Extended Tuckman teamwork theory

New teams rarely become effective immediately. Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 model describes a recurring developmental sequence—forming, storming, norming and performing. He later added adjourning, while subsequent practitioners proposed terms such as dorming, mourning, transforming and reforming to describe stagnation, renewal and the aftermath of closure.

When to use it

• Review a stable operational team against the model at least monthly, and use shorter intervals when a project team is changing quickly or approaching a transition.

Origins

Tuckman developed the original model from a review of research on small-group development. His 1965 paper synthesised recurring patterns into four memorable stages rather than claiming that every team follows an identical path. Tuckman and Mary Ann Jensen later added adjourning to account for termination. The other extensions in this article are practical additions, not part of the original sequence, and should be treated as prompts for diagnosis rather than universal scientific stages.

What it is

• Forming: Members are cautious and polite while they assess the task and one another. Roles and processes are unclear, so dependence on the leader is high.
• Storming: Differences become visible. People may challenge priorities, leadership or one another, and informal alliances can form. Productive disagreement is possible if the team can handle conflict safely.
• Norming: Shared expectations, roles and routines become clearer. Cohesion grows, and the leader can delegate more as members coordinate their work.
• Performing: Attention shifts from establishing the team to delivering its purpose. Members can solve problems with less intervention, although performance still depends on resources, capability and context.
• Transforming/reforming: The team deliberately renews itself before routines become restrictive. Changes may include a revised purpose, new objectives, role rotation, secondments, altered membership or a different operating rhythm.
• Dorming, sometimes called yawning: Established routines make work predictable, but insufficient challenge and weak learning may produce complacency or boredom. Performance can plateau or deteriorate.
• Adjourning: The team closes because its purpose is complete, irrelevant or no longer viable. Good closure includes handover, learning and recognition.
• Mourning: Members process the loss of the group, its identity and its relationships after closure.

The extended model helps a leader name a team’s current dynamics and consider an appropriate intervention. It does not prove that long-standing teams inevitably stagnate or that every disruption returns a group to the beginning.

                                                Dorming               Adjourning

                                                      Transforming                   Mourning

Performing

Norming

Storming

Forming

Extended Tuckman model

How to use it

Discuss the stages with the team and ask which observed behaviours support the current diagnosis. Focus on evidence: clarity of purpose, handling of disagreement, reliability of commitments, learning and delivery. Different parts of the same team may appear to be in different stages.

Match the response to the need. Forming may require purpose and role clarity; storming may need conflict norms and facilitated decisions; norming may benefit from delegation; performing may need challenge and protection from overload. For a plateauing team, use the Sigmoid curve to consider renewal before performance falls.

Final analysis.

Use the model as a shared language, not a timetable or a performance rating. Teams can move backwards after a change in membership, task or environment, skip visible stages or develop along several dimensions at once. Combine it with delivery evidence and the Sigmoid curve when planning a transition.

Top practical tip

Ask the team to identify concrete behaviours that place it in a stage, then agree on one intervention and one observable sign of progress. Revisit the diagnosis after a membership, leadership or purpose change rather than assuming the previous label still applies.

Top pitfall

Do not force a complex team into a neat linear story. Conflict is not automatically storming, harmony is not automatically performance and age does not automatically create dorming. A stage label that replaces inquiry can hide structural problems, exclusion, unclear authority or an unrealistic workload.

Further reading

Tuckman, B. (1965) ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological B ulletin, 63(6): 384–389.