Stages of Group Development and Synergy

A group does not arrive at full performance overnight. It develops through stages. Bruce Tuckman first identified four stages in 1965 (forming, storming, norming, performing) and added the fifth, adjourning, with Mary Ann Jensen in 1977. His model is still the standard reference. A school head who knows the stages can recognise where her groups currently are and what they need next. The closing concept of synergy describes what a well-functioning group actually produces.

Tuckman’s five stages

Bruce Tuckman’s model identifies five stages a group goes through before it can function as a team. He maintains that these stages are inevitable for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and deliver results.

The five stages are forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

Forming

Team acquaints and establishes ground rules. Formalities are preserved and members are treated as strangers.

The first stage. Members are getting to know each other. Conversations are polite. People are cautious about expressing strong views. Roles are not yet clear.

In a school: the first weeks of a new academic year for a new grade-level team. Members introduce themselves, learn each other’s styles, agree on basic logistics (when to meet, who takes notes).

The group’s productivity at this stage is low. The work is happening but not yet smoothly. A school head who expects high output in the first weeks of a new team is disappointed; the team is in forming and needs time to settle.

Storming

Members start to communicate their feelings but still view themselves as individuals rather than as part of the team. They resist control by group leaders and show hostility.

The most uncomfortable stage. The initial politeness breaks down. Disagreements surface. Personalities clash. The team coordinator (if there is one) may be questioned.

In a school: a new grade-level team in the second or third month of working together. The teachers have started to see each other’s flaws. There may be open arguments in meetings. Some members question why this person is leading.

Storming feels bad but is essential. A team that skips storming has unresolved disagreements that sabotage later stages. A team that storms openly works through the disagreements and emerges stronger.

A school head should not panic when her team storms. The skill is to let the storming happen while keeping it productive. Open conflict is healthier than suppressed conflict.

Norming

People feel part of the team and realise that they can achieve more work if they accept others’ viewpoints.

The stage after storming. Members have worked through the worst disagreements and developed working norms. They start to accept each other’s strengths and weaknesses. They feel like a team, not a collection of individuals.

In a school: the grade-level team in its fourth or fifth month. The conflicts from storming have been resolved (or at least set aside). The team has developed shared ways of doing things. Meetings run more smoothly. Decisions are reached without drama.

Productivity rises significantly in norming. The team is now functional. It is not yet at full potential, but it is producing useful work.

Performing

The team now has the capability to define tasks, work through relationships, and manage team conflicts by themselves. Members interact without fear of rejection. Leadership is participative and shared.

The high-performance stage. The team works fluently. Members trust each other. They handle conflict productively. They produce more than the sum of individual contributions could.

In a school: a mature grade-level team that has worked together for a year or more. They run efficient meetings, make decisions quickly, support each other through difficult periods, and produce strong student outcomes.

Not every team reaches performing. Many stay in norming, doing acceptable work without ever reaching peak performance. The teams that do reach performing are highly valuable. A school head should protect them: do not break them up casually.

Adjourning

Group conducts an assessment of the year and implements a plan of transitioning roles and recognising members’ contributions.

The closing stage. Tuckman added this stage in 1977 (the original 1965 model had four stages). The group’s work is finished, or members are moving on. The group disbands, formally or informally.

In a school: at the end of a year, a grade-level team marks the year’s work, celebrates achievements, and prepares for changes (members moving to different grades, new members joining).

Adjourning is more important than it sounds. Without adjourning, members carry unresolved feelings into their next assignments. A group that adjourns well sends its members forward strengthened.

Why knowing the stages matters

A school head who understands the stages can:

1. Set realistic expectations. A new team will not perform at peak in its first month.
2. Tolerate storming. Open conflict is normal and necessary; it should not be suppressed.
3. Invest in transitions. Adjourning matters; ending a team well sets up the next one.
4. Protect performing teams. Once a team reaches performing, do not casually break it up by changing membership.

A common mistake: a principal sees a team in storming, panics, and replaces the team leader. This sends the team back to forming with a new leader. The work of getting to performing has to start over.

Synergy: the end result of a good group

The handout closes with the concept of synergy.

Synergism: the cooperative action of discrete entities which is greater than the sum of the parts. Synergistic groups can create something greater than individual members could create independently.

A team that has reached performing is synergistic. The four teachers together produce more than the four teachers separately could. The combination is greater than the sum.

This is not magical. It comes from specific mechanisms:

1. Combined knowledge. Each member brings different information; together they have more.
2. Mutual stimulation. Each member’s contribution prompts others to think differently.
3. Distributed effort. Different parts of the work go to different members based on strength.
4. Mutual support. Each member is held up by the others; no one carries the whole weight.

A school that has several synergistic teams produces work that other schools, with similar resources, cannot match.

Three criteria of group effectiveness

The handout names three tests of whether a group is effective:

1. Output meets standards. The group’s work is good in quantity, quality, and timeliness.
2. The process builds future capability. The group has learned how to work together better; they will be more effective next time.
3. The experience benefits members. The members have grown and feel positive about the experience.

A group that meets all three is highly effective. A group that meets only the first (output) but burns out its members or fragments its process is not sustainable.

A school head can run her teams through these three criteria. A team that scores well on all three is doing what groups are supposed to do. A team that scores well on one and badly on the others needs attention.

Flashcard

What are Tuckman's five stages of group development, and what mistake do many school heads make when their groups are storming?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning.

1. Forming. Members get to know each other; polite, low productivity.
2. Storming. Conflicts surface; uncomfortable but necessary.
3. Norming. Members accept each other; productivity rises.
4. Performing. High trust, fluent work, synergy.
5. Adjourning. Group disbands; closure and recognition.

The common mistake when groups are storming: panic and intervene. Replacing the leader or restructuring the team sends the group back to forming, delaying performing by months. The skill is to let storming happen while keeping it productive. Open conflict is healthier than suppressed conflict.

A group that reaches performing produces synergy: output greater than the sum of individual contributions. These groups should be protected and not casually broken up.