0 saved
13K 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. Cuius quidem, quoniam Stoicus fuit, sententia condemnata mihi videtur esse inanitas ista verborum. Quid, de quo nulla dissensio est? Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Aut haec tibi, Torquate, sunt vituperanda aut patrocinium voluptatis repudiandum.
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est. Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Quam tu ponis in verbis, ego positam in re putabam. Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Sumenda potius quam expetenda.
Sint ista Graecorum; Quod equidem non reprehendo; Quod mihi quidem visus est, cum sciret, velle tamen confitentem audire Torquatum. Quae autem natura suae primae institutionis oblita est? Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ampulla enim sit necne sit, quis non iure optimo irrideatur, si laboret? Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Itaque primos congressus copulationesque et consuetudinum instituendarum voluntates fieri propter voluptatem; Iam in altera philosophiae parte. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti.
-
Kick off project teams with a focus on connection and clarity.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Portenta haec esse dicit, neque ea ratione ullo modo posse vivi; Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Certe, nisi voluptatem tanti aestimaretis. Itaque fecimus. Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio.
Hic quoque suus est de summoque bono dissentiens dici vere Peripateticus non potest. Cave putes quicquam esse verius. Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Quamquam in hac divisione rem ipsam prorsus probo, elegantiam desidero. Verum tamen cum de rebus grandioribus dicas, ipsae res verba rapiunt; Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur? Atque ab his initiis profecti omnium virtutum et originem et progressionem persecuti sunt.
At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Sed venio ad inconstantiae crimen, ne saepius dicas me aberrare; Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Age nunc isti doceant, vel tu potius quis enim ista melius? Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere. Putabam equidem satis, inquit, me dixisse. Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt. Hi curatione adhibita levantur in dies, valet alter plus cotidie, alter videt. Sed quid ages tandem, si utilitas ab amicitia, ut fit saepe, defecerit? Qui autem diffidet perpetuitati bonorum suorum, timeat necesse est, ne aliquando amissis illis sit miser.
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.