Posted on

Bruce Tuckman: Group Development

Bruce Tuckman developed a model of group development which is among the most viewed management models on The Management Pocketblog. We cannot wait any longer: we must take a look at his life and work with a wider perspective.

Bruce Tuckman

 

Brief Biography

Bruce Tuckman was born and grew up in New York, gaining his bachelor’s degree in psychology from the Renesselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1960, and his MA and PhD from Princeton, in 1962 and 1963 respectively.

From Princeton, he joined the Naval Medical Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, as a research psychologist. Here, he joined a group of researchers that was researching the the behaviours of small groups, thinking about getting the best team working on small crewed naval vessels. His supervisor gave him a stack of fifty research papers, telling him to see what he could make of them. His analysis resulted in the developmental sequence that was to make him famous:

  1. Forming – orientation, relationship building
  2. Storming – conflict
  3. Norming – developing cohesion and behavioural norms
  4. Performing – team inter-dependence and collaboration

Tuckman subsequently acknowledged that it was the choice of rhyming names for the stages that he used in his published paper (1965) ‘which probably account for the paper’s popularity’. The terms are certainly memorable and evocative.

From 1965, when he moved to his first academic post, at Rutgers, Tuckman started to focus on Educational Pyschology. In 1978, he moved to City University of New York and then to Florida State University in 1983. In 1998, he moved to Ohio State University, as Professor of Educational Psychology, where he remained until his retirement.

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups

The group development model for which Tuckman is best-known has been well covered in the Mangement Pocketblog already; so much so that we took the unusual step of creating a portal blog to guide readers to the various articles, at: Bruce Tuckman’s Group Development Model. You can also read Tuckman’s original paper, Developmental Sequence in Small Groups.

In 1977, Tuckman was invited to review his original work and, with Mary Ann Jensen (at the time a Doctoral student at Rutgers, with Tuckman, and now a psychologist in private practice in Princeton, New Jersey), produced a review paper (Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited) that validated the original work, and added a fifth stage, Adjourning, ‘for which a perfect rhyme could not be found’ said Tuckman. Many practitioners (this author included) prefer to use the term ‘mourning’ – not because it rhymes, but because it reminds us of the emotional impact of separation and therefore of the role of the team leader in ensuring the team acknowledges the loss.

Procrastination

Tuckman’s work on procrastination looks excellent. I was going to look it up but…

As an educational psychologist, most of Tuckman’s work is of limited interest to a management audience. But one topic stood out for me: the bane of many managers’ lives… procrastination. We all do it.

In 1991, while Professor of Educational Psychology at Florida State Univesity, Tuckman published a self evaluation tool to measure tendency to procrastinate. This was a core part of his research into students’ self-motivation in studying. This became a a key plank in much later research which he applied very directly at Ohio State University, where he founded the University’s Dennis Learning Center. They still teach workshops and courses based on Tuckman’s research. All the research related to the learning centre listed on its website is Tuckman’s.

Here’s the research paper that caught my eye: at the American Psychological Association meeting in 2002, Tuckman presented a paper that showed how procrastinators get significantly poorer grades in class. What I wonder is this: is it reasonable to generalise that result to the workplace? I suspect it is.

The message would be clear: ‘just get on with it!’

 


 

For more on Tuckman’s model of group development…

… and for more on teams in general:

 

Share this:
Posted on

Team Performance Beyond Tuckman

The Tuckman Model of group development is well-known and provides much insight into how a group of individuals evolves into a high performing team. It’s four/five stages form a mantra for many managers who have enjoyed learning about the model at a training event. They have the huge merit of being easy to remember – because they rhyme (perhaps a lesson to any model builder!

Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing – Mourning

Beyond Tuckman

But there are other models – not least because Tuckman’s model is not subject to copyright. One of the best is the Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance Model, which belongs to The Grove Consultants International. It is widely used in association with their Team Performance Inventory, and as a support to their Graphic Facilitation Pocess.

The Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance ModelThe illustration below is a simplified version. For the full version of the chart, you should refer to the Grove’s website, as it is a protected model.

The Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance Model

image

What I like about this model is firstly, that it identifies the team issues that are resolved at each stage, and also those that are left un-resolved. Secondly, I like the way that, what in Tuckman is a single stage – ‘Norming’ – is dissected into three components here: Goal clarification, commitment and implementation.

My interpretation is that Goal Clarification starts, for Tuckman, in the Storming phase, but only truly resolves in Norming. Likewise, the process of implementation starts in the Norming stage and continues in Performing. Drexler and Sibbet go beyond Tuckman’s term, ‘Performing’ and use the term ‘High Performance’.

An Historical Perspective

While researching this, I found an article by David Sibbet, in which he describes the genesis of the model. Here is an extract:

‘In early 1980 I began working with my colleague Allan Drexler on a formal model for teams called the Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance; System. Earlier research by Allan had generated a simple, four-step model that mirrored the first four stages in process theory. I argued that the model needed to be extended to explain not only the “creating” stages but also the “sustaining stages.” Allan was very experienced with business teams. I applied process theory and eight years, and as many versions later, our Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance™ Model (TPM) has become the standard in the field and used worldwide.’

Also on the same website is another interesting model that David Sibbet had a hand in, The Sibbet/Le Saget Stages of Organization model.

So here’s the deal

The Tuckman Model is excellent – it explains and predicts much. But it is not the only model of team development. We can learn much from the comparisons between different models of the same phenomena. Each will emphasise different aspects, and bring new insights.

Some Management Pocketbooks you Might enjoy

Share this: