Question

Describe Tuckman's Team Development Model, including the five stages.

Apply the stages in Tuckman's Team Development Model to working with a group.

Justify whether a team can form with or without utilizing Tuckman’s Team Development Model.

Answer 1

Answer 1) Bruce Tuckman, a psychology professor, identified four stages of development – forming, storming, norming and performing - that every team experiences, and suggested that all teams go through a relatively unproductive initial stage before becoming a self-reliant unit. The ‘team growth model’ also suggests that unless the issues of processes and feelings have been satisfactorily addressed, it is unlikely that the team will reach the most productive final stage.

Any team that stays together over a period of time will change and develop. Tuckman noted that there are three issues which determine how well teams perform:

• content
• process
• feelings

In short, content relates to what the team does, process relates to how the team works towards its objectives and feelings applies to how team members relate to one another. Tuckman’s research suggests that most teams concentrate almost exclusively on content, to the detriment of process and feelings, which explains why teams which are strong on paper can under-perform.Tuckman suggested that the life cycle of a team involves four stages. At each stage, the dynamics of the team change dramatically from periods of inefficiency and uneasiness through to a period of high performance.

Stages of Development

Stage 1: “Forming”	Stage 2: “Storming”	Stage 3: “Norming”	Stage 4: “Performing”
• Individuals are not clear on what they’re supposed to do. • The mission isn’t owned by the group. • Wondering where we’re going. • No trust yet. • High learning. • No group history; unfamiliar with group members. • Norms of the team are not established. • People check one another out. • People are not committed to the team.	• Roles and responsibilities are articulated. • Agendas are displayed. • Problems solving doesn’t work well. • People want to modify the team’s mission. • Trying new ideas. • Splinter groups form. • People set boundaries. • Anxiety abounds. • People push for position and power. • Competition is high. • Cliques drive the team. • Little team spirit. • Lots of personal attacks. • Level of participation by members is at its highest (for some) and its lowest (for some).	Success occurs. • Team has all the resources for doing the job. • Appreciation and trust build. • Purpose is well defined. • Feedback is high, wellreceived, and objective. • Team confidence is high. • Leader reinforces team behavior. • Members self-reinforce team norms. • Hidden agendas become open. • Team is creative. • More individual motivation. • Team gains commitment from all members on direction and goals.	• Tea members feel very motivated. • Individuals defer to team needs. • No surprises. • Little waste. Very efficient team operations. • Team members have objective outlook. • Individuals take pleasure in the success of the team – big wins. • “We” versus “I” orientation. • High pride in the team. • High openness and support. • High empathy. • High trust in everyone. • Superior team performance. • OK to risk confrontation.

A fifth stage Following another period of research, Tuckman developed a fifth stage called ‘adjourning’. This final stage involves the disengagement of relationships between team members and a short period of recognition for the team’s achievements. Sometimes, concluding the operations of a team is disturbing for members, especially if they have worked together for long periods of time.

The flexibility of the model is underlined when applied to virtual teams. Virtual teams are increasingly used in today’s business environment and they can be defined as teams that use technology to function across time and cultural boundaries. Lipnack and Stamps (1997) have modified the Tuckman model to demonstrate the efficiency of virtual teamwork compared to traditional teamwork. Lipnack and Stamps’ virtual team model maintains the same structure as Tuckman’s model, but the team endures a significantly shorter awkward first stage before reaching the performance stage. The model also includes two extra stages, which are comparable to Tuckman’s adjourning stage, to allow for a testing and delivery of the team’s final product. Although other influential team development thinkers (e.g. Manz and Sims, 1993) have suggested alternative modifications, Tuckman’s theoretical foundation remains an influential foundation for modern thinking on teams and teamwork.