilliance or strong process discipline despite never really gelling cohesively. Conversely, a team might norm wonderfully (everyone gets along great) but never perform because they lack skills or clear goals. So while Tuckman's model provides a helpful ideal pathway, it doesn't guarantee performance nor is it the only path to performance. Scholars like Wheelan (1990s) attempted to validate the stages with performance measures and found some support that more developed groups (later stage) correlate with higher productivity, but it's not absolute. Additionally, Tuckman's model doesn't explicitly mention group failure scenarios — e.g., a team that dissolves in disarray during Storming is not accounted for except as an implication that they didn't reach Norming. Modern views acknowledge that some teams disband or are restructured by management precisely because they got stuck in Storming or couldn't norm — an outcome the stage model doesn't describe beyond "they didn't progress".
- Contextual and External Factors: Another criticism is that the original model treats the group somewhat as a closed system, focusing on internal dynamics and not explicitly accounting for external influences. Real teams exist within organizations and environments that impact their development. Factors like leadership from outside, organizational culture, stakeholder pressure, changes in membership, resource availability and so on can greatly affect how a team evolves. Tuckman's model doesn't overtly include these factors (though later interpretations often add that external changes can cause teams to regress stages). Researchers have argued for a more systemic or open-systems perspective, where a team's inputs (like member skills, organizational support), throughputs (internal processes), and outputs are considered in a larger context. Stewart Tubbs (2004), for instance, suggested that group development be viewed in a circular, ongoing feedback loop rather than a straight line, and that Tuckman's model lacked the feedback mechanisms (a group doesn't just move forward — it can learn and loop through mini-cycles, etc.). Moreover, external events (like a new competitor for a business team, or a policy change for a committee) can disrupt a team's progress or force a team back into storming even late in its life, which a strictly internal stage model might not predict. Bonebright (2010) noted that newer theories incorporate external pressures and organizational context much more — including factors like organizational roles, resource allocation, and stakeholder expectations — which Tuckman's simple model did not detail.
- Number of Stages and Group Types: Some have questioned whether five stages (or originally four) are the "right" number for all groups. Researchers have proposed models with fewer stages, more stages, or different breakdowns. For example, some earlier models by other theorists had only three phases (like Bennis & Shepard's 1956 model: dependence, conflict, interdependence) or even a two-phase cyclical idea (Robert Bales' equilibrium model). Numerous authors have suggested variations, arguing that Tuckman's five stages might be "either not enough or too many to describe the stages of group development" for every case. For instance, in educational settings with student project teams, sometimes a brief "orientation" and then "working" may be all that is observed within a short term. On the other hand, for groups that continue together long-term, some have suggested additional stages beyond performing — e.g., a stage of renewing or transforming if the group takes on new missions. Tuckman's model was initially based on therapy and training groups and small task groups; different group settings (like virtual teams or cross-cultural teams) might experience development differently. Cross-cultural teams, for example, might storm over issues that homogenous teams don't, or might norm differently due to cultural norms around conflict and hierarchy. Thus, while Tuckman's general sequence often applies, diverse contexts can modulate the experience of each stage. Modern team development research sometimes tailors stage models to specific environments (e.g., Wheelan's Integrated Model of Group Development for work teams condenses to four stages, similar to Tuckman minus a distinct adjourning, with empirical measures for each stage).
Despite these criticisms, it's important to note that Tuckman's model still provides a useful heuristic. Many practitioners find that it broadly matches their experience of teams, even if not every team fits perfectly. Denise Bonebright, after reviewing 40+ years of usage, concluded that "recent theories are more complex and deeper... examining many aspects of group dynamics... They do not, however, provide the same breadth of application. [We] can learn something from a model that has proved valuable for almost 45 years. The utility of providing a simple, accessible starting point for conversations about key issues of group dynamics has not diminished." In other words, simplicity is the strength of the Tuckman model — it gives a broad framework that anyone can grasp and apply as a starting point to understand their team, even if one must remain aware of its simplifications.
Extensions and Adaptations of the Tuckman Model
Over time, various extensions and tweaks to Tuckman's model have been proposed to address its limitations or to incorporate additional insights:
- Adjourning Stage (1977): The first and most notable extension was Tuckman's own addition of the fifth stage, Adjourning, with Mary Ann Jensen. This was done after reviewing further research and recognizing the importance of the group's end phase. Adjourning covers the dissolution of the group, as we detailed earlier, and is now widely accepted as part of the full model. Some texts refer to it as "mourning" to emphasize the emotional aspect of disbanding. The inclusion of Adjourning has encouraged team leaders to actively manage the closing of teams, not just assume a project ends with delivery.
- "Forming" vs. "Norming" adjustments (Biggs' proposal): One extension suggested by Timothy Biggs (as cited in the Wikipedia article) is to add an additional stage after Forming, effectively splitting Norming into two phases. Biggs proposed an extra stage called "Norming" right after Forming (which might be better thought of as a preliminary norming or "settling" period), and then renaming the traditional Norming stage as "Re-Norming." The idea was to reflect that performance gradually improves after initial formation, even before storming, if the team leader is too accommodating and avoids conflict. In Biggs' view, a team might experience a comfortable phase where they think things are going well (a false Norming) if conflict (Storming) is suppressed. Only by actively engaging in Storming can the team reach true performance. This extension is not widely adopted, but it highlights an interesting point: teams might need to be challenged (storm) to reach high performance, and a team that is too harmonious early might stagnate at a moderate performance level without ever storming and truly norming. In practice, this suggests that a leader who only encourages harmony and doesn't allow Storming risks the team plateauing. The emphasis is that some conflict is necessary to reach the next level — an insight consistent with other research on creative teams (you need debate for innovation).
- Creative "Performing" Breakout (Rickards & Moger): Researchers T. Rickards and S. Moger (2000) proposed an alternative path for creative teams, suggesting that at times a team may break out of the established norms in order to achieve a creative insight or innovation. They call this a "process of creative problem-solving" that serves as an alternative to Tuckman's stage model. In essence, Rickards & Moger found that some project teams, instead of smoothly transitioning from Norming to Performing, actually benefited from periodically disrupting their norms — essentially re-entering a sort of storming-like state — to encourage fresh thinking and avoid complacency. After such a breakout (which you might call a creative storm), the team forms new norms (hence sometimes this is referred to as going into a "re-forming" stage for creativity). This aligns somewhat with the idea of iterative cycles — high performing teams might deliberately cycle back into brainstorming (storming) to spur innovation, then norm again, then perform at a higher level. The implication for managers is that once a team is performing, it doesn't mean they should maintain status quo at all costs; sometimes shaking things up (in a controlled way) can lead to creative breakthroughs, especially for problem-solving teams.
- White-Fairhurst "TPR" Model (Transforming–Performing–Reforming): Alasdair White and John Fairhurst developed a variant in 2007 that re-examined Tuckman's sequence and condensed it. Their TPR model groups Forming, Storming, Norming into a single phase called "Transforming" (which they see as the initial performance level as the team forms and struggles), then follows with a "Performing" phase (where the team reaches a new level of performance after the transformation), and finally a "Reforming" phase (which occurs if there's a major change or improvement leading to yet another performance level). In simpler terms, they suggest teams really alternate between periods of relative stability (performing) and transformation (which encompasses what Tuckman broke into forming/storming/norming) when moving to a new performance plateau. White linked this to change management ideas, suggesting parallels with other models like Colin Carnall's coping cycle. While this model isn't mainstream, it reflects an attempt to integrate Tuckman's concepts with continuous improvement cycles. It acknowledges that teams might go through the forming–storming–norming process multiple times (transforming and reforming) as circumstances change, rather than just once.
- Wheelan's Integrated Model of Group Development (IMGD): Psychologist Susan Wheelan in the 1990s-2000s developed an integrative model that is heavily inspired by Tuckman but grounded in empirical surveys of work teams. Wheelan essentially found evidence for four stages very similar to Tuckman's Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing (which she labeled: Dependency/Inclusion, Counterdependency/Fight, Trust/Structure, and Work/Productivity). She also includes a final termination stage. Wheelan's contribution was creating the Group Development Questionnaire (GDQ) to actually measure what stage a group is in by surveying members. Her research supported that groups at higher stages (Stage 3 or 4 in her model, akin to Norming/Performing) had better productivity and member satisfaction than those at lower stages. Wheelan's work basically validates Tuckman's model with data and provides a tool to assess it, which addresses a critique that Tuckman's original was more descriptive than empirically tested. For practitioners, Wheelan's findings reinforce that groups do tend to develop in a way that resembles Tuckman's stages, and advancing to later stages correlates with effectiveness, thus giving confidence in the model's practical usefulness.
In summary, while alternative models exist — such as Gersick's punctuated equilibrium or various hybrid models — Tuckman's stage model remains a foundational concept. Many modern approaches do not throw it out, but rather build on it or modify it to fit specific scenarios. For instance, an agile software development coach might use Tuckman's stages to diagnose team morale and then apply agile practices to help a team move from Storming to Norming. A trainer of multicultural teams might add a preliminary stage for cultural orientation or emphasize norming more to ensure cultural differences are negotiated. The critiques remind users of the model not to oversimplify — real teams might need to revisit earlier stages, external forces play a role, and some teams might develop differently.
That said, Tuckman's model endures because it captures a general truth: teams typically aren't immediately effective; they go through a period of figuring out relationships and structure (which can be tumultuous) before they hit their stride, and eventually, they disband. This resonates with most people's experience of teamwork. The model provides a roadmap that helps normalize the struggles teams face (e.g., "Storming is a natural phase; conflict doesn't mean our team is doomed, it means we are growing"). It also gives actionable guidance to leaders: for example, be directive in Forming, be conflict-coach in Storming, step back in Norming, and celebrate in Adjourning. These are practical takeaways that stem from understanding what stage a team is at — and they remain as relevant today for managers and HR professionals as ever.
Applying Tuckman's Model: Tips for Managers and HR Professionals
For team leaders, project managers, and HR practitioners, Tuckman's stages of group development serve as a framework to guide team interventions. Recognizing the stage your team is in can help you provide the right support at the right time. Below are some practical tips on how to apply this model in managing teams, along with real-world considerations:
- During Forming: Focus on clarity and inclusion. Clearly communicate the team's purpose, goals, and initial plan so members aren't left in confusion. Invest time in team-building and getting acquainted. Set the tone by establishing ground rules and encouraging an open, positive atmosphere. Make sure every member understands their role at least at a high level and how it contributes to the mission. As a manager, be accessible and responsive to questions — new teams will have many. It's also wise to model the behavior you expect (e.g., if you want open communication, start by openly sharing information yourself). Recognize that members may feel anxious or excited or both; acknowledging those feelings ("It's normal to feel a bit unsure right now, we're all just getting to know each other") can help put the team at ease.
- During Storming: Don't panic when conflict erupts — instead, manage it constructively. Remind the team that disagreements are a normal part of growth and can lead to better results if handled well. Establish (or reinforce) norms for respectful debate: for example, no personal attacks, focus on ideas, practice active listening. As a leader, mediate conflicts impartially. If two members are clashing, facilitate a private discussion to work through it or bring it into a team forum if it affects everyone. It's crucial to ensure all voices are heard; sometimes conflict persists because one perspective feels ignored. You might use techniques like round-robin feedback or anonymous surveys to surface issues. Provide training or resources in teamwork skills if needed (e.g., workshops on communication or conflict resolution). Keep the team focused on common goals — revisiting the mission can unite members ("We all want this project to succeed, so how do we resolve our differences to make that happen?"). Also, watch out for signs of factions forming or individuals disengaging; proactively draw people back into collaboration. This stage might require a lot of emotional intelligence from the leader — showing empathy, managing tempers, and maintaining optimism that the team will get through the rough patch. It's a balance: allow conflict to happen (don't suppress every disagreement, or you'll get a false norming), but keep it productive and not personal. A manager might say, "It's great that we have different viewpoints. Let's figure out the best solution together. What does the data say? Can we test both approaches?" thereby channeling conflict into problem-solving.
- During Norming: Reinforce and formalize the positive norms that are emerging. If the team has developed a good practice (like doing peer reviews of work, or starting meetings on time), highlight it and encourage it to continue. This is a time to step back a bit as a leader and let the team assume more responsibility. Empower team members to make decisions within their purview. Perhaps rotate leadership in meetings or delegate certain management tasks to see how the team handles it. Continue to support team bonding — maybe organize a mid-project team lunch or informal gathering to strengthen relationships, as by now people enjoy working together. Also, use this stage to do mid-project evaluations: since the team is cohesive, get their input on how to improve processes or efficiency. They might jointly adjust timelines, redistribute tasks if someone has excess workload, etc., with minimal drama because they communicate well now. As HR or a manager, make sure the team has the resources and training they need to carry out their plan. Motivation is typically higher in Norming, so it's an opportunity to stretch the team a bit — perhaps encourage them to set an ambitious target or innovate now that they're humming along. Keep an eye on maintaining the harmony without slipping into groupthink: you might play devil's advocate occasionally or encourage the team to brainstorm alternatives even if they're in agreement, just to ensure critical thinking remains.
- During Performing: Recognize performance and keep the team challenged. At this stage, your management should be mostly facilitative — protect the team from external interference or bureaucracy that could slow them down, and secure any additional resources they request. Trust the team's expertise and let them run with their decisions. Monitor results and give feedback, but there should be mutual trust now that the team will deliver. It's important to ensure the team doesn't burn out in their high-performance push; as a manager, keep an eye on workload balance and stress levels, intervening only if necessary (e.g., insist someone takes a break if they've been working too hard, or bring in extra help for a crunch period so the team isn't overstrained). Celebrate milestones even before final completion — this keeps morale up. For instance, when a sub-goal is achieved, acknowledge it ("We just passed a major milestone, fantastic work team!"). Encourage the team to continue learning and innovating — maybe ask them to mentor another team in some of their best practices, which both recognizes them and spreads knowledge. During Performing, the risk is minimal from a team dynamic view (they're solid), so your attention can focus on external alignment: ensure stakeholders are satisfied, clear any roadblocks outside the team's control, and plan for the team's next steps after the project (in consultation with them).
- During Adjourning: Plan for a smooth closure. Do not treat the project finish as an afterthought; actively manage the transition. Make sure there's a clear end-point — sometimes projects fade out or drag on, which can be demoralizing. Instead, if goals are met, declare the project finished. Conduct a final review or post-mortem meeting with the team to capture lessons learned. This meeting should be candid and inclusive, allowing team members to voice what went well and what could improve without fear — since the project is done, it's about learning for the future. Facilitate a celebration or at least a formal acknowledgment of the team's accomplishments. For example, you might have an internal presentation where the team showcases the results to the rest of the company, highlighting their success — this gives closure and recognition. Address the future: ensure each team member knows what's next for them (their next project or assignment) so they don't feel in limbo. From an HR perspective, this stage is key to sustaining morale — a positive adjourning experience means team members are likely to approach the next project with enthusiasm and fond memories of the last one. If appropriate, provide something tangible as a token of appreciation (certificates, small bonuses, etc., depending on company culture). If the team's work will be handed off to another group (for example, a maintenance team taking over a completed project), facilitate a handover process where knowledge is transferred — involve team members in training the new team or writing documentation, which also underscores the completeness of their work. Psychologically, encourage the team to reflect on how far they came — from a forming bunch of strangers to a storming conflict-ridden crew to a high-performing unit — this reinforces their personal growth and the value of teamwork. Some managers even have a tradition of making a slideshow of team moments or giving out humorous "awards" (like "Most Bugs Found Award" to the tester, etc.) to end on a personal, lighthearted note. These gestures help members feel closure and appreciation.
Adapting to Situations: As you apply the model, remember that not every team or situation is textbook. A few special cases and how to handle them:
- If you take over an existing team (not formed by you), try to diagnose what stage they're in. Are they storming due to prior issues? Or relatively normed but perhaps stagnating? Understanding their history will guide you — maybe they never properly normed, in which case you might need to revisit those basics.
- For virtual teams or remote teams, the stages occur but sometimes more slowly due to reduced informal contact. You might need to make extra effort in Forming to get virtual members acquainted (virtual icebreakers, creating a team charter document collaboratively) and in Storming to read subtle signs of conflict (since you can't see body language easily). Norming virtually often involves agreeing on communication norms (e.g., use of tools, response time expectations) — spelling those out is helpful.
- For cross-functional or multi-organizational teams (e.g., partnerships, alliances), Forming might involve clarifying different terminologies or aligning goals of different stakeholders. Storming may include organizational culture clashes. Emphasizing common objectives and fair decision processes is crucial to norm such a team.
- In crisis or rapid-turnaround projects, the team might compress or skip stages out of necessity. If a team is thrown together to handle an emergency, they might go through Forming and Storming almost simultaneously under pressure. In such cases, a strong directive leadership initially can help bypass prolonged storming (everyone rallies under clear urgent tasks). Norming might happen on-the-fly ("Here's how we'll do this—any questions? No? Go."). After the crisis, it might be worth doing a debrief (adjourning) to process what happened because the normal development got shortcut.
- For long-term teams that have been in Performing for a long time, watch for signs of "stagnation" or complacency. They might need new challenges or slight re-storming to renew energy (this ties to the Rickards & Moger idea of creative breakouts). Bringing in a new member or rotating roles can introduce a mild storm that could lead to new norms and improvements — essentially re-energizing the team. But manage it carefully to not destabilize too much.
Overall, Tuckman's model provides a lens: When a team is struggling, ask "Are we in Storming? If so, what conflict do we need to resolve?" When a team is new, ask "Have we spent enough time Forming — does everyone have clarity?" If a team is performing greatly, plan for "How will we Adjourn positively when done?" Using the model this way can improve team outcomes. It's a roadmap but not a rigid timeline; as a manager, your awareness and flexibility in applying it to your team's context is key.
Conclusion
Bruce Tuckman's model of group development — Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning — remains a seminal guide for understanding team dynamics. For over half a century, it has given managers and team members a vocabulary to make sense of the often tumultuous journey that groups undergo on the way to achieving their goals. We have seen how, at each stage, a team's behavior and needs change: from the polite uncertainty of Forming, through the clashes and frustrations of Storming, into the gradual alignment of Norming, onward to the peak efficiency of Performing, and eventually through the bittersweet dissolution in Adjourning.
The model's enduring popularity in management and HR circles lies in its intuitive simplicity and practical relevance. As we discussed, numerous academic studies and real-world experiences have both supported and critiqued the model. On one hand, evidence and experience affirm that teams do often pass through something akin to these stages — many a project leader will recognize the moment when early politeness gives way to conflict, or the relief when a struggling team finally finds its groove. On the other hand, we must be mindful that Tuckman's stages are an idealized template. Teams might not follow the sequence perfectly, external pressures can accelerate or alter the progression, and some teams may plateau or disband without ever "performing" in the optimal sense. Modern research has added nuance with concepts like punctuated equilibrium (noting the impact of time and deadlines), integrated models (bringing in measurement and acknowledging fewer/more stages), and cultural or contextual adjustments.
For a manager or HR professional, the value of Tuckman's model is in providing a framework for intervention: it helps predict potential challenges and opportunities with a team and suggests where to focus leadership energy. Knowing that conflict (Storming) is natural reassures leaders (and members) that disagreements aren't a sign of failure — they're a phase to be managed. Understanding that Norming is needed before peak performance can occur encourages leaders to invest in team-building and process clarity. Recognizing Adjourning as a stage underscores the importance of closure and celebration, which too often is overlooked in organizations that rush from one project to the next. By framing those transitions, Tuckman's model essentially teaches that building a great team is a process, not an event.
The academic critiques remind us to use the model as a guideline, not a strict law. A savvy leader will combine Tuckman's insights with situational awareness: for instance, being alert to external factors affecting the team, and being prepared to revisit earlier stage activities when the team composition or context changes (e.g., a new member joins — a mini-Forming and Storming may recur). The model can be complemented with other tools (like Wheelan's GDQ for assessment, or conflict resolution frameworks during Storming, etc.) to more deeply engage with team dynamics.
In practical application, many organizations have integrated Tuckman's terminology into their team development programs and leadership training. Managers often do a quick "check-in" on team stage in meetings or one-on-ones: "It feels like our team is storming right now — what can we do to move forward?" Such dialogue, enabled by the model, helps teams be self-aware and proactive. Teams that are self-aware of their stage can also take ownership: team members in Storming might consciously work on communication, those in Norming might challenge themselves to avoid groupthink and prepare for Performing, etc.
In conclusion, Tuckman's stages of group development provide a timeless roadmap for team growth. From the tentative first steps of a new "Tuckman group" in Forming, through the rallying cries and clashes of Storming and the gradual solidification in Norming, to the exhilarating stride of Performing and the reflective farewell in Adjourning — each stage has its purpose and place. The journey through these stages can transform a collection of individuals into a cohesive, high-performing team. By understanding where a team stands on this journey, managers and HR professionals can better facilitate progress, address challenges, and ultimately guide teams to reach their full potential. As teams continue to be fundamental units of organizational success, Tuckman's model — with its simplicity enriched by decades of insight — will likely remain a go-to framework for developing effective collaboration and teamwork in the workplace.
Sources
- Bonebright, D. A. (2010). "40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman's model of small group development." Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120.
- Tuckman, B. W. (1965). "Developmental sequence in small groups." Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
- Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). "Stages of small-group development revisited." Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.
- Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). "Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development." Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.
- Workplace Health Group case study — Haynes, N. J., Vandenberg, R. J., et al. (2019). "The Workplace Health Group: A case study of 20 years of multidisciplinary research." American Psychologist, 74(3), 380–393.
- West Chester University CORAL Program — Treadwell, T., et al. "Tuckman's Stages of Group Development." (Online resource)
- Wikipedia. "Tuckman's stages of group development." (for supplementary explanations of stages and extensions)
- Jones & Bartlett Learning (2018). "An Integrated Model of Group Development." (Technical Writing Essentials — Appendix)
- ERIC — Miller, D. (2003). "The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team processes." Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121–134.
- Rickards, T., & Moger, S. (2000). "Creative leadership processes in project team development: An alternative to Tuckman's stage model." British Journal of Management, 11(4), 273–283.
- Offermann, L. R., & Spiros, R. K. (2001). "The science and practice of team development: Improving the link." Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 376–392.
- Wheelan, S. (2005). "Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective." (Integrated Model of Group Development, with GDQ)
