Team building remains one of the most essential components of organisational success, aiming to create cohesive, motivated, and high-performing teams that can achieve shared objectives efficiently. Among the most influential frameworks explaining how teams evolve is Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) model of team development, which identifies four stages — Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing — later expanded to include a fifth stage, Adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). This model has provided leaders, educators, and organisational psychologists with a structured understanding of how teams develop over time and how leadership and communication play crucial roles at each stage.
This article concisely explores each of Tuckman’s five stages, highlighting their importance in the creation and maintenance of high-performing teams, supported by insights from academic research and organisational examples.
1.0 The Forming Stage
The forming stage marks the beginning of the team’s journey, where individuals come together for the first time to pursue a common goal. Tuckman (1965) describes this stage as being characterised by uncertainty and dependency, as members are often unsure of their roles, relationships, and the team’s overall direction. Kurt Lewin (1947), through his work on group dynamics, noted that the early stages of group formation are crucial for establishing the foundations of cohesion and collaboration.
During forming, team members tend to be polite and cautious, avoiding conflict while seeking clarity about expectations. Leadership is directive, as the leader’s role is to set a clear vision, define goals, and establish initial trust. For example, when new project teams are formed in a corporate environment, team leaders often use orientation meetings and goal-setting workshops to align members around a shared purpose.
A strong emphasis on communication and role clarity during this phase prevents confusion later in the process. Leaders who take time to introduce members, outline objectives, and foster inclusion build the psychological safety necessary for the team’s next stages of development.
2.0 The Storming Stage
The storming stage represents a critical yet turbulent phase where underlying tensions surface as members begin to assert their opinions and challenge authority. Tuckman (1965) identified this as a period of conflict, competition, and resistance, where differing working styles, priorities, and personalities can clash. While this stage can feel disruptive, it is vital for the team’s evolution, as unresolved conflict can inhibit growth.
Wheelan (2005), in Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective, explains that conflict during storming is necessary for teams to transition from a collection of individuals into a cohesive unit. Disagreements over roles, leadership, and objectives are natural and, when managed constructively, strengthen the team.
Leadership in this stage requires emotional intelligence and mediation skills. Open communication channels must be maintained, allowing members to voice their concerns. Heffernan (2011), in Wilful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril, argues that avoiding uncomfortable discussions hinders growth. Instead, constructive confrontation and honest feedback build trust and resilience. For instance, in creative industries such as design or advertising, debates over ideas often lead to innovation when handled respectfully.
Ultimately, the storming stage tests the team’s commitment to collaboration. Successful navigation through it results in stronger relationships and clearer boundaries, laying the groundwork for unity in later stages.
3.0 The Norming Stage
Once conflicts are resolved, the team transitions into the norming stage, where cohesion and collaboration strengthen. According to Tuckman (1965), this phase is characterised by the establishment of norms — shared values, expectations, and working practices that shape the team’s culture.
During norming, members begin to recognise and appreciate each other’s strengths, leading to greater interdependence and trust. Roles become clearer, communication becomes more fluid, and a sense of shared purpose develops. Belbin (2010), in Team Roles at Work, emphasises that understanding each member’s unique contribution (such as leadership, creativity, or attention to detail) enhances synergy.
This is also the phase where team identity and morale begin to flourish. For example, in healthcare settings, interdisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses, and therapists often find their rhythm in this stage, aligning their professional roles towards patient care. The leader’s focus should now shift from directing to facilitating collaboration, empowering members to make decisions independently.
Norms act as invisible glue, ensuring accountability and consistency in behaviour. Teams that develop mutual respect and psychological safety during this stage create a strong foundation for sustained performance.
4.0 The Performing Stage
The performing stage represents the pinnacle of team development — where the team functions at its highest level of efficiency and collaboration. Members are motivated, self-directed, and capable of managing both their tasks and relationships effectively. According to Tuckman (1965), performing teams exhibit clear structures, high trust, and adaptive communication.
Katzenbach and Smith (1993), in The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organisation, assert that performing teams demonstrate a deep commitment to shared goals and mutual accountability. At this point, leadership becomes participative, as the team is largely self-sufficient and motivated by intrinsic rewards.
In the performing stage, conflicts still arise but are resolved swiftly and constructively. Decision-making becomes faster, and the team exhibits flexibility in adapting to new challenges. Examples can be seen in high-performing emergency response teams or sports teams, where coordinated communication and mutual reliance enable peak performance under pressure.
The hallmark of this stage is autonomy—team members rely less on external direction and more on collective responsibility. Teams that reach this level not only meet objectives efficiently but also experience higher satisfaction and morale.
5.0 The Adjourning Stage
The final stage, adjourning (added by Tuckman and Jensen in 1977), addresses the disbandment of the team after goals are accomplished. Sometimes referred to as “mourning”, this stage acknowledges the emotional and practical aspects of closure. Members often experience mixed feelings—pride in achievements coupled with sadness over the team’s dissolution.
Goodman and Goodman (1976) argue that proper closure is vital to avoid unresolved emotions and to preserve positive relationships. Reflection and recognition activities, such as debrief sessions or celebration events, help provide a sense of accomplishment and closure. In professional contexts, this might involve project post-mortems or lessons-learned meetings, which document successes and challenges for future teams.
Adjourning is also an opportunity for organisational learning. By evaluating what worked well and what did not, organisations can strengthen future team-building efforts. Leaders play a critical role in acknowledging contributions and ensuring transitions are managed with sensitivity and professionalism.
Tuckman’s five-stage model offers a timeless framework for understanding the evolution of teams from initial formation to high performance and eventual dissolution. Each stage presents unique challenges and opportunities that shape team dynamics and productivity.
In the forming stage, effective leadership establishes direction and trust. During storming, constructive conflict resolution builds resilience. The norming phase strengthens cohesion through trust and shared values, while performing represents the culmination of collaboration and autonomy. Finally, adjourning ensures closure and reflection, paving the way for future success.
The model’s continued relevance lies in its simplicity and adaptability across sectors—from corporate environments to healthcare, education, and sports. By recognising the psychological and social processes within each stage, leaders can support their teams through challenges, fostering communication, collaboration, and trust. As organisations increasingly rely on cross-functional and virtual teams, understanding and applying Tuckman’s framework remains essential for building the high-performing, adaptable teams of the future.
References
Belbin, R. M. (2010) Team Roles at Work. London: Routledge.
Goodman, P. S. & Goodman, R. A. (1976) ‘Some Misconceptions About the Group Closure’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12(4), pp. 497–503.
Heffernan, M. (2011) Wilful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril. London: Simon & Schuster.
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organisation. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Lewin, K. (1947) ‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change’, Human Relations, 1(1), pp. 5–41.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965) ‘Developmental Sequence in Small Groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), pp. 384–399.
Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977) ‘Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited’, Group & Organisation Studies, 2(4), pp. 419–427.
Wheelan, S. A. (2005) Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective. Boston: Pearson Education.
