Tuckman's stages of team development

In one paragraph

Teams predictably go through stages, and the awkward one in the middle is necessary rather than a sign something is wrong.

Forming — polite, tentative, dependent on the leader. Little real work; people are working out where they stand.

Storming — disagreement surfaces about roles, approach and status. Uncomfortable, and the stage most teams try to avoid.

Norming — the group settles how it will work: norms, roles, ways of resolving things.

Performing — the team works with little friction and can self-manage.

Adjourning was added later, for teams that disband — a real stage, with a real dip in performance and morale as it approaches.

Why storming matters

A team that never storms has not resolved anything; it has agreed to be pleasant, and the disagreements go underground to reappear as passive resistance. A manager's instinct is to suppress the conflict, which keeps the team stuck in forming indefinitely.

New member, new leader or new goal and the team goes back a stage or two. That is normal, not failure.

How to actually use it

• Name the stage out loud with a new team. Telling people 'we are going to disagree about how to do this for a few weeks, and that is the point' takes the fear out of storming.
• Change the leadership style with the stage: directive at forming, facilitative through storming, delegating at performing.

Where it breaks down

• Neater than reality. Teams loop, skip, and sit in two stages at once.
• Little evidence that the sequence is universal, and it says nothing about *how long* a stage should take.

If you are being examined on it

Identify the stage from evidence in the case and match the leadership response to it. That match is the assessed skill.

More on people & teams