The Storming Puzzle: II

As I noted last time, applying Tuckman's model of small group development ("Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing") to modern task-oriented work groups can lead to questionable results unless we adapt how we interpret the results. For example, the Storming stage of Tuckman's "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups" (TDSSG) can appear to either dominate all other stages, or to be missing altogether. In preparation for resolving this puzzle, in a previous post, I reviewed Satir's Change Model (SCM).

In this Part II I apply Satir's Change Model to arrive at an interpretation of Tuckman's model that shows clearly how it applies to task-oriented work groups. To avoid confusion about which model I'm applying at a given point in these considerations, I use the term group when I'm looking at things from Tuckman's point of view, and I use the term system when I'm using Satir's point of view. But both group and system denote the same entity.

Why this matters now

You might wonder what value there is in looking closely at a model of group behavior (Tuckman's) that was first published in 1965 — almost 60 years ago. [Tuckman 1965] Well, some groups and teams already use tools that employ Artificial Intelligence (AI). That isn't news. What might be news to some, though, is that there are now teams that have AI members. [Kaelin et al. 2024] The term of art is "AI teammates." What we need to understand better is everything that might have to change to accommodate AI teammates. For instance, one question is this: If my team has progressed to the Performing stage, and one of my two AI Teammates gets updated to Rev 2.0, will my team enter a Storming stage? Questions like that.

Back now to examining TDSSG using SCM.

SCM Stage 1: Late Status Quo

Late Status Quo is the initial state of the system, before the change cycle begins. TDSSG doesn't explicitly include an element that corresponds to Satir's Late Status Quo. In TDSSG, Late Status Quo corresponds to the time before Tuckman's "small group" forms. During Late Status Quo, the people who will eventually comprise the small group are somewhere else doing something else. They might not even know about each other.

Following Tuckman's naming pattern, a term for this stage before Forming might be Preforming. In this stage, organizational leaders create plans that allocate people and resources to the coming effort. These plans, which might be closely held, define high-level objectives for the group's task. No actual work begins, because the group that will do the work doesn't yet exist.

SCM Event 1: Foreign Element arrives

In SCM, the decision, incident, insight, or new information that disrupts the Late Status Quo is what Satir called a Foreign Element. I prefer the term Disruptive Factor because the word Foreign suggests that the Disruptive Factor must have an origin external to the system that's undergoing change.

Often, the Disruptive Factor does originate externally — often, but not always so and not necessarily so. For example, the Disruptive Factor could be an insight developed by one of the group's members, and therefore it would not be "foreign." Or the Disruptive Factor could be a change in conditions brought about by the system itself. At the scale of our planet Earth as a system, climate change could be an example of a change in conditions brought about by the system itself.

The idea that a Disruptive Factor brings an end to Late Status Quo is the foundation for the next insight: in Tuckman's model, the formation of the small group is itself the Disruptive Factor that ends Late Status Quo.

To regard the Disruptive Factor as a Stage of the system undergoing change, as some do, could be a mistake. Hayslip et al. have defined four key assumptions underlying stage models such as SCM and TDSSG. [Hayslip et al. 2006] The third of these assumptions is that the stages are sequentially cumulative, in the sense that successive stages integrate what was developed in earlier stages. But this assumption implies that the Disruptive Factor is not a stage, because it isn't sequentially cumulative. In some cases, the Disruptive Factor might actually wipe away what had been developed before its arrival.

Tuckman's Forming corresponds to Satir's Foreign Element (my Disruptive Factor) because it includes activity that disrupts Satir's Late Status Quo (which I regard as Preforming). But Forming lacks much of what constitutes a stage. In my experience with task-oriented work groups, Forming is more of an event than it is the first stage of a sequence of stages. Four reasons:

• Forming Events are largely choreographed by Management, following policies and requirements that apply to many groups.
• Forming Events are usually short in duration compared to the time required for the groups to complete their tasks.
• The objectives of Forming Events are largely structure-oriented and relationship-oriented, rather than task-oriented.
• Unlike most of the task activity, the objectives associated with Forming Events are (nearly) always achieved and achieved on time.

The "kickoff meeting" is an example of an element of a Forming Event. In many cases, the Kickoff Meeting is the entire Forming Event.

Compared to other activities the group carries out, Forming Events, in aggregate, are short-lived. They include activities in which the group becomes oriented to the task, creates ground rules, and tests the boundaries for interpersonal and task behaviors. Group members establish relationships with leaders, with organizational standards, and with each other. Such important activities inevitably collide with their analogs from the Preforming stage. They put in place all the ingredients for the coming Storming stage.

With this Forming-as-Event perspective in mind, note that above, and in what follows, I don't speak of the "Forming stage;" instead, I use "Forming Event," or just "Forming."

SCM Stage 2: Chaos

The Chaos Forming is more of an event than a
stage. It's shorter in duration. Its
objectives emphasize structure
and relationship, rather than
task. And its objectives are
(nearly) always achieved.stage of SCM is the state of confusion that persists following the recognition of the Disruptive Factor. It corresponds to Tuckman's Storming stage.

Satir's Change Model provides a clear explanation for the transition from Late Status Quo to Chaos. In SCM, the transition occurs because of the Disruptive Factor. In Tuckman's model terms, Forming (the Disruptive Factor) disrupts Preforming (Late Status Quo), which leads to Storming (Chaos).

A natural question then arises: If Storming is an inevitable result of Forming, why isn't Storming always observed? Bonebright has a convincing answer: Although Storming conditions might be less visible in groups working toward impersonal and intellectual tasks, resistance might still be present. [Bonebright 2010]

Knight adds, "…team members may have been exhibiting their best professional behavior rather than the less politically correct behavior they might have exhibited within a group of peers. Certainly, 'resistance to the task' would be muted in the presence of the instructor who assigned the task and who was going to grade the task products." [Knight 2007]

As Tuckman puts it, emotional response to task demands "…is considerably less visible in groups working on impersonal, intellectual tasks." Because such tasks are the usual work of task-oriented work groups, Storming might not be evident in task-oriented work groups, even when it is occurring. [Tuckman 1965]

SCM Event 2: Transforming Idea arrives

In Satir terms, the Transforming Idea is a concept or insight that enables the system to bring an end to the Chaos. In task-oriented work groups, though, problems are often so complicated that more than one idea might be required. Although something a bit closer to what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift might be more apt, Transforming Idea will serve. [Kuhn & Hacking 2012]

SCM Stage 3: Integration

Integration of the Transforming Idea into the group's work can require a wide range of actions. Or it can be a simple change to just one subtask. Whatever is required is analogous to what Tuckman's model calls norming. And so, the Integration stage of SCM is roughly equivalent to the Norming stage of TDSSG.

SCM Stage 4: Practice

The Practice stage of SCM is roughly equivalent to the beginning of the Performing stage of TDSSG. In my experience, what distinguishes SCM Practice from SCM Integration is the frequency of discovering improvements. In Integration, people are still learning the new ways, and the rate of discovering improvements is still elevated. In the Practice stage, people are more familiar with the new ways, and they're working at a high level of performance. The later phases of Practice correspond to Tuckman's Performing stage.

SCM Stage 5: New Status Quo

When the Transforming Idea is fully integrated, and extensive Practice has produced a stream of adjustments that slows to a trickle, the system has reached New Status Quo. And that corresponds to the mature end of Tuckman's Performing stage. Performance is impressive.

Last words

SCM has no analog of Adjourning.

In a large task-oriented work group, a variety of processes take place, any one of which can potentially lead to a Storming episode. Examples include entries, exits, retasking, rescheduling, reteaming, subgrouping, and assignment splitting. These can happen frequently enough to ensure that Storming appears to be continuous. Prudence suggests that acquiring skills for dealing with these processes gracefully, or failing that, dealing with Storming — could lead to dramatic improvements in productivity. But first we must understand how these processes lead to episodes of Storming, and what it takes to bring episodes of Storming to an end. And that's my topic for next time.   First issue in this series    Next 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

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.

Tuckman's Model and Joint Leadership Teams  [January 18, 2023]

Tuckman's model of the stages of group development, applied to Joint Leadership Teams, reveals characteristics of these teams that signal performance levels less than we hope for. Knowing what to avoid when we designate these teams is therefore useful.

Beating the Layoffs: II  [November 20, 2024]

If you work in an organization likely to conduct layoffs soon, keep in mind that exiting voluntarily can carry advantages. Here are some advantages that relate to collegial relationships, future interviews, health, and severance packages.

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 Emotions at Work:

Feedback Fumbles

"Would you like some feedback on that?" Uh-oh, you think, absolutely not. But if you're like many of us, your response is something like, "Sure, I'd be very interested in your thoughts." Why is giving and receiving feedback so difficult?

Begging the Question

Begging the question is a common, usually undetected, rhetorical fallacy. It leads to unsupported conclusions and painful places we just can't live with. What can we do when it happens?

It's a Wonderful Day!

Most knowledge workers are problem solvers. We work towards goals. We anticipate problems as best we can, and when problems appear, we solve them. But our focus on anticipating problems can become a problem in itself — at work and in Life.

Compulsive Talkers at Work: Power

Compulsive talkers are unlikely to change their behavior in response to your polite (or even impolite) requests. In this second part of our exploration, we consider the role of power — both personal and organizational.

Compulsive Talkers at Work: Peers I

Our exploration of approaches for dealing with compulsive talkers now continues, with Part I of a set of suggestions for what to do when a peer interferes with your work by talking compulsively.

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 2: Mitigating the Trauma of Being Laid Off

Trauma is an emotional response to horrible events — accidents, crimes, disasters, physical abuse, emotional abuse, gross injustices — and layoffs. Layoff trauma is real. Employers know how to execute layoffs with compassion, but some act out of cruelty. Know how to defend yourself. Available here and by RSS on April 2.

And on April 9: Defining Workplace Bullying

When we set out to control the incidence of workplace bullying, problem number one is defining bullying behavior. We know much more about bullying in children than we do about adult bullying, and more about adult bullying than we know about workplace bullying. Available here and by RSS on April 9.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrentSgXnAlNVWlhxNIJner@ChacAtZoEYrrmofzZnjPoCanyon.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