Developing teamwork with the Tuckman model
Published on
You don’t choose your family, you choose your friends—but do you choose the members of your team? In most cases, it is managers or recruiters, at the origin of employee hiring, who choose the composition of their team. Employees themselves therefore rarely have the luxury of choosing other team members. Does this mean good understanding between them cannot be created? How do you build a high-performing team with good rapport? By learning to know one another, becoming aware of others’ strengths, and feeling increasingly comfortable, bonds can be formed and teamwork can prove particularly effective. How does teamwork develop? Are there inevitable phases? To answer this, we invite you to look at Tuckman’s research on the subject.
————
Tuckman’s analyses of behavior in a collective
In 1965, the American sociologist Bruce Wayne Tuckman became interested in individuals’ behavior within a work group and to what extent they were productive. He then conducted an analysis of more than 50 studies. He began by observing students, asking why some perform well and others do not. Above all, he noted that depending on the group students are assigned to, their productivity varies. Thus, productivity would not be only an individual skill, but a skill that develops partly through collective unity.
To complete his analysis, we can add that even with equivalent complexity of the subject addressed, compensation for completing the project, affinity developed with colleagues, and other equivalent personal factors, an individual will not get involved in the same way depending on whether they work with group A or group B.
What defines a group?
A group, a whole
What do we call a “team”? When we look at the definition of a team, we notice that it is a group of individuals working toward a common goal. Consequently, this definition makes us understand that several individuals form a single group, but above all that their actions have a common purpose. The question is whether they are complementary individuals, individuals with similar skills, or individuals with the same skills.
Professor Robert Lafon adds a new dimension: “A team is not an addition of beings, but a totality, a living and evolving psychosocial group.” It is therefore not an assembly but a totality, a whole. Remove one member from your team and it is no longer complete. His sentence shows that every member of a team, each and every one of them, brings a building block to the project structure.
An ideal team?
Is there an ideal number for a team? At first glance, one might tend to give a vague answer: the number of individuals should be neither too small, because the workload would be too heavy and the level of expertise expected too high, nor too large, because some individuals might rely on others or have difficulty making themselves heard.
Slater and Hare agreed on the number 5 for the proper composition of a group. As for Holloman and Hendrick, they bet on the number 6. Could there be a magic number, a sign of group success? Nothing is proven. What matters above all is how each person expresses themselves so that a collective project succeeds.
A manager, project bearer and wearer of many hats
The constitution of a group has no reason to exist without a manager, a project leader. This person will adopt several positions depending on the stage the group is in. Although at the beginning they mostly opt for a directive style, they will gradually step back to let the group move forward on its own. Participative and delegative styles therefore generally come later. However, it is important to specify that these styles are not tied to a specific moment and can vary according to context, individuals, their missions, their expertise, and their motivation.
The life stages of a group
Tuckman was particularly interested in groups within companies. This is when he defined the development process of a group from creation to task completion. In 1965, he distinguished 4 stages:
forming or forming,
storming or storming,
norming or norming,
performing or performing.
A few years later, in 1977, with Mary Jensen, he added a fifth stage: dissolution or adjourning. These 5 stages are, for him, essential in building a high-performing collective.
To learn how to build a strong collective, we invite you to follow our training Building a collective, which is based among other things on the Tuckman model, or simply talk with us.
Forming = Formation
The first stage remains the stage of forming a group, the one where talents are brought together in service of a common objective.
Forming a group is the moment when excitement and enthusiasm mix with fear and uncertainty. Everyone learns to discover one another, starts interacting with others, and develops initial affinities. It is the phase of emotional development during which people get to know each other and receive directives and objectives.
How will the manager proceed with the formation? Depending on the mission to be achieved, they will reflect on individuals’ skills and soft skills and ask whether the union of their strengths can drive the company upward.
During this phase, the manager’s role is crucial because from the very beginning they must establish a climate of trust, conducive to employees’ productivity. It is recommended that they adopt active listening, encourage exchanges, define how the team and each person will operate, formulate clear objectives (and ensure objectives are understood), and develop group cohesion. In addition, the notion of cohesion must be taken into account because without it, the team will struggle to continue its development and access the following phases defined by Tuckman.
Storming = Turbulence = Tensions
This Storming stage, even if it may sometimes seem risky, is essential for the formation and long-term performance of a group. Following the group formation stage comes the “tension” period, the one that brings out questions, divergences, worries, debates, and power struggles. Team members begin testing and experimenting with their way of working together, and may face some disagreements and friction. The manager must therefore prepare to face challenges to their authority or disputes within a group.
This storming moment is entirely natural in a period of change since the creation of a group inevitably brings novelty. Drawing on the Kübler-Ross change curve, one could associate the tension phase with anger and fear.
Sometimes, a lack of momentum from the group can explain the causes of this turbulence. Other times, a very short deadline, a tense context, or unclear objectives (defined during the first stage) can generate a lot of stress and questioning. In addition, depending on group personalities, the bond between members, past experiences, and context, friction can be more or less intense. In this situation, the enthusiasm of the first stage may decline.
This is a critical phase which, if poorly managed, can lead to group dissolution before project normalization even begins. The manager’s intervention is, so to speak, essential, as they must prevent such a situation from occurring—or at least prevent it from lasting too long. Their role:
Encourage constructive dialogue
Manage potential tensions and conflicts
Rely on shared values
Establish leadership
Correct misconduct
Remind people of the stakes, restore meaning, motivate the team
Managers and group members must therefore keep in mind that a “team creates constraints,” as the Hyacinthe Dubreuil committee indicated. The same committee maintained that “joining together to achieve a common objective means giving up a certain degree of freedom; it means accepting a common tactic, coordination of efforts, discipline.” Thus, greater or lesser freedom and discipline are required to find the right compromise and move a team forward.
Norming = Standardization
This is the moment when the group truly starts functioning as a group. Processes begin to be put in place as working rules are being established (formally or informally, verbally or in writing). Each member starts finding their bearings and thinking about the proper organization of everyone’s tasks with a view to achieving the final objective.
In this phase of progress, trust in colleagues is stronger. This is the moment of momentum, of rising motivation. It is the launch, the implementation of the project that creates dynamism and trust among group members. In this respect, motivation is key in this phase because it remains a cohesion factor and a guarantee of effectiveness.
During this phase, it is important to adjust, if necessary, elements essential to everyone’s well-being and to the smooth running of the mission, such as resource adjustments, changes in methods, etc.
During normalization, the collective develops and the manager focuses on their unifying role and support position since they can:
Promote smooth communication
Organize regular check-ins
Promote autonomy, accountability, and decision-making
Highlight team progress and successes
Maintain cohesion and motivation
Performing = Performance
When group choices are defined (who does what, which direction to move toward, etc.), when bonds are strengthened, and when working conditions are in place to be effective, the phase of high productivity can begin! The group becomes one and is able to solve problems on its own, or at least by helping one another. It knows how to interact smoothly and appropriately with all stakeholders. Everyone knows their role and just has to execute. Like a 4 x 100m relay race, everything is precisely calibrated for optimal performance!
The manager gives greater responsibility to team members (adopting a delegative management style) and ensures the group dynamic is maintained. Concretely, they:
Ensure links between the team and other entities in the company
Ensure team motivation
Help with decision-making if needed
Track progress
Reward successes
Adjourning = Dissolution
Groups are not eternal and inevitably end up dissolving.
When the team is very close-knit, missions have been intense, and real relationships have formed, at the end of the mission, team members may feel sadness or emptiness. Various ways can mark the end of a group project: celebrating successes, a friendly event, recruiting a new member, new development prospects.
There is no average lifespan for a group. It all depends on its context. If a work mission has a clear deadline, member collaboration will end on that specific date, except in special cases. But when a project duration is not specified, the end date leading to group dissolution is unknown. Moreover, the end of a project is not always synonymous with the end of a team. The manager may very well renew the project or decide that the team continues collaborating on an entirely different topic. Thus, delaying group dissolution is a choice that depends largely on whether the project succeeds, team members’ rapport, and the ambitions of the manager or the company.
In addition to celebration, the Adjourning phase calls for stepping back to learn from lived experience. This means recording and remembering everything we learned during the project so that next time, at the moment of our next Forming and Storming, we start again from a more advanced starting point!
