0 saved
13.3K views
This model has persisted for over half a century and continues to inform the development of high performing teams — plus it rh ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Hoc mihi cum tuo fratre convenit. Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando; -delector enim, quamquam te non possum, ut ais, corrumpere, delector, inquam, et familia vestra et nomine. Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc.
An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Quonam, inquit, modo? Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Amicitiam autem adhibendam esse censent, quia sit ex eo genere, quae prosunt. Consequatur summas voluptates non modo parvo, sed per me nihilo, si potest; Tum Torquatus: Prorsus, inquit, assentior;
Hoc non est positum in nostra actione. Ita credo. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres. Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali. Nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem. Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam;
-
Kick off project teams with a focus on connection and clarity.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Tollenda est atque extrahenda radicitus. Nec hoc ille non vidit, sed verborum magnificentia est et gloria delectatus. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas?
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Hoc est vim afferre, Torquate, sensibus, extorquere ex animis cognitiones verborum, quibus inbuti sumus. Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur.
An, partus ancillae sitne in fructu habendus, disseretur inter principes civitatis, P. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Falli igitur possumus. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere?
Tuckman himself provided a criticism of his model, pointing out that it emphasised a “therapy-group setting” and did not consider broader types of teams. That said, many teams have found the model useful and applicable.
Perhaps a more substantial critique was best captured by this study from the US Military in an Acquisition Research Program. They looked at 321 “small, short-duration technical teams within the Acquisition Community.” They found a 95% confidence level that Tuckman’s stages only applied to about 2% of the teams, but discovered that a modified version which viewed storming as an ongoing process throughout the team duration, as opposed to a defined stage, did apply to over 70% of the teams.
In other words, the criticism consists of viewing these categories as linear stages — particularly the storming stage — rather than a part of a team, no matter what it’s developmental level. This might be more apparent in Agile based teams, though the evidence is still lacking to make a definitive call there.
Proponents for the model might counter saying that conflict in a ‘storming’ stage plays out totally differently to the conflict in a ‘performing’ stage, with the latter being managed more constructively and not interrupting performance outcomes.
Tuckman applied to sports teams.
This article outlines the experience of sporting teams going through Tuckman’s stages. It provides examples of the formation of State or Olympic teams doing things such as stopping participants from wearing their team colours, instead quickly creating a new team identity in the forming stage. The article also advocates using profile assessments to provide athletes with self-awareness during the storming phase.
.
This model was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 as a necessary framework to describe team development. Tuckman teamed with Mary Jensen in 1977 to write a paper titled Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited, which added a fifth stage of ‘adjourning’, often referred to as ‘mourning.’
My Notes
Oops, That’s Members’ Only!
Fortunately, it only costs US$5/month to Join ModelThinkers and access everything so that you can rapidly discover, learn, and apply the world’s most powerful ideas.
ModelThinkers membership at a glance:
“Yeah, we hate pop ups too. But we wanted to let you know that, with ModelThinkers, we’re making it easier for you to adapt, innovate and create value. We hope you’ll join us and the growing community of ModelThinkers today.”
You Might Also Like:
- Actionable summaries of the world's most powerful ideas.
Subscribe now and download this practical guide to transform your thinking, plus recieve one short, powerful and actionable idea in your inbox each month.