Which stages did the team advance through more quickly? Were there any stages where the team stalled? Ultimately, did the team meet the goals and objectives set forth?? If not

Tuckman’s Framework

Bruce Tuckman (Clawson, 2006) developed the most commonly used framework for

a team’s stages of development in the mid-1960s. His descriptions of Forming,

Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning provide a meaningful model for

looking at teams.

Stage 1 – Forming: members in this stage typically engage to define the first

assignment, decide how to divide the tasks, assign tasks and agreed upon

deadlines. There can be some testing of leadership roles, initial disclosure or

similarities and differences among members, and very little progress on the task.

Stage 2 – Storming: differences begin to surface about direction, leadership or

approach. As the deadline nears, conflicts arise about the quality of the product and

meeting the deadline. Struggles over leadership can also arise at this stage.

Stage 3 – Norming: members attempt to establish common ground and harmony.

Openly and honestly, the group addresses its conflicts, issues, and power struggles.

Patterns of acceptable behavior emerge. Members are more comfortable expressing

constructive feedback and opinions. They feel part of a team.

Stage 4 – Performing: stability is reached as members have worked through their

differences. They have developed insights about each other and believe success can

be achieved. Members engage in self-change for the good of the group.

Communication look of constructive feedback and improvement takes root. The

team is cohesive.

Stage 5 – Adjourning: the objective has been achieved. Some teams may disband

permanently or go on temporary break. At this stage, members can be

disappointed if it was a positive experience, or relief if negative.

References

Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.