Tuckman model, team development stages, forming storming norming performing, team dynamics, leadership styles, group psychology, team conflict, high-performing teams
What if the tension, awkwardness, or slowdown you’re seeing in your team isn’t a sign of failure—but a normal psychological stage that every group must pass through?
Tuckman’s model—Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning—is not a recipe for high-performing teams. It is a psychological map of the natural developmental patterns groups experience as they move toward cohesion and effectiveness. When leaders interpret the model diagnostically rather than prescriptively, they gain language for what is happening, why conflict shows up, where teams stall, and how to guide them toward healthy functioning.
Teams cycle forward and backward depending on membership changes, leadership shifts, or new challenges. High performance emerges not from skipping tension but from working through it with clarity, structure, and supportive leadership.
Originally published in 1965 and expanded later with Jensen, Tuckman’s model identifies five stages:
These stages are not “good” or “bad.” They describe the psychological processes teams undergo as members negotiate identity, expectations, influence, collaboration, and shared purpose. Understanding these stages allows leaders to normalize discomfort and guide teams without overreacting.
The team has just come together. People are friendly but cautious, trying to understand expectations and fit in.
Beneath the surface, team members are wondering:
Will I fit in here?
Who is in charge?
What exactly are we doing?
Behavioral patterns include:
Polite and safe conversations
Reliance on the leader for structure
Minimal pushback or challenge
High dependency, low clarity
Leader priorities in Forming:
Set direction and goals
Clarify roles and responsibilities
Establish decision-making processes
Model psychological safety
Productivity is not the primary outcome—orientation is.
Once people feel safer, authentic differences surface.
This is often the most uncomfortable stage.
Storming includes:
Conflicting opinions about how to work
Tension around priorities and ownership
Challenges to decisions or leadership style
Personality clashes or influence struggles
Storming is not a sign the team is broken.
It is a sign the team has stopped pretending.
Two leadership mistakes commonly occur:
Shutting down conflict too quickly (leading to artificial harmony and hidden resentment)
Allowing conflict to become personal or chaotic
Leader priorities in Storming:
Normalize disagreement as healthy
Keep conflict focused on tasks, not people
Facilitate structured conversations
Clarify expectations and commitments
Handled well, this stage builds honesty, trust, and clarity.
Stage 3: Norming — We, Not Just Me
After navigating storming, something important shifts.
The team begins to accept each other more realistically.
Norming includes:
Shared norms and routines
Clearer roles and communication patterns
Increased trust and willingness to ask for help
A stronger sense of belonging and team identity
People talk more about “we” than “I.”
Risks in Norming:
Overemphasis on harmony
Groupthink
Avoidance of productive challenge
Leader priorities in Norming:
Encourage constructive debate
Support emerging team-owned processes
Reinforce accountability without being controlling
Maintain psychological safety
The team is now building the foundation for high performance.
The team operates smoothly and independently.
People know how to collaborate, disagree constructively, and deliver results.
Performing includes:
High clarity on roles and expectations
Fluid collaboration
Rapid problem solving
Strong trust and psychological safety
High adaptability
Leadership becomes more strategic and less directive.
Leader priorities in Performing:
Remove obstacles
Provide resources
Maintain external alignment
Protect the team’s time and focus
Performing does not mean conflict disappears—it means conflict no longer derails progress.
Teams dissolve, projects end, and members move on.
This stage is often ignored, yet it shapes future team functioning.
Adjourning includes:
Pride in accomplishments
Grief or sadness about ending
Anxiety about transitions
Reflection on learning
Rushing this stage leaves emotional residue that people carry forward.
Leader priorities in Adjourning:
Facilitate reflection and acknowledgement
Celebrate contributions
Capture lessons learned
Support transitions
Ending well improves how people begin their next team experience.
A critical insight often missed:
Teams regress when conditions change.
Examples:
A new leader joins
A major project pivot occurs
Several new members arrive
Workload or goals shift drastically
A performing team can return to forming or storming.
This is not failure—it is a natural psychological reset.
Effective leaders name the regression and guide the team forward again.
Longer forming periods due to fewer spontaneous interactions.
Leaders must create deliberate relational rituals.
More storming because members bring diverse expertise and norms.
This friction can fuel innovation if guided well.
Rapid cycles mean teams experience micro versions of every stage every 2–4 weeks.
Retrospectives help teams move through the stages quickly.
The model becomes truly powerful when leaders:
“This feels like storming, and that’s normal.”
“This tension is part of becoming a stronger team.”
You stop asking, “What is wrong with this team?”
You start asking, “What stage are we in, and what does this stage need?”
Teams become high performing not by skipping conflict, but by moving through it intentionally.
Organization Learning Labs offers team diagnostics, leader capability programs, and stage-based development tools grounded in Tuckman’s research. Our evidence-based methods help leaders recognize their team’s stage and apply the right interventions to move from forming to performing with clarity and confidence.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.
Wheelan, S. (2009). Group size, developmental stage, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262.
Comments