In 1965, psychologist Bruce Tuckman outlined a deceptively simple four-stage model of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. It became, and remains, one of the most widely taught and referenced models in leadership, HR, and team development programmes.
It really is team dynamics 101. And its strength lies in its clarity: teams begin by coming together (Forming), go through conflict and challenge (Storming), establish working norms (Norming), and ultimately reach high performance (Performing).
“Groups are not static; they develop over time in a predictable pattern”
Bruce Tuckman (1965)
But what if the model, elegant as it is, no longer reflects the way many business teams experience reality today?
If you prefer to listen instead, here is a short, AI-generated Deep Dive conversation that draws together the key points of this article. It’s not a verbatim transcription; more an exploration of themes, just in a different format.
Introducing the Tuckman Frustration
Welcome to a phenomenon we are calling The Tuckman Frustration.
It happens when a team begins the Forming cycle, goes through the often difficult Storming stage, but is pulled back to Forming again before it ever reaches Norming or Performing.
Why is this happening?
Because in today’s volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) and brittle, anxious, non-linear, and incomprehensible (BANI) world, teams are constantly being destabilised.
70% of executives say their organisations are in a state of almost constant transformation
McKinsey (2022 )
New leaders arrive. Organisational restructures happen. Priorities shift. Team members leave or join mid-stream. The context changes faster than the team can adapt. And so, they relentlessly loop: Forming, Storming, Forming, Storming…
And they never seem to get to Norming – let alone Performing.
A Model Born in Stability
Tuckman’s model emerged from research into small group dynamics in educational settings, military units, and therapy groups – contexts where membership was stable, time was available, and tasks were known. In his original paper, Tuckman noted, “Groups are not static; they develop over time in a predictable pattern” (Tuckman, 1965).
But was that pattern a function of the context?
In 1977, Tuckman and Mary Jensen added a fifth stage: Adjourning, recognising the lifecycle of a team. But even with that addition, the core assumption remained: teams evolve in a relatively linear, sequential process.
Contrast that with today’s reality. According to a 2022 McKinsey study, 70% of executives say their organisations are in “a state of almost constant transformation”.
That means teams are rarely settled for long enough to complete Tuckman’s arc. The model assumes a kind of psychological safety that many teams now rarely enjoy.
A Loop of Frustration
In our work with leadership teams, we increasingly see talented, motivated groups getting stuck. They have formed (usually virtually), done the initial introductions and social niceties, and quickly encountered the inevitable Storming – often made worse by unclear priorities, cultural clashes, or the messy mix of hybrid working.
But instead of working through the conflict into healthy norm-setting, they are hit with more turbulence.
A new initiative. A merger. A new boss. A reshuffle. The team is back in Forming.
This repeated loop – without substantial behavioural discipline – leads to this Tuckman Frustration.
Rooted in what we have seen and codified in our Leadership Loopholes, symptoms include:
- Cynicism (‘We’ve done this team alignment exercise three times already.’)
- Resentment (‘We never get past the drama.’)
- Fatigue (‘Another meeting to agree on “ways of working”? Really?’)
- Stasis (‘We’re busy, but we’re not moving.’)
It’s no surprise then that research from Gartner in 2023 showed only 24% of teams report being consistently effective, a drop of 12% from just three years before.
So, What Now?
Should we abandon Tuckman altogether? I don’t think so. Like many classic models, it still offers a useful map – but maps only help when the terrain is recognisable. On shifting ground, we need to update our navigational tools.
Here are three provocations for leaders to consider:
1. Replace linearity with loops
Rather than expecting a clean progression from Storming to Norming, acknowledge that teams may oscillate. Make space for rapid (re)forming. Revisit team charters. Recontract frequently. Create lightweight rituals that enable team recalibration without endless workshops.
2. Prioritise psychological safety from day one
Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows it is foundational to performance in uncertain environments. Instead of waiting for trust to ‘emerge’ through Norming, we must intentionally build it into Forming.
In fast-changing teams, safety is a precondition – not a by-product – of development.
3. Rethink what ‘Performing’ looks like
High performance today may not mean stability. It might mean rapid alignment, micro-collaborations, and agile teaming. As General Stan McChrystal suggests in his book, Team of Teams, adaptability and trust networks probably matter more than long-term cohesion.
Performing may be episodic, not continuous.
Labelling the Frustration
To be clear, I’m not arguing that Tuckman’s model is broken. Rather, I’m saying that many teams are no longer given the conditions it assumes. The frustration isn’t with the model – it’s with a world that keeps pulling the rug from under our feet just as we begin to steady ourselves.
Recognising this pattern – the loop of Forming and Storming – can be liberating. It helps leaders name the frustration. It gives teams language for why they feel stuck. And it invites us to adapt – not by discarding old models, but by supplementing them with new ones that better match our times.
Because while Tuckman described how teams develop, he didn’t prescribe how they must.
That’s up to us.
If you would like to know more about how we help leaders and teams address their Tuckman Frustration, just reach out and we can talk it through…
