Tuckman's Model and Joint Leadership Teams

As defined in a previous post, a joint leadership team (JLT) forms when an organization decides "…to delegate jointly to more than one person primary responsibility for a business unit, task force, or project." Arrangements of this form can work well in some contexts. And an important question arises: "In what circumstances is the Joint Leadership Team approach risky?" Tuckman's model of small group development points the way to some answers. [Tuckman 1965] [Tuckman & Jensen 1977]

A brief review of Tuckman's model

One of the most frequently cited models of small group development, due to Bruce Tuckman, is often referred to as the "forming-storming-norming-performing model," later elaborated with a fifth stage, "adjourning." According to this model, small groups develop along a trajectory that proceeds through five stages.

In the forming stage, members orient themselves to each other. They test each other and establish leadership and domains of leadership. In the storming stage, members engage in conflict. The group polarizes. Emotions can run high, with some resisting the group's influence. In the norming stage, members begin to identify with the group. They define standards of behavior and roles for members to play. In the performing stage, the group focuses on performing its mission. Interpersonal relationships serve as assets supporting achievement of the group's mission. Finally, in the adjourning stage, the group dissolves. Relationships are redefined in whatever contexts displace the group context.

Although Tuckman's model is usually regarded as a succession of ordered stages, this view is not universally held. Some hold that cycles are possible. [Smith 2005.1] [Bales 1955] Personally, I've witnessed arbitrary "hops" from one stage to another, in response to external stimuli and in some cases, for no apparent reason. For purposes of the present discussion, I assume that small groups can move from one stage to another, at least in response to external factors.

With this sketch in mind, let's examine how Tuckman's model might apply to joint leadership teams.

Applying Tuckman's model

To illustrate the insights Tuckman's model provides, let's consider a set of formation scenarios for JLTs.

Zero-baggage joint leadership team

Perhaps When filling out the roster of the Joint
Leadership Team, focus on an
appropriate balance of needed
expertise and organizational politics,
rather than one or the otherthe simplest JLT formation scenario produces what we might call a "Zero Baggage" JLT. A Zero Baggage JLT is one whose members have never worked with one another. No two them are much more familiar with each other than would be passing acquaintances. They are all peers; they have roughly equal tenure in the organization; and the business units from which they each hail aren't participants in political rivalry or conflict.

It's reasonable to suppose that such a scenario is one with a group development trajectory that's most likely to match those most often studied to explore Tuckman's model.

Retargeted joint leadership team

In some instances, a JLT from one effort might be re-assigned, in toto, to another effort. This can happen, for example, when a project team completes development of one product and is then assigned to develop the next upgrade of that same product.

One might expect a smooth transition for the JLT because it's reassigned from one effort to the next intact and whole. And, in some cases, smooth transitions do occur. But recall that one of the tasks of Tuckman's Forming stage is sorting out leaders and leadership domains. If the new task differs from the previous task in ways that affect the definitions of leadership domains, the JLT is at risk of returning to the Forming stage. If that happens, the JLT might need to revisit other stages as well.

The second visits to some of the stages might be less strenuous for a retargeted JLT than were the first visits to those same stages, but some effort is likely required. Prudence demands that we anticipate some need to invest in small team development even when JLTs are retargeted in toto from one effort to another.

Mixed-rank joint leadership teams

A mixed-rank JLT is one whose members have an assortment of organizational ranks. If even one member has superior (or inferior) rank, the JLT is a mixed-rank team. A mixed-rank JLT therefore has two (possibly conflicting) ways to sort out its leadership roles. The first is to sort by organizational rank. The second is to sort by level of expertise relative to the team's mission.

When these two sort orders conflict, they provide energy for the Storming stage of team development. Moreover, the conflicting sort orders can provide ongoing necessity to return to Storming even after the team has moved to Performing. The effects of these phenomena on leadership performance have no analog for teams led by single individuals.

Mixed-loyalty joint leadership teams

One of the team's most important assets is the JLT's loyalty to the team mission, especially when it takes the form of passion or dedication. If the members of the JLT have other loyalties, and if those loyalties prevail from time to time, the JLT can experience extended periods of Storming. Moreover, alternative loyalties can interfere with the performance of the JLT even after the Storming period(s).

An example of these other loyalties is loyalty to the "donor organization" — the organization from which the JLT team member hails, and to which he or she will return after the team accomplishes its mission or after the JLT is replaced by a single individual. JLT members' regarding their "home" organizations as taking priority over the team and its mission can be an ongoing source of difficulty for the JLT.

Emphasis on representing organizations rather than bodies of knowledge

Some JLTs are designed mainly to provide fair representation of different organizational power centers, rather than necessary representation of relevant subject matter disciplines. Absence of essential expertise from the JLT creates a void or weakness that delays the initiation of the Norming stage, during which the team works out roles for members to play. Unable to find natural fits for some leadership roles, the Storming stage persists for longer than it would have if the expertise voids had been filled.

When filling out the roster of the JLT, focus on an appropriate balance of needed expertise and organizational politics, rather than one or the other.

Last words

To generate more of these scenarios, especially those that could lead to depressed performance of the JLT, search for combinations of mission and JLT composition that are prone to produce conflicts or voids in necessary competencies. Even better, examine JLTs you know from this same perspective.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

More about Tuckman's sequence of small group development

Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts  [December 7, 2022]

Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples.

The Politics of Forming Joint Leadership Teams  [January 4, 2023]

Some teams, business units, or enterprises are led not by individuals, but by joint leadership teams of two or more. They face special risks that arise from both the politics of the joint leadership team and the politics of the organization hosting it.

White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development  [December 4, 2024]

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups.

Subgrouping and Conway's Law  [December 18, 2024]

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks.

The Storming Puzzle: I  [December 25, 2024]

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies to today's task-oriented work groups — if we adapt our understanding of it. If we don't adapt, the model appears to conflict with reality.

The Storming Puzzle: II  [January 1, 2025]

For some task-oriented work groups, Tuckman's model of small group development doesn't seem to fit. Storming seems to be absent, or Storming never ends. To learn how this illusion forms, look closely at Satir's Change Model and at what we call a task-oriented work group.

The Storming Puzzle: Six Principles  [January 8, 2025]

For some task-oriented work groups, Tuckman's model of small group development seems not to fit. Storming seems to be either absent or continuous. To learn how this illusion forms, look closely at the processes that can precipitate episodes of Storming in task-oriented work groups.

The Storming Puzzle: Patterns and Antipatterns  [January 15, 2025]

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies to today's task-oriented work groups, if we understand the six principles that govern transitions from one stage to another. Here are some examples.

Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?  [January 22, 2025]

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing.

A Framework for Safe Storming  [January 29, 2025]

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration.

On Shaking Things Up  [February 5, 2025]

Newcomers to work groups have three tasks: to meet and get to know incumbent group members; to gain their trust; and to learn about the group's task and how to contribute to accomplishing it. General skills are necessary, but specifics are most important.

On Substituting for a Star  [February 12, 2025]

Newcomers to work groups have three tasks: to meet and get to know incumbent group members; to gain their trust; and to learn about the group's task and how to contribute to accomplishing it. All can be difficult; all are made even more difficult when the newcomer is substituting for a star.

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Project Management:

The Weaver's Pathway

When projects near completion, we sometimes have difficulty letting go. We want what we've made to be perfect, sometimes beyond the real needs of customers. Comfort with imperfection can help us meet budget and schedule targets.

The Politics of the Critical Path: II

The Critical Path of a project is the sequence of dependent tasks that determine the earliest completion date of the effort. We don't usually consider tasks that are already complete, but they, too, can experience the unique politics of the critical path.

Scope Creep and the Planning Fallacy

Much is known about scope creep, but it nevertheless occurs with such alarming frequency that in some organizations, it's a certainty. Perhaps what keeps us from controlling it better is that its causes can't be addressed with management methodology. Its causes might be, in part, psychological.

How to Get Out of Firefighting Mode: II

We know we're in firefighting mode when a new urgent problem disrupts our work on another urgent problem, and the new problem makes it impossible to use the solution we thought we had for some third problem we were also working on. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for getting out of firefighting mode.

The Ultimate Attribution Error at Work

When we attribute the behavior of members of groups to some cause, either personal or situational, we tend to make systematic errors. Those errors can be expensive and avoidable.

See also Project Management and Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 4: White-Collar Contractor Sabotage

Modern firms in competitive, dynamic markets draw on many types of employer/employee relationships, including contractors. By providing privileges and perks preferentially among these different types, they risk creating a caldron of resentments that can reduce organizational effectiveness. Available here and by RSS on June 4.

And on June 11: More Things I've Learned Along the Way: VI

When I gain an important insight, or when I learn a lesson, I make a note. Example: If you're interested in changing how a social construct operates, knowing how it came to be the way it is can be much less useful than knowing what keeps it the way it is. Available here and by RSS on June 11.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenubcqSvusyBsQaEDwner@ChacfhuriyFKgDguTpuYoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info