0 saved
11.8K 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. Satisne igitur videor vim verborum tenere, an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus? Age sane, inquam. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Est, ut dicis, inquam. Illud mihi a te nimium festinanter dictum videtur, sapientis omnis esse semper beatos; An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia? Scientiam pollicentur, quam non erat mirum sapientiae cupido patria esse cariorem. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam.
Fortitudinis quaedam praecepta sunt ac paene leges, quae effeminari virum vetant in dolore. Dempta enim aeternitate nihilo beatior Iuppiter quam Epicurus; Etsi qui potest intellegi aut cogitari esse aliquod animal, quod se oderit? Etiam beatissimum? An dolor longissimus quisque miserrimus, voluptatem non optabiliorem diuturnitas facit? Aliam vero vim voluptatis esse, aliam nihil dolendi, nisi valde pertinax fueris, concedas necesse est.
-
Kick off project teams with a focus on connection and clarity.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus; Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando; Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris. Quis istum dolorem timet? Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Tu quidem reddes; Quid ergo dubitamus, quin, si non dolere voluptas sit summa, non esse in voluptate dolor sit maximus? Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Sic enim maiores nostri labores non fugiendos tristissimo tamen verbo aerumnas etiam in deo nominaverunt. Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Tenent mordicus. Sin aliud quid voles, postea. Ista ipsa, quae tu breviter: regem, dictatorem, divitem solum esse sapientem, a te quidem apte ac rotunde; An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Huic ego, si negaret quicquam interesse ad beate vivendum quali uteretur victu, concederem, laudarem etiam; Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti.
Superiores tres erant, quae esse possent, quarum est una sola defensa, eaque vehementer. His singulis copiose responderi solet, sed quae perspicua sunt longa esse non debent. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi; Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia? Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam?
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.