ArticlePDF Available


  • Abu Dhabi School of Management (ADSM)

Abstract and Figures

This paper presents a practical overview of the implementation of Tuckman model created by Bruce W. Tuckman in 1965 and revised by Tuckman and Mary Ann Conover Jensen in 1977. The model reflects the stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning on group dynamics on a small group of graduate students studying business major at the American University in the Emirates. The stages reflect the impact of the model while students conducting a negotiation role-play in a class setting composed of young leaders. The findings reflect the practicality of such a model to academia and practitioners in the workplace. The outcome of this study has revealed a new Jones LSI model that has a significant value to organizations facing the increasing today's challenges.
Content may be subject to copyright. 23
Journal of Management (JOM)
Volume 6, Issue 4, July August 2019, pp. 2328, Article ID: JOM_06_04_005
Available online at
Journal Impact Factor (2019): 5.3165 (Calculated by GISI)
ISSN Print: 2347-3940 and ISSN Online: 2347-3959
© IAEME Publication
Dr. Alex Jones
Professor of Leadership, College of Business Administration
American University in the Emirates (AUE)
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
This paper presents a practical overview of the implementation of Tuckman model
created by Bruce W. Tuckman in 1965 and revised by Tuckman and Mary Ann
Conover Jensen in 1977. The model reflects the stages of forming, storming, norming,
performing, and adjourning on group dynamics on a small group of graduate students
studying business major at the American University in the Emirates. The stages reflect
the impact of the model while students conducting a negotiation role-play in a class
setting composed of young leaders. The findings reflect the practicality of such a
model to academia and practitioners in the workplace. The outcome of this study has
revealed a new Jones LSI model that has a significant value to organizations facing
the increasing today’s challenges.
Keywords: Tuckman Model, Jones LSI model, Groups, Negotiation
Cite this Article: Dr. Alex Jones, The Tuckman’s Model Implementation, Effect, and
Analysis & the New Development of Jones LSI Model on a Small Group. Journal of
Management, 6(4), 2019, pp. 23-28.
The complexity of our world today is increasing. Organizations are going through lots of
changes. Some of which are transactional and others are transformational. The structure of
organizations varies from one to another. Regardless of such the use of a certain model can
impact the process of implementation to certain extents. Therefore, a use of a specific model
can play a major role in the organization of such tasks.
The Tuckman’s Model has become one of the most influential and well recognized. It was
first published in the year of 1965 and has become the most predominantly referred to and
most widely recognized in organizational literature (Miller 2003). The focus of it was on
group work, collaborative efforts among group members, and group development process.
Dr. Alex Jones 24
This was established essentially through the four stages of forming, storming, norming, and
performing where the fifth was added as a result of research development in the field
(Bonebright, 2010).
The research in this article was conducted on small group of graduate students studying
business major at the college of business administration at the American University in the
Emirates. The focus of this study was to explore the implementation and effect of the
Tuckman’s Model on a small group.
The study of group dynamics has become the attention of scholars and practitioners.
Organizations across the world has become interested in the development of groups.
Therefore, there was a need to develop a model that can study groups and team dynamics.
There are plethora of resources in the literature talked about groups and group
development. One of the most cited across was the Tuckman’s model. Most popular was the
Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977). The research of google scholars has shown
over 20 thousands sources referencing the model between the year of 2015 and 2019 at the
time of conducting this research.
The model itself was described as a mean describing and studying groups, group
dynamics and teams (Rickards & Moger, 2000). The focus of the model is on group
development. It is widely used by educators and practitioners in training programs and group
analysis across organizations (Cassidy, 2007). It was a result of a therapy program from a
meta-analysis study conducted on 50 studies of group development research of sequential
development therapy groups (Tuckman, 1965; Cassidy, 2007).
In the year of 1969, there were data collected from groups of 174 meetings and 12 poverty
programs in Topeka, Kansas over a period of nineteen months resulted of seven stages of
development (1) orientation, (2) catharsis, (3) focus, (4) action, (5) limbo, (6) testing, and (7)
purposive (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). It was suggested later that Tuckman reduce it to four
stages (Zurcher, 1969).
The result of a thorough literature review concluded with a proposed model that focused
on two dimensions: group development which included the dimension of 1) testing and
dependence, (2) intragroup conflict, (3) development of group cohesion, and (4) functional
role relatedness, and task activity which included the dimensions of (1) orientation to task, (2)
emotional response to task demands, (3) open exchange of relevant interpretations, and (4)
emergence of solutions. It was later summarized as “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and
“performing,” and a fifth stage “adjourning” was added later as a result of research
development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).
The aim of this study was to answer the following questions:
1. How can the Tuckman Model be implemented in a class setting?
2. What are the implications of it on students on micro scale small groups?
3. Would it be possible to develop a new model out of this study?
Data was collected on small group of graduate students studying a negotiation course at the
college of business administration at the American university in the Emirates. Participants’
age group ranged from 20 35 years old composed of a mixture of males and females. The
sample size was relatively small and there was totally of 25 students composed of 17 males
The Tuckman’s Model Implementation, Effect, and Analysis & the New Development of Jones
LSI Model on a Small Group 25
and 8 females. The highest percentage was Emirati students and the rest from different parts
of the Middle East region. This study was sufficient with the demographics provided and no
other information was required at the time of this study.
Participants in class were divided into small groups. Total number of groups was 5 and
each group was composed of 5 participants. There was no specific instruction given to form a
mixed group of females or males. Participants rather were given the liberty to choose their
own members of the group.
Students were asked to perform a negotiation role-play simulation adopted from (Lewicki,
Barry, & Saunders, 2015). The title of the simulation is called The Used Car. Participants
were asked to negotiate selling/purchasing a used car and were given 30 minutes for
completion of a task. The description of the car is as follows: 2011 Volkswagen Jetta S sedan,
2.5L five-cylinder engine, automatic transmission, power steering, air conditioning, front-
wheel drive, dual air bags, cruise control. Black with gray interior, power door locks, heated
seats, power windows, and AM/FM/CD stereo. Mileage: 51,000 miles; radial tires expected to
last another 30,000 miles. Fuel economy: 24 mpg city, 31 mpg highway; uses regular (87
octane) gasoline. No rust; dent on passenger door barely noticeable. Mechanically perfect
except exhaust system, which may or may not last another 10,000 miles (costs $650 to
replace). Blue book values: retail, $12,100; trade-in, $9,850; private party, $10,500. Car has
been locally owned and driven by one owner (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015). Both
buyers and sellers live in the same city.
Tuckman Model is a development model created in 1965 by Bruce W. Tuckman and modified
in 1977 in collaborative efforts of Tuckman and Mary Ann Conover Jensen. The new model
is referred to as Tuckman and Jensen of 1977 revised model of small group development
(Bonebright, 2010). The original model started with four stages: forming, storming, norming
and performing. The fifth stage was added in the revised model: adjourning. The overall focus
of the model is on group functioning within two dimensions: interpersonal relationships and
task activity (Bonebright, 2010). The model was described as “to be used to describe
developing groups for the next 20 years” (Tuckman 1984, 14).
6.1. Forming
The first stage of the model is forming. During this stage participants try to form their own
group choosing their own members into 5 members in each group in this research paper. The
number of participants in each group can vary depends on overall size of the participated
group. This gives students a freedom of choice. It also encourages them to socialize with each
other, getting to know one another, and introduce themselves to new members in the class
they have not met previously. The forming is the initial and important stage in this model.
This is simply because it can lead to create a success and harmony among team members or
leads to the other direction of failure to achieve the desired outcome of the negotiation.
Therefore, a great emphasis should be giving to this stage assuring participants that they are
about to have fun while learning something new that can help them in their practical side of
life. In this stage participants will experience a great deal of dependence through experiencing
a task that has a value to their learning process. This stage develops participants’ interpersonal
skills, measures their behaviors, and enables their leadership skills.
Dr. Alex Jones 26
6.2. Storming
This is the second stage of the model. During this stage participants will experience the agent
of change of experiencing something new. This is due to the nature and complexity of the
task. In this case, the negotiation case study plays the role of the agent of change due to the
nature of it based on the description provided. The storming part happens in this stage is
associated with emotions and behavior and conflict might arise as a result of such. This is
simply because at first students trying to familiarize themselves with each other. That’s what
we refer to as self-understanding. Second, students try to figure out how to work with each
other and work with the case. That’s what we refer to as self-skill abilities. Third, students
might come to agreement and mostly disagreement. That’s what we refer to as the
experienced agent of self-change. Here where the storming happens finding group members
resisting each other. In this case, it can also be a process of stimulating their intellectuality.
Tuckman (1965) stated that ‘group members become hostile toward one another and toward a
therapist or trainer as a means of expressing their individuality and resisting the formation of
group structure’.
6.3. Norming
This is the third stage of the model. This is where group members find ways to create
harmony among each other. At this stage, group members try to accept each other’s opinions
and suggestions. The agent of time limitations plays a major role in this part. This is where
you find a member of the group jumps out of nowhere and settles any issues happening
among each other reminding them that time is passing by and a solution should be presented.
That’s where we notice the best effective ways to work with each, coming up with the best
strategies and seal the deal of the case negotiated. There is less conflict happening in this
stage and more mind streamlining of thoughts and ideas. That’s where cohesion and harmony
6.4. Performing
This is the fourth stage of the model. In this stage group members start the actual act of
negotiation trying to come up with the win-win situation. The actual work of implementation
happens in this stage. It is referred to as ‘functional role relatedness’ (Tuckman 1965). This is
where participants get energized supporting each other trying to win and seal the deal. You
would find interaction among participants in this stage is infused with actions and positivity.
Group members tend to bend the roles during this stage for the benefit of all. The focus of all
is channeled towards achieving the ultimate desired goal with the involvement and
participation of all. However, you would find that participants assign one or two members in
the group to negotiate on behalf of the group supported by all group members. That’s where
you find the whole group acting as problem solvers and wear their negotiation hats. That’s
because a robust structure was established in place based on putting personal benefits aside
and success of the whole is the main goal. This is the stage of functionality, flexibility and
6.5. Adjourning
This is a developed stage in the new Tuckman model of 1977. It is the fifth stage of the
model. The focus of this stage is on the development of the team. Although you would find
the usability of such a stage is less on a class level, but quite popular in an organizational
level. This is where things are taken into the next stage after achieving the desired goals and
objectives of the allocated task to the group. This is pretty much in use during restructuring in
organizations. During this stage it is highly recommended celebrating the success of groups
The Tuckman’s Model Implementation, Effect, and Analysis & the New Development of Jones
LSI Model on a Small Group 27
for their accomplishments, perseverance and hard work. That’s where you make the group
feel that they have achieved the overall success. In this scenario, celebrating the group
negotiation would give a boost of confidence to the group. This, in turn, makes them even
more motivated to negotiate another deal. It, sometimes, referred to as a mourning stage. This
is simply because there is a lot of insecurity and ambiguity associated with the finishing of the
task. Therefore, a transition plan is recommended during this stage to give sense of security
and assurance to group members of the next stage. That, in turn, may reduce the sense of
insecurity and ambiguity that might arise from this stage.
Figure 1 Tuckman and Jensen (1977) revised model of small group development.
The answers to the proposed questions in this study were discovered. The three questions
were 1) how can the Tuckman Model be implemented in a class setting?, 2) what are the
implications of it on students on micro scale small groups?, and 3) would it be possible to
develop a new model out of this study? It was found that the Tuckman Model can be
implemented in a class setting with the stages except the last stage, adjourning, that might not
be applicable in a negotiation role-play setting when conducted in class. However, it is highly
relevant to corporate level and its implication can add a significant value when implemented.
The implication that was found from the use of this model is that it is a great aid in
monitoring student progress, skills, behavior, emotions, flexibility, adaptability and
adjustability to different circumstances, different interaction with different cultures, and
different case scenarios. It is, on a micro level, a tool to observe student’s behavior, problem
solving skills, critical thinking skills, management skills, and leadership attributes.
On a practical side, the analysis of this model come with a proposed new Jones LSI model
that could be much more efficient when used on a smaller scale students or employees. The
new model can be the new phase of group development of this century and the next era. The
proposed new model depicted in the following:
Figure 2 Jones LSI Model.
The new proposed model based on three essential elements: leading (L), structuring (S)
and implementing (I). The beginning part of the simulation starts with the leading. The
leading part includes preparing students to the negotiation case. The orientation part with
introduction to the case is happening during this stage. The leader of the activity, during this
stage, is setting a goal to the group and time frame for accomplishing the task. The focus on
this stage is on two dimensions: goals, tasks and time frame. The second part of this stage is
the structuring. During this stage groups are formed randomly or by choice. This stage
involves getting to know each other through proper introduction and socializing. It can act as
Forming Storming Norming Perfroming Adjourning
Leading Structuring Implementing
Dr. Alex Jones 28
a factor of developing social skills of individuals of the same group interacting with each
other as well as with other groups. The third part is the implementing stage. During this part,
the actual implementation is happening. There are some challenges faced during this stage.
Some of the most popular ones are conflicts among team, resistance to change, different
opinions, different points of views, different perspectives, clash of thinking and point of
views, emotional attitude, and change in behavior. Therefore, the first stage can eliminate
most of these challenges through proper timely orientation taking into consideration that
ample time might be needed to address most issues arise or might arise in the last stage. That
being said setting goals, tasks, and time can play a significant role in speeding up the process
of achievement and reducing conflict among participants.
The Jones LSI model can be implemented on a corporate level. It serves organizations that
are experiencing a status quo where change is almost difficult to achieve. It can also be
implemented on organizations that are experiencing losses in revenues. The model when
implemented strategically and systemically it can create a paradigm shift in positioning
organizations to the next level to even being able to compete on a larger scale from a macro
and micro level. This model requires further testing. The aim of this new model when
implemented is addressing the macro and micro layers in organizations: improving leadership
in organizations, setting clear vision, reducing ambiguity, focusing on strategic thinking,
improve critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, negotiation skills, reducing conflict,
investigate the current structure, evaluate restructuring, and focus on implementation process
achieving the desired mission. The ultimate goal is saving time, money and efforts addressing
the main issues faced in organizations precisely and concisely.
[1] Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman's model of
small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111-120.
[2] Cassidy, K. (2007). Tuckman revisited: Proposing a new model of group development for
[3] Lewicki, R., Barry, B. & Saunders, D. M. 2015. Negotiations: Readings, exercises and
cases (5th ed.). NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
[4] Miller, D. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic
team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 20, no. 2: 12143.
[5] Rickards, T., and S. Moger. (2000). Creative leadership processes in project team
development: An alternative to Tuckman’s stage model. British Journal of Management
11, no. 4: 27383.
[6] Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin
65, no. 6: 38499.
[7] Tuckman, B.W., and M.A. Jensen. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited.
Group and Organization Studies 2, no. 4: 41927.
[8] Tuckman, B.W. (1984). Citation classic: Development sequence in small groups. Current
Concerns 34: 14. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from
[9] Zurcher, L. A., Jr. (1969). Stages of development in poverty program neighborhood action
committees. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 5(2), 223-258.
... It is the formation of dependency relationships with leaders, other group members, and prior standards (Tuckman, 1965 interaction between the group members. During this stage participants will get to know their preference in choosing the team members, how they fit in, whether they feel fun or not as a team, whether the members can work and support one another, and whether the group leads to success or failure (Jones, 2019). This stage should be highlighted to reassure participants enjoy themselves while learning something new that will benefit their everyday lives. ...
... To increase student involvement in online classes, (Martin & Bolliger, 2018) strongly advise using web-based tools like Twitter feeds, Google apps, or audio and video software. Furthermore, in this phase, participants will experience improvements in various skills, their behaviours, and leadership skills (Jones, 2019). In general, forming is a technique that fosters engaging interaction between students with other students using engaging activities for online learning purposes. ...
... Norming, which is the third stage of Tuckman's Model (1965), relates to interpersonal interactions and task performance in groups and teams (Bonebright, 2010). In this stage, it is claimed that group members discover ways to create harmony among themselves and try to take into consideration the thoughts and recommendations of one another (Jones, 2019). Whilst this model is highly related to group development, Tuckman's Model (1965) is deliberately scaffolded and is becoming a prevalent and relevant model in the learning environment. ...
... At the same time, they try to ensure harmony in the group by avoiding conflicts to indicate their acceptance of each other. The study by Jones (2019) supports this view that in the norming stage, group members are more accepting of each other's opinions and suggestions resulting in reduced conflicts as ideas and thoughts are more streamlined. In their study, Carrasco and Irribarra (2018) affirmed that students do not only build their interaction skills and knowledge but also acquired the skills of negotiating and compromising. ...
... Even though there may be good intentions and good spirits, there won't be any trust. The goals of the project, the timetable, the duties that each team member will play, and any rules or regulations are frequently discussed during this stage of team development (Jones, 2019). ...
This study sought to examine the effect of board of management strategic capacity on the performance of public primary schools in Juja Constituency, Kiambu County, Kenya. The specific objective of the study was to evaluate the capacity of the BOM to make structural changes for the school performance of public primary schools in Juja Constituency Kiambu County. The study was anchored on team theory. In this study, the descriptive survey design was adopted. The study adopted the descriptive survey design where the target population comprised of 264 board members in the 22 public primary schools in Juja Constituency. The Nassiuma (2000) scientific formula was used to derive a sample of 122 respondents from each board of management in Juja Constituency. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. The study revealed that the BOM members had the capacity to make good structural changes to enhance public primary school performance through the division of tasks. Another finding was that the BOM members had the capacity to delegate authority to relevant officers to promote efficiency of operations. The study concluded that there was a positive and significant relationship between organization structure and school performance. The study recommends that the Ministry of Education should organize more capacity development trainings to ensure that BOM members are fully equipped with strategic planning skills. Another recommendation is that the Ministry of Education should organize benchmarking sessions for the BOMs so that they can learn from each other of the best practices. Key words: Strategic Capacity, Structural Changes, School Performance
Teamarbeit ist eine weit verbreitete Form der Zusammenarbeit in Organisationen, deren Beliebtheit stetig wächst. Dabei werden Begriffe wie (Arbeits)Gruppen und Teams oft synonym verwendet. Doch gerade ein Team ist mehr als die (mitunter nur räumliche) Verbindung von Einzelpersonen und mehr als die Vernetzung ihrer individuellen Fähigkeiten und Fertigkeiten. Teams stellen eine besondere Form der Gruppe dar, die sich insbesondere durch spezifische Aufgaben-, Ziel- und Leistungsorientierung auszeichnen. Auch Leitungskräfte versprechen sich durch Teamarbeit vielfältige Vorteile, so z. B. im Bereich der kompetenzorientierten Arbeitsteilung und Flexibilität, der besseren Steuerung und gegenseitigen Unterstützung sowie der Stärkung von Kooperation, Kommunikation, Kreativität. Damit sollen auch Erfolge im Umgang mit Komplexität, steigender Veränderungsgeschwindigkeit sowie der Förderung von Innovationen erzielt werden. Empirische Forschungsergebnisse zeigen Vorteile von Teamarbeit auf, weisen jedoch zugleich auf einige Problemfelder hin. Denn die Annahme, dass Teams automatisch mehr als die Summe ihrer Einzelteile sind, ist nicht eindeutig belegt. In Teams entstehen Reibungsverluste, u. a. durch notwendige und nicht immer gut funktionierende Abstimmungsprozesse, unterschiedliche bzw. unklaren Ziele, Rollen- und Aufgabenverständnisse oder den Rückzug von Teammitgliedern sowie unzureichender Teamführung. Teams können auch sehr erfolgreich sein, was jedoch nicht selbstverständlich ist und nachhaltig gepflegt werden muss. Neben gemeinsam geteilten Zielen, wirksamer Kommunikation, psychologischer Sicherheit und Teamzusammenhalt, sind vor allem eine gute Teamführung, teamförderliche Rahmenbedingungen sowie bestimmte Eigenschaften der Teammitglieder wichtig für den nachhaltigen Teamerfolg. Das Feld der Teamentwicklung bietet hierzu Gestaltungsansätze im Bereich der Umwelt von Teams, der Arbeitsaufgabe bzw. der Zielsteuerung und insbesondere Aspekte, die das Team selbst wie die Führungskraft betreffen. Wie im individuellen Führungskontext gilt auch hier: humaner Erfolg ist die Basis von Teamerfolg. Für die Führungskraft ist entscheidend, eine angemessene Balance zu finden zwischen integrierendem Coach, Moderator*in und Autonomieunterstützer*in auf der einen Seite und zielorientiertem Teamleader auf der anderen Seite, um die vereinbarten Ziele innerhalb der Organisation zu erreichen und zugleich einen guten, resilienten Teamspirit zu entwickeln bzw. zu erhalten.
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the lesson study (LS) approach on developing knowledge and perception of peer mentoring (PM) and communities of practice (CoPs) among kindergarten (K.G.) teachers in Egypt. It also aimed to improve students' learning in science concepts and English vocabulary due to teachers' participation in LS. A mixed methods design was employed. Results show that the LS approach provided a rich context for practicing PM experiences and helped teachers to collaborate in a CoP. Further gains were also achieved regarding students’ learning.
We are all going through a difficult period, called into question by so many questions: the COVID 19 pandemic. Without a doubt, this pandemic has had and still has many implications both in the personal life of each of us and in our professional life. In addition to the fact that this virus affects our health, professional life has also been put to the test. The education system was not bypassed by challenges, therefore this period proved to be extremely demanding, with many implications on the instructive-educational activity. Preschool education has not been exempted from the impact of the changes that have occurred as a result of the outbreak of the pandemic. Teachers in the preschool education system have faced many difficulties in terms of teaching in the group. The instructive-educational process suffered in the context of the pandemic, being many variables to consider: the age peculiarities of preschoolers, the ways in which the teaching activities can be carried out through the platforms, the quality of the educational act through them, the lack of training of the teachers in this respect, the availability of parents to be able to supervise the preschooler during the synchronous online activities, etc. The present study presents the results of the application of a questionnaire addressed to teachers in preschool education, on the territory of Romania, which highlights the implications of the pandemic on the instructive-educational process in kindergarten.
Full-text available
Group Development is one of the most important cornerstones of social life. It dictates how our work and social circles develop and influences the relationships in our lives, and in turn, these relationships dictate the levels of satisfaction we report in our lives. Teamwork is also important in our experiences as it is strongly related to group development and is linked with many aspects, such as professionalism and efficiency in teams. In this paper, we discuss the importance of group development for any forming teams and analyze the concept within nine models (Bass and Ryterband, Tubb, Cog’s Ladder, Homan, Woodcock, Fisher, Jones, Tuckman and Wheelan), with a particular accent on the last two (Tuckman and Wheelan).
آموزش مبتنی بر نتیجه و شاگردمحور دو رویکرد آموزشی است که شاگردان را در مرکز روند یادگیری قرار میدهد. در آموزش مبتنی بر نتیجه، نتایج یادگیری از قبل تعریف و مشخص شده و همه فعالیت‌های یادگیری و ارزیابی در روشنایی آن‌ها و بخاطر دستیابی به آن‌ها روی دست گرفته می‌شوند. در رویکرد شاگردمحور، صلاحیت میان استاد و شاگرد تقسیم شده و محتوا نقش دوگانه را بازی می‌کند. برعلاوه، نقش استادان و شاگردان تغییر کرده و روندهای ارزیابی و اهداف آن‌ها بر یادگیری شاگردان تمرکز می‌کنند. استادان به‌عنوان تسهیل‌گران، نهایت تلاش خویش را می‌کنند تا یادگیری شاگردان را به حد اکثر رسانده و آن‌ها را برای زندگی بعد از فراغت آماده کنند.
Effective management of teamwork is essential in active and collaborative learning environments. Teamwork encompasses numerous aspects related to team formation, conflicts, and performance, with several effective practices being discussed in the literature. Tuckman's framework on the four stages of team development describes how teams evolve, passing through the four sequential stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing. The objective of this study was to identify good practices of teamwork spanning all of Tuckman's four stages. A survey was designed based on a literature review of effective teamwork strategies for each of the stages of team development. The purpose of the survey was to examine how practitioners in higher education adopt these teamwork strategies. The survey results highlight the most effective teamwork practices for each team development stage. This chapter contributes to the understanding of effective teamwork strategies identified in the literature on teaching in higher education.
Full-text available
This paper presents a historical overview of the Tuckman model describing the stages of group development. Created by Bruce W. Tuckman in 1965 and revised by Tuckman and Mary Ann Conover Jensen in 1977, the model presents the well-known stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. This model has a unique history in that it was initially popular among HRD practitioners and later became common in academic literature as well. Its significance was a reflection of its time, responding both to the growing importance of groups in the workplace and to the lack of applicable research. This paper uses a literature review to trace the history of the model in terms of field practice and academic research.
Full-text available
We propose that theories of project team development and of creativity can be integrated into a new conceptual framework. The framework proposes two structural barriers that bear on team performance, and modifies the well-established team development model of Tuckman. Creative leadership is suggested as an important means of breaching the barriers. Its differentiating feature seems to be its effectiveness in establishing protocols that sustain the creative efforts of team members. We have designated the protocols ‘benign structures’. Empirical evidence is provided from a range of studies of project teams in industrial settings.
As part of a larger study of a poverty intervention organization and social change, a team of participant observers attended, over a period of ig months, 174 meetings of 12poverty program neighborhood action committees. Seven stages of committee development are conceptualized: I. Orientation, II. Catharsis, III. Focus, IV. Action, V. Limbo, VI. Testing, and VII. Purposive; and modal individual and group behaviors bracketed by each stage are described. The stages are discussed, with the theorist in mind, as they relate to the relatively few previous studies and typologies of developmental sequence in small groups. It is suggested that "Action" or "Social Change" Groups be considered entities for intensive theoretical and empirical inquiry. The stages are discussed, with the practitioner in mind, as they relate to the dynamics of a poverty intervention organization and to the "maximum feasible participation" of the poor. Particular attention is given to those poverty intervention organization practices which stimulated, thwarted, or reversed the sequential progress of neighborhood action committees through the stages of development.
The purpose of this review was to examine published research on small-group development done in the last ten years that would constitute an empirical test of Tuckman's (1965) hypothesis that groups go through the stages of "forming," "storming," "norming," and "performing." Of the twenty-two studies reviewed, only one set out to directly test this hypothesis, although many of the others could be related to it. Following a review of these studies, a fifth stage, "adjourning," was added to the hypothesis, and more empirical work was recommended.
The number of organizations using teamwork is increasing. The team phenomenon has heightened our need to better understand what makes these groups more or less effective. Unfortunately, methods of assessing dynamic team processes such as group development have been limited. The purpose of this study was to create a simpler quantitative method of measuring temporal changes in group processes. A retrospective questionnaire was developed to measure the constructs of Tuckman's stage development model. Both the reliability and content validity analyses provided evidence that the retrospective method can be used to evaluate group development stages.RésuméLe nombre d'organisations ayant recours au travail d'équipe est à la hausse. Le phénomène de l'«équipe » accroît la nécessité de mieux comprendre ce qui rend ces groupes plus ou mains performants. Malheureusement, les méthodes d'évaluation du type d'interactions au sein du groupe et de la dynamique qui en résulte, restent limitées. Le but de cette étude est de créer une méthode quantitative plus simple pour mesurer les changements temporels dans la dynamique de groupe. Un questionnaire rétrospectif a été élaboré pour mesurer les facteurs du modèle à phases de Tuckman. Les analyses relatives à la fiabilité et celles relatives à la validité, ont montré que la méthode rétrospective peut servir à évaluer les phases du développement du groupe.
50 articles dealing with stages of group development over time are separated by group setting: therapy-group studies, T-group studies, and natural- and laboratory-group studies. The stages identified in these articles are separated into those descriptive of social or interpersonal group activities and those descriptive of group-task activities. 4 general stages of development are proposed, and the review consists of fitting the stages identified in the literature to those proposed. In the social realm, these stages in the developmental sequence are testing-dependence, conflict, cohesion, and functional roles. In the task realm, they are orientation, emotionality, relevant opinion exchange, and the emergence of solutions. There is a good fit between observed stages and the proposed model. (62 ref.)