The best-known and most widely used model of group development and team development is due to Bruce Tuckman. [Tuckman 1965] [Tuckman & Jensen 1977] So well known is the model that Tuckman's name is less recognizable than the model's nickname: forming-storming-norming-performing. (Here's a .)

Often, alongside fame and wide use, come basketsful of misconceptions. With Tuckman's model, these misconceptions have led some to declare, "Tuckman was wrong," when actually what was wrong was a misconception arising from applying the model to a technical work group. Maybe Tuckman was wrong about some things, but the misconceptions are not his doing. That's on us.

In this post and several to come, I'll survey some of those misconceptions, adding suggestions as to what we can do about them. In each post in this series, I include a brief glossary of terminology, and links to background material you can review about Tuckman's model and related topics. With that in hand, let's look at one of the more basic misconceptions.

The source of Tuckman's data

For the 1965 paper, Tuckman reviewed research conducted by others on dozens of groups. His paper summarizes his findings based on a selection of 50 of these groups. He organized them into three categories:

Therapy groups

Tuckman explains that in therapy groups, "…the goal is individual adjustment. Such groups contain from 5 to 15 members, each of whom has some debilitating personal problem, and a therapist, and the group exists for 3 months or more." This work requires that the entire group be engaged at once.

Training groups

Tuckman explains, "…the task is to help individuals interact with one another in a more productive, less defensive manner, and to be aware of the dynamics underlying such interaction. The goal is interpersonal sensitivity." To study these phenomena, again, the group as a whole must be engaged.

Natural groups and laboratory groups

Natural groups included what we today would call work groups, task teams, or project teams. Tuckman explains, "Presidential advisory councils and industrial groups represent examples of natural groups." Tuckman again: The laboratory groups were "…groups brought together for the purpose of studying group phenomena. Such groups are small (generally under 10 members), have a short life, and may or may not have leaders."

Misconception: Tuckman-Jensen stages are always unitary

Thus, 40 of the 50 studies Tuckman reviewed involved groups that worked together as wholes, often while seated in a single circle of chairs. This arrangement created an environment in which all group members engaged with each other at once — frequently if not continuously — over a number of sessions. We can reasonably assume that this whole-group approach was a property of most of the groups Tuckman studied. That is, if a group were to move from one stage of group development to another, the group would move as a unit. When a group has this property, I consider that it is unitary.

For many groups, the reality is rather different.

Some groups have a social structure that is actually a web of relationships. At any given time, different parts of the web of relationships can be in different Tuckman-Jensen stages. For example, this asynchronization of developmental stages is more likely in technical work groups, virtual teams, or teams that are loosely connected or meet only irregularly.

Technical work groups are special

For this discussion, a technical work group is a group of people working together on a collaborative effort that involves technology. The group might be a project team if the effort is one-of-a-kind or temporary. Or it might be a group with a longer lifetime, perhaps of indefinite duration.

Technical Technical work groups are not
necessarily unitary with respect
to the stages of Tuckman's modelwork groups often have complex structures. The nature of the work typically requires some individuals to work independently for a time. The work can also compel subgroups to form to pursue pieces of the overall task on their own. These individuals or subgroups later deliver results to the larger group. Then they might rejoin the larger group or join other subgroups. We can therefore regard the trajectory of the group as a collection of threads, each following Tuckman's development sequence. These threads appear in various lengths, starting and ending, splitting or coalescing, at times determined by the nature of the work and the availability of resources. All this can happen without any change in the roster of the technical work group. But as I'll note in a future post, roster changes can happen too.

For these reasons, among others to come in future posts, technical work groups are not necessarily unitary with respect to the stages of Tuckman's model. To assume that absence of unitarity is a sign of trouble in a technical work group is a misconception that can be a grave error.

Last words

Knowing about the misconceptions is the first step to avoiding the damage they can cause. But it's up to all of us to think critically about the tools and models we use — critical thinking is necessary for effective defense.

The group leaders or coaches can take steps to unify the group when they observe that disorder has set in.

These posts about the model of group development first developed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 and later updated by Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen in 1977 are also based in part on a paper by Denise Bonebright [Bonebright 2010]. As Bonebright writes of her paper, "It is based on a review of literature, published accounts of the development process, and the author's correspondence with Dr. Tuckman. … I also forwarded a final draft of this article to Professor Tuckman, who graciously read it, suggested improvements, and confirmed that it 'accurately described my work and what is going on in the field of group development'." For this reason, among many others, I consider Bonebright's work to be especially valuable.   Next issue in this series 

Glossary of Terminology