Challenging Tuckman’s model of team development, WeAreCTO2 posits that teams don’t always follow the linear progression from forming, storming, norming to performing. They argue that this sequence isn’t universally applicable and can be misleading, especially in fast-paced, project-based environments.
Teams, they suggest, can move fluidly between stages, depending on project demands and individual interactions. They may even skip stages entirely. For instance, a team might bypass storming if members have a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities from the outset.
WeAreCTO2 proposes a more dynamic model, where teams cycle through stages of exploration, commitment, execution and reflection. This model recognises the cyclical nature of team development, allowing for changes in team composition, project scope, and other variables.
In summary, while Tuckman’s model provides a useful framework, it lacks the flexibility to accurately reflect the complexity and dynamism of modern team environments. A more adaptable model, like the one suggested by WeAreCTO2, could offer a better understanding of team dynamics and performance.
Go to source article: http://www.wearecto2.com/blog/2017/5/5/tuckman-was-wrong