Phase models for team development promise guidance. Bruce Tuckman’s model – often visualised as the ‘Team Clock’ – is a particularly well-known starting point for categorising typical dynamics within teams and deriving priorities for collaboration. However, from today’s perspective, the model is outdated.

Team development with the team map

It cannot be empirically confirmed in this strict sequence of events. Nevertheless, in a different form, it offers starting points for successful team development. We call this form the ‘team map’. Tuckman describes four phases:

1) Forming (Orientation phase)

What happens: A new team is formed or new team members join; leadership, tasks or working conditions change.

Typical tensions: Uncertainty and confusion arise. Some hold back, speculation takes hold, and rumours spread.

What helps in practice: Clarify the remit, articulate expectations, get to know one another, and establish ground rules for working together.

2) Storming (Conflict Phase)

What happens: Differing interests and conflicting goals become apparent; misunderstandings arise; conflicts may break out.

Typical tensions: Communication breaks down; factions form; work becomes ineffective; motivation declines.

What helps in practice: Clarify roles; identify interfaces and needs; hold clarification meetings; address conflicts.

3) Norming (Organisational phase)

What happens: Viewpoints become clearer, roles emerge, informal and formal rules become apparent; the team organises itself.

Typical tensions: Finding compromises is not easy. Processes are not yet fit for purpose and need to be optimised; routines are not yet running smoothly.

What helps in practice: Continuously review working methods and ground rules, ensure agreements are adhered to, increase commitment and foster team cohesion.

4) Performing (Performance phase)

What happens: The team becomes increasingly self-organised, members are committed, and the effectiveness of collaboration increases.

Typical tensions: Some individuals may feel overwhelmed and unable to keep up with the level of performance; the team may rest on its laurels.

What helps in practice: Recognise positive developments, set priorities, and create space for learning and innovation.

Further development of the ‘Team Clock’

The model has been developed in various ways in subsequent work. The best-known addition is a conclusion or dissolution phase (‘Adjourning’). Furthermore, various authors describe typical ageing or inertia patterns in long-standing teams – such as a declining willingness to learn or routines that no longer fit new requirements.

5) Aging (Aging phase)

What happens: The team loses its innovative drive, overestimates its capabilities, becomes self-righteous, and learns less; team performance declines.

Typical tensions: The team fails to meet new challenges, old routines are no longer efficient, and unproductive issues gain ground.

What helps in practice: Encourage intensive exchange with other teams, introduce rotation, benchmark against others, seek out learning challenges.

6) Adjourning (dissolution phase)

What happens: The team’s task is complete, the team disbands; teams are merged or a project group concludes its work.

Typical tensions: Some experience sadness at parting, particularly after a long period of collaboration. For individuals, uncertainty may arise about what lies ahead for them.

What helps in practice: Celebrate successes, organise a review with an evaluation, derive lessons for future tasks, document work processes and results clearly, and shape the transition to ‘the new’.

Six Patterns of Team Development

Figure: Ben Kannenberg,
Six fundamental patterns of team development based on current research

The Team Map in practice at flow consulting

A logical sequence of phases, as described by Tuckman, cannot be observed in real-life teams. However, the description of these phases – which we call ‘patterns in team dynamics’ or, more simply, the ‘Team Map’ – can be helpful for team analysis. Several patterns may occur simultaneously. This has implications for the design of a team workshop.

The Team Map can be used in a team workshop as follows:

Preparation: Mark out four to six floor markers on the floor of the workshop room. Each marker is assigned to a team pattern (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, …)

Individual task for team members: “Which of these team patterns is currently the most significant for you? Then stand at the corresponding spot in the room. Everyone decides for themselves.”

Discussion: Ask the team members to explain why they chose this stage.

Visualisation: Record the key points on a flipchart or pinboard, sorted by team stage.

Conclusion: Bring the team members back together, either as a whole group or split into working groups, and have them draw conclusions: “What does this mean for our team, for our collaboration? Gather ideas and suggestions for further fostering collaboration and for the continued development of your team.”

In our experience, team members do not all fit neatly into one of these team models. There are always variations: some are in the ‘norming’ stage, others in the ‘performing’ stage, and so on. This brings to light the individual differences in how team members perceive the team and their own role within it. It strengthens mutual understanding and clarifies the team’s dynamics. A fruitful dialogue emerges within the team, and meaningful measures to promote cooperation and effectiveness are developed.

Feel free to try this out in your team.

Kind regards,
Dieter Kannenberg

picture: shutter stock, 2312975429

References

• Becker, Florian. Teamarbeit, Teampsychologie, Teamentwicklung. Berlin, 2016.
• Bernstein, S. & Lowy, L. Untersuchungen zur Sozialen Gruppenarbeit. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1969.
• Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. “Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome: A Look at the Performance, Tenure and Communication Patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups.” R&D Management, 12(1), 1982, 7–20.
• Rosenstiel, L. von. Grundlagen der Organisationspsychologie (6th ed.). Stuttgart, 2007.
• Tuckman, B. W. “Developmental Sequences in Small Groups.” Psychological Bulletin, 63, 1965, 384–399.
• Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. “Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited.” Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 1977, 419–427.