Although Bruce W. Tuckman (1938-2016) was best known for his article “Developmental sequence in small groups,” published in 1965, his areas of academic expertise were educational research and educational psychology. Still, of all the models of group development ever proposed, Tuckman’s forming-storming-norming-performing remains the one most often referenced.
The initial four-stage model was the product of Tuckman’s first work immediately after grad school at the Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda MD. He and a small group of social psychologists were commissioned to study small group behavior as might apply to U.S. Navy small-crew vessels and stations. The group conducted no original research, but rather reviewed 50 articles, many of them psychoanalytic studies of therapy and T-groups. While searching for a developmental sequence that would fit most groups in these studies, Tuckman initially called the four stages: 1) orientation/testing/dependence; 2) conflict; 3) group cohesion; and 4) functional role-relatedness. Later Tuckman renamed the stages forming, storming, norming, and performing. These four stages have been group development mainstays for over 50 years now, the memorable rhyme scheme contributing in no small measure to their popularity. Here’s how he initially described the stages:
Forming—Groups initially concern themselves with orientation accomplished primarily through . Testing helps identify the boundaries of interpersonal and task behaviors. Testing also involves defining and establishing dependency relationships with leaders and other group members as well as with pre‑existing standards.
Storming—The next phase is characterized by interpersonal conflict and polarization, which tend to boil over into the task sphere. These behaviors create resistance to group influence and task requirements.
Norming—Resistance is overcome in the third stage, in which in-group feeling and cohesiveness develop. As new standards evolve, new roles are adopted. In the task realm, group members begin to more openly express honest and personal opinions.
Performing—The new interpersonal structure now gears up for work. Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into tasks. Structural issues have been resolved, and the new structure can more fully focus on task performance.
Is there a 5th stage?
In 1977, Tuckman and Mary Ann Jensen proposed an update to the popular model, based on a new literature review. They reported that 23 newer articles “tended to support the existence of the four stages” while also suggesting a fifth stage. Tuckman and Jensen called this stage adjourning. Adjourning basically involves dissolution, that is, terminating roles, completing tasks, and reducing dependency. Others in the group dynamics field have called this stage mourning, since former group members often experience loss, especially when a group is dissolved suddenly or with little planning.
How valid and useful is the Tuckman model?
Although Tuckman’s four-stage model has found its way into many textbooks, not every social psychologist embraces it. For one thing, Tuckman’s model suffers the same criticisms as any stage-theory or lifespan model: by trying to paint a universal picture, it over-generalizes. Groups, claim the critics, aren’t so straightforward. As with all human processes, every group deviates from any stage theory. What’s more, there are usually overlaps between stages. Not only are the lines fuzzy, but the stages can also be nonlinear. Group members are always balancing the needs of accomplishing tasks and building relationships, and the focus between the two is constantly shifting. In other words, in real life, group development transpires more like a spiral than a series of clear-cut steps.
The other major criticism takes aim at the model’s catchy labels. The concern is that facilitators and trainers too often project these labels onto groups where the labels don’t fit and aren’t helpful. This is less a critique of the model’s validity than an example of how slogans and models can sometimes encourage intellectual laziness or misapplication.
All things considered, we’ve found that Tuckman’s model can sometimes be a helpful starting point for small groups. There do seem to be generally predictable developmental processes for some kinds of small groups, and when group members gain appreciation for these processes, the group ends to gel sooner.