In his work, Bruce W. Tuckman proposes four general stages of group development, stating that, “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.”

In Tuckman’s model, groups initially concern themselves with orientation accomplished primarily through testing; the second point in the sequence is characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues; resistance is overcome in the third stage in which ingroup feelings and cohesiveness develop, new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted; finally, the group attains the fourth and final stage, in which interpersonal structure become the tool of task activities, roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into the task.

Originally published in the American Psychological Association’s ‘Psychological Bulletin’, Volume 63, Number 6, in 1965, Tuckman’s work has since been widely studied, adopted, and extended. For example, in her ‘Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective’, first published in 1993 (2nd ed 2005), Susan Wheelan built on Tuckman’s model, proposing and validating an integrated model of group development using observational and survey data. While Wheelan’s work was to primarily verify Tuckman’s, Wheelan did confirm, for the first time, that there is a normative timeframe needed in order for groups to progress through the phases of growth.

Tuckman’s four-stage, small-group, developmental sequence is now commonly referred to as the process of “Forming, Storming, Norming & Performing”.

Small-Group Developmental Sequence Stage 1: “Forming”

“Forming” Group Characteristics

• “Forming” Group Goal – Creating a sense of belonging in group members and beginning to establish predictable patterns of interaction
• “Forming” Group Structure – Testing and dependence
• Overt group conflict is minimal
• Communication tends to be centralized
• Subgroups and coalitions are rare at this stage
• Structure reflects the expression of dependency needs
• Attempts at group structuring to work out authority problems result in the adoption of arbitrary norms
• Group dependency on the designated leader – leader is seen as benevolent and competent, and groups during this early stage are solicitous of the leader and are eager to please authority

“Forming” Member Characteristics

• “Forming” Member Task Activity – Orientation and testing
• Direct attempts at orientation toward the task
• Group members tend to be anxious and fearful
• Members communicate in a tentative and very polite manner
• Members fear group rejection, so member compliance is high
• Members rarely express disagreement with initial group goals
• Independent action at this stage of group life occurs rarely, if at all
• Indirect attempts to discover the nature and boundaries of the task
• Establishment of the situation through interpersonal exploration and testing
• Group members may attempt to secure their own safety at the expense of others
• Concerned with acceptance and inclusion, members try to find their position in the group
• Since members have not yet interacted sufficiently to establish relationships with each other, they cannot rely on each other for support or structure

Key “Forming” Member Characteristics Charted

According to Susan Wheelan, in the “forming” stage of group growth, the percentage of group statements that address dependency come to 8% of the total statements, while pairing averages at 16% of total statements. Statements regarding conflict are few, at about 6% of statements. About 17% of the time, team members engage in “safe, noncontroversial discussions filled with flight statements by exchanging stories about outside activities or other topics not relevant to group goals”. Finally, approximately 50% of the time, statements made are regarding work-related issues.

Small-Group Developmental Sequence Stage 2: “Storming”

“Storming” TLDR – This is the conflict stage

“Storming” Group Characteristics

• “Storming” Group Goal – To clarify group goals and to create a unified group culture and structure
• “Storming” Group Structure – Intragroup conflict
• Lack of unity
• Leadership struggles
• Disrupted communication
• Intense but brief and brittle linkages
• Attempts at conflict management are evident
• Struggling in an attempt on the part of the group to define itself
• Disagreements about goals emerge, but clarification of goals begins
• Subgroups and coalitions form, and group intolerance of subgroups and coalitions is manifest
• Crisis period where friction is increased, anxiety mounts, rules are broken, arguments ensue, and a general structural collapse occurs
• Conflict that is essential for the foundation of a safe environment, for the development of social virtues, trust, and group cohesion, for the delineation of areas of common values and achievement of one relatively unified direction, and for the balancing of the differences found between extreme positions or views held by members

“Storming” Member Characteristics

• “Storming” Member Task Activity – Emotional response to task demands
• Increased member participation is evident
• Sharp fluctuations of relationships and reversals of feelings
• Benign regression characterized by extreme acting-out and unacceptable behavior
• Decreased conformity – resistance to group influence and to the formation of group structure
• Individual group members seek to define their roles more clearly and to liberate themselves from the perceived control of the authority figure
• Counterdependency and flight – members have emotional responses to task demands and requirements, especially when the task has as its goal self-understanding, self-improvement, or self-change

Key “Storming” Member Characteristics Charted

According to Susan Wheelan, in the “storming” stage of group growth, the percentage of group statements that address flight decrease to about 7%, work statements remain at 49%, dependency statements fall to 2%, and statements regarding conflict rise to 28%. In Wheelan’s words, “conflict is inevitable”.

Small-Group Developmental Sequence Stage 3: “Norming”

“Norming” TLDR – This is the structure stage

“Norming” Group Characteristics

• “Norming” Group Goal – Mature negotiation about group goals, organizational structure, procedures, roles, the division of labor, and rules of conduct
• “Norming” Group Structure – Development of group cohesion
• Helpful deviation is tolerated
• Greater division of labor occurs
• Solidarity, social capital, trust, structure
• Growth of an interlocking network of friendships
• Conflict management strategies are more effective
• Development of reciprocal cohesion-performance relationship
• Group unity, integration, mutuality, and in-group consciousness
• The leader’s role becomes less directive and more consultative
• Freedom of communication and flexible communication structure
• The group sometimes becomes a simulation of the family constellation
• Increased goal clarity and consensual group action, cooperation, and mutual support
• New roles are adopted – roles become flexible and functional, adjusted to increase the likelihood of goal achievement
• Coalitions and subgroups continue to form, but there is evidence of tolerance of these coalitions and subgroups
• All five sources of group cohesion should be established and apparent – social, task, collective, emotional, and structural (such as norms and roles)
• The group becomes an entity, the beginnings of the Hobbesian “Leviathan”, and its existence is ensured by member acceptance, maintenance, and perpetuation
• The establishment and maintenance of new group-generated boundaries, norms and standards – the group works to clarify and build a group structure that will facilitate productivity

“Norming” Member Characteristics

• “Norming” Member Task Activity – Discussing oneself and other group members
• Member satisfaction increases
• Information is shared rather than used
• Openness between group members – exchange of relevant interpretations, intimate, personal opinions are expressed
• Increased cooperation – conflicts are avoided to insure harmony and members accept fellow group member idiosyncrasies
• Individual commitment to group goals and tasks is high and the content of communication becomes more task oriented

Key “Norming” Member Characteristics Charted

According to Susan Wheelan, in the “norming” and “performing” stages of group growth, the percentage of group statements that are related to work increases to 62% of total statements, while 20% of group time is spent on sorting out differences of opinion on how work should get done.

Small-Group Developmental Sequence Stage 4: “Performing”

“Performing” TLDR – This is the work stage

“Performing” Group Characteristics

• “Performing” Group Goal – The goals of stage four groups are to remain cohesive while engaging in task-related conflicts and to maintain high performance standards
• “Performing” Group Structure – Functional role-relatedness
• Task-related deviance is tolerated
• The group encourages innovation
• The group expects to be successful
• Group philosophy becomes pragmatic
• The group has a defined work territory
• Role assignments match member abilities
• The group has effective conflict management strategies
• The leadership style matches the group’s developmental level
• The group has an appropriate ratio of task and socioemotional statements
• The group gets, gives, and utilizes feedback about its effectiveness and productivity
• The group contains the smallest number of members necessary to accomplish its goal or goals
• Structure becomes internalized – structural group issues have been resolved and group structure can support task performance
• Emphasis on task achievement which is superordinate to social structure – tasks are appropriate to group versus individual solutions
• The group becomes an integrative-creative-social and problem-solving instrument, facilitating diagnosis, analysis, and decision making
• Cohesive, constructive, collaborative, cooperative, and coordinated group action, communication, understanding, and encouragement
• The group spends time on defining problems it must solve and decisions it must make, as well as on planning and executing on solutions to these problems and decisions
• The group accepts subgroup and coalition formation – subgroups are integrated into the group structure and assigned important tasks, such as work on a total product or project, and recognized and awarded by the group at large

“Performing” Member Characteristics

• “Performing” Member Task Activity – Emergence of insight and solution
• Voluntary conformity is high
• Periods of conflict are frequent, but brief
• Interpersonal attraction among members is high
• Positive interdependence characterized by simultaneous autonomy and mutuality
• Member are clear about, agree with, and accept, group goals as well as their individual roles and status within the group
• Group members seeks out and utilize available resources to accomplish tasks and reach goals – the group has access to the technical and people resources, consultation, and training necessary to the accomplishment of its goals and tasks

Key “Performing” Member Characteristics Charted

Susan Wheelan uses the same pie chart to illustrate member characteristics in the “norming” stage as in the “performing” stage.

The Small-Group Developmental Sequence Operationalized

Donelson R. Forsyth operationalized Bruce W. Tuckman’s model in the 7th edition of his ‘Group Dynamics’, published in 2018. Note that Forsyth’s illustration includes a fifth stage of group development, “Adjourning”.

Smaller Is Better For Group Progression

Issues such as culture, identity, management, organization, and complexity of tasks all impact group dynamics and the way in which a group develops. For example, challenges may be met along the way that delay group advancement, such as “overly homogeneous groups, inadequate role differentiation, or failed role enactment”, as said by Poole & Hollingshead.

According to Susan Wheelan, many of the challenges that delay group progression can be best met by the small group. Problems pervasive to the large group, such as “social loafing”, uneven distribution of work, and lack of solidarity are able to be recognized and managed quickly, efficiently, and effectively in the small group. Wheelan’s work showed that the smaller teams are more productive, solve problems more readily, resolve disagreements more easily, and mature more quickly than do larger teams. Further, members of smaller groups found their memberships to be more psychologically satisfying than did members of larger groups. Wheelan’s work, specifically, showed that groups of three to eight members were more productive and more mature at six months than groups with nine or more members.

Final Thought

According to Donelson R. Forsyth group development sometimes takes a different course than that defined by Bruce W. Tuckman. He states that “the demarcation between stages” in Tuckman’s model “is not clear-cut”, and that, although “interpersonal exploration is often a prerequisite for group solidarity, and cohesion and conflict often precede effective performance, this pattern is not universal. Some groups manage to avoid particular stages…”

While fairly stated by Forsyth, progress takes time and we cannot rush our group members through the stages of group progression. Afterall, “The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it”, as said by John Stuart Mill. We must educate our members, listen to what it is they wish to accomplish collectively, gather member consent and insight, and then act consultatively with the group, as its own unique entity, in order to reach our highest levels of mutual productivity and community good.

Thanks for reading!