The Storming Puzzle: I

If you lead, manage, charter, fund, depend upon, or contribute to the work of a task-oriented work group, you're probably familiar with two of the most widely used models of organizational behavior. One is Tuckman's model of small group development, also known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing." [Tuckman 1965] The other is Satir's Change Model, which describes the stages people go through when they experience change. [Satir, et al. 1991]

Applying Tuckman's model to modern task-oriented work groups can be tricky, especially with respect to considering the stage Tuckman called Storming. The subtleties have led some to propose that Storming isn't a real stage of small group development, while others have proposed that Storming happens throughout the other stages of small group development. [Knight 2006] [Knight 2007] [Cassidy 2007] [Norton 2017]

To explore this puzzle, we can To explore the puzzle of what Tuckman's
model predicts for the development
sequence of a modern task-oriented work
group, we can use Satir's Change Modeluse Satir's Change Model to examine what Tuckman's model predicts for the development sequence of a modern task-oriented work group. That examination reveals insights that can resolve some of the issues raised by Knight, Cassidy, Norton, and others. In this post and the next three I try to resolve this Storming Puzzle. This Part I outlines the plan of attack and includes a brief review of Satir's Change Model. In Part II I suggest the presence of mechanisms in modern work groups that explain the puzzling observations some have reported about Storming in task-oriented work groups. In Part III I offer a framework for understanding transitioning from stage to stage in Tuckman's model. Finally, in Part IV, I offer some examples of applying that framework.

About modern task-oriented work groups

One limitation of Tuckman's model, acknowledged from the outset by Tuckman, by Tuckman and Jensen, and by Bonebright, is the elevated risk of applying the model to some kinds of work groups. [Tuckman & Jensen 1977] [Bonebright 2010] The kind of work group in question is a variant of Tuckman's natural group setting, which many today would call a "task-oriented work group." [Forsyth 2010]

Briefly, these work groups are work groups that form for the purpose of executing a specific mission, such as constructing products, devices, documents, standards, or mechanisms. For more about task-oriented work groups, see "White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development," Point Lookout for December 4, 2024.

Satir's Change Model as a framework for examining Tuckman's model

To examine Tuckman's Development Sequence for Small Groups (TDSSG) I use Satir's Change Model (SCM) as a framework, because small group development clearly involves Change. In this I follow the guidance of McLendon. [McLendon 1999]

Numerous authors have described versions of SCM as having five, six, seven, or eight stages. Both the number of stages and the names of the stages vary, but since the fit between the model and reality is only approximate, every version of the model has some utility. The version I use here captures much of what you can find elsewhere. In what follows, and following Satir, I use the term system to refer to the entity that Tuckman would call a group.

Here it is:

This version has seven elements, including five stages and two events that facilitate stage transitions. The correspondence between these elements and Tuckman's model is my focus for next time. You can probably guess that Satir's Chaos stage corresponds to Tuckman's Storming, but much of the rest of the correspondence is both subtle and surprising.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is your organization embroiled in Change? Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt? Read 101 Tips for Managing Change to learn how to survive, how to plan and how to execute change efforts to inspire real, passionate support. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

Don't Staff the Ammo Dump

"Staffing the ammo dump" is the job of retrieving ammunition for someone else to use in a political attack on a third party. It's a dangerous role.

Hurtful Clichés: I

Much of our day-to-day conversation consists of harmless clichés: "How goes it?" or "Nice to meet you." Some other clichés aren't harmless, but they're so common that we use them without thinking. Maybe it's time for some thought.

Some Subtleties of ad hominem Attacks

Groups sometimes make mistakes based on faulty reasoning used in their debates. One source of faulty reasoning is the ad hominem attack. Here are some insights that help groups recognize and avoid this class of errors.

When Somebody Throws a Nutty

To "throw a nutty" — at work, that is — can include anything from extreme verbal over-reaction to violent physical abuse of others. When someone exhibits behavior at the milder end of this spectrum, what responses are appropriate?

Preventing Toxic Conflict: II

Establishing norms for respectful behavior is perhaps the most effective way to reduce the incidence of toxic conflict at work. When we all understand and subscribe to a particular way of treating each other, we can all help prevent trouble.

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info