0 saved
11.9K 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. Fortemne possumus dicere eundem illum Torquatum? Ille vero, si insipiens-quo certe, quoniam tyrannus -, numquam beatus; In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Quae cum essent dicta, finem fecimus et ambulandi et disputandi. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se expetuntur. Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti.
Utrum igitur tibi litteram videor an totas paginas commovere? At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Re mihi non aeque satisfacit, et quidem locis pluribus. Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus; Et hercule-fatendum est enim, quod sentio -mirabilis est apud illos contextus rerum.
Quaero igitur, quo modo hae tantae commendationes a natura profectae subito a sapientia relictae sint. Cur id non ita fit? Effluit igitur voluptas corporis et prima quaeque avolat saepiusque relinquit causam paenitendi quam recordandi. Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Falli igitur possumus. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Quid ergo dubitamus, quin, si non dolere voluptas sit summa, non esse in voluptate dolor sit maximus? Quae sequuntur igitur? Itaque primos congressus copulationesque et consuetudinum instituendarum voluntates fieri propter voluptatem; Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Videamus igitur sententias eorum, tum ad verba redeamus. Non enim, si malum est dolor, carere eo malo satis est ad bene vivendum.
-
Kick off project teams with a focus on connection and clarity.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Saepe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia;
Non potes, nisi retexueris illa. Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret. Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta. Zenonis est, inquam, hoc Stoici.
Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. Quid enim est a Chrysippo praetermissum in Stoicis? Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Zenonis est, inquam, hoc Stoici. Tu quidem reddes; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Aliis esse maiora, illud dubium, ad id, quod summum bonum dicitis, ecquaenam possit fieri accessio. Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris.
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.