The Storming Puzzle: II

As I noted last time, applying Tuckman's model of small group development ("Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing") to modern task-oriented work groups can lead to questionable results unless we adapt how we interpret the results. For example, the Storming stage of Tuckman's "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups" (TDSSG) can appear to either dominate all other stages, or to be missing altogether. In preparation for resolving this puzzle, in a previous post, I reviewed Satir's Change Model (SCM).

In this Part II I apply Satir's Change Model to arrive at an interpretation of Tuckman's model that shows clearly how it applies to task-oriented work groups. To avoid confusion about which model I'm applying at a given point in these considerations, I use the term group when I'm looking at things from Tuckman's point of view, and I use the term system when I'm using Satir's point of view. But both group and system denote the same entity.

Why this matters now

You might wonder what value there is in looking closely at a model of group behavior (Tuckman's) that was first published in 1965 — almost 60 years ago. [Tuckman 1965] Well, some groups and teams already use tools that employ Artificial Intelligence (AI). That isn't news. What might be news to some, though, is that there are now teams that have AI members. [Kaelin et al. 2024] The term of art is "AI teammates." What we need to understand better is everything that might have to change to accommodate AI teammates. For instance, one question is this: If my team has progressed to the Performing stage, and one of my two AI Teammates gets updated to Rev 2.0, will my team enter a Storming stage? Questions like that.

Back now to examining TDSSG using SCM.

SCM Stage 1: Late Status Quo

Late Status Quo is the initial state of the system, before the change cycle begins. TDSSG doesn't explicitly include an element that corresponds to Satir's Late Status Quo. In TDSSG, Late Status Quo corresponds to the time before Tuckman's "small group" forms. During Late Status Quo, the people who will eventually comprise the small group are somewhere else doing something else. They might not even know about each other.

Following Tuckman's naming pattern, a term for this stage before Forming might be Preforming. In this stage, organizational leaders create plans that allocate people and resources to the coming effort. These plans, which might be closely held, define high-level objectives for the group's task. No actual work begins, because the group that will do the work doesn't yet exist.

SCM Event 1: Foreign Element arrives

In SCM, the decision, incident, insight, or new information that disrupts the Late Status Quo is what Satir called a Foreign Element. I prefer the term Disruptive Factor because the word Foreign suggests that the Disruptive Factor must have an origin external to the system that's undergoing change.

Often, the Disruptive Factor does originate externally — often, but not always so and not necessarily so. For example, the Disruptive Factor could be an insight developed by one of the group's members, and therefore it would not be "foreign." Or the Disruptive Factor could be a change in conditions brought about by the system itself. At the scale of our planet Earth as a system, climate change could be an example of a change in conditions brought about by the system itself.

The idea that a Disruptive Factor brings an end to Late Status Quo is the foundation for the next insight: in Tuckman's model, the formation of the small group is itself the Disruptive Factor that ends Late Status Quo.

To regard the Disruptive Factor as a Stage of the system undergoing change, as some do, could be a mistake. Hayslip et al. have defined four key assumptions underlying stage models such as SCM and TDSSG. [Hayslip et al. 2006] The third of these assumptions is that the stages are sequentially cumulative, in the sense that successive stages integrate what was developed in earlier stages. But this assumption implies that the Disruptive Factor is not a stage, because it isn't sequentially cumulative. In some cases, the Disruptive Factor might actually wipe away what had been developed before its arrival.

Tuckman's Forming corresponds to Satir's Foreign Element (my Disruptive Factor) because it includes activity that disrupts Satir's Late Status Quo (which I regard as Preforming). But Forming lacks much of what constitutes a stage. In my experience with task-oriented work groups, Forming is more of an event than it is the first stage of a sequence of stages. Four reasons:

• Forming Events are largely choreographed by Management, following policies and requirements that apply to many groups.
• Forming Events are usually short in duration compared to the time required for the groups to complete their tasks.
• The objectives of Forming Events are largely structure-oriented and relationship-oriented, rather than task-oriented.
• Unlike most of the task activity, the objectives associated with Forming Events are (nearly) always achieved and achieved on time.

The "kickoff meeting" is an example of an element of a Forming Event. In many cases, the Kickoff Meeting is the entire Forming Event.

Compared to other activities the group carries out, Forming Events, in aggregate, are short-lived. They include activities in which the group becomes oriented to the task, creates ground rules, and tests the boundaries for interpersonal and task behaviors. Group members establish relationships with leaders, with organizational standards, and with each other. Such important activities inevitably collide with their analogs from the Preforming stage. They put in place all the ingredients for the coming Storming stage.

With this Forming-as-Event perspective in mind, note that above, and in what follows, I don't speak of the "Forming stage;" instead, I use "Forming Event," or just "Forming."

SCM Stage 2: Chaos

The Chaos Forming is more of an event than a
stage. It's shorter in duration. Its
objectives emphasize structure
and relationship, rather than
task. And its objectives are
(nearly) always achieved.stage of SCM is the state of confusion that persists following the recognition of the Disruptive Factor. It corresponds to Tuckman's Storming stage.

Satir's Change Model provides a clear explanation for the transition from Late Status Quo to Chaos. In SCM, the transition occurs because of the Disruptive Factor. In Tuckman's model terms, Forming (the Disruptive Factor) disrupts Preforming (Late Status Quo), which leads to Storming (Chaos).

A natural question then arises: If Storming is an inevitable result of Forming, why isn't Storming always observed? Bonebright has a convincing answer: Although Storming conditions might be less visible in groups working toward impersonal and intellectual tasks, resistance might still be present. [Bonebright 2010]

Knight adds, "…team members may have been exhibiting their best professional behavior rather than the less politically correct behavior they might have exhibited within a group of peers. Certainly, 'resistance to the task' would be muted in the presence of the instructor who assigned the task and who was going to grade the task products." [Knight 2007]

As Tuckman puts it, emotional response to task demands "…is considerably less visible in groups working on impersonal, intellectual tasks." Because such tasks are the usual work of task-oriented work groups, Storming might not be evident in task-oriented work groups, even when it is occurring. [Tuckman 1965]

SCM Event 2: Transforming Idea arrives

In Satir terms, the Transforming Idea is a concept or insight that enables the system to bring an end to the Chaos. In task-oriented work groups, though, problems are often so complicated that more than one idea might be required. Although something a bit closer to what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift might be more apt, Transforming Idea will serve. [Kuhn & Hacking 2012]

SCM Stage 3: Integration

Integration of the Transforming Idea into the group's work can require a wide range of actions. Or it can be a simple change to just one subtask. Whatever is required is analogous to what Tuckman's model calls norming. And so, the Integration stage of SCM is roughly equivalent to the Norming stage of TDSSG.

SCM Stage 4: Practice

The Practice stage of SCM is roughly equivalent to the beginning of the Performing stage of TDSSG. In my experience, what distinguishes SCM Practice from SCM Integration is the frequency of discovering improvements. In Integration, people are still learning the new ways, and the rate of discovering improvements is still elevated. In the Practice stage, people are more familiar with the new ways, and they're working at a high level of performance. The later phases of Practice correspond to Tuckman's Performing stage.

SCM Stage 5: New Status Quo

When the Transforming Idea is fully integrated, and extensive Practice has produced a stream of adjustments that slows to a trickle, the system has reached New Status Quo. And that corresponds to the mature end of Tuckman's Performing stage. Performance is impressive.

Last words

SCM has no analog of Adjourning.

In a large task-oriented work group, a variety of processes take place, any one of which can potentially lead to a Storming episode. Examples include entries, exits, retasking, rescheduling, reteaming, subgrouping, and assignment splitting. These can happen frequently enough to ensure that Storming appears to be continuous. Prudence suggests that acquiring skills for dealing with these processes gracefully, or failing that, dealing with Storming — could lead to dramatic improvements in productivity. But first we must understand how these processes lead to episodes of Storming, and what it takes to bring episodes of Storming to an end. And that's my topic for next time.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. 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:

Down So Low the Only Place to Go Is Up

The past few years have been hard. Some of us have lost hope. What do you do when you're down so low the only place to go is up?

Conflict Haiku

When tempers flare, or tension fills the air, many of us contribute to the stew, often without realizing that we do. Here are some haiku that describe some of the many stances we choose that can lead groups into tangles, or let those tangles persist once they form.

Coping and Hard Lessons

Ever have the feeling of "Uh-oh, I've made this mistake before"? Some of these oft-repeated mistakes happen not because of obstinacy, or stupidity, or foolishness, but because the learning required to avoid them is just plain difficult. Here are some examples of hard lessons.

The Focusing Illusion in Organizations

The judgments we make at work, like the judgments we make elsewhere in life, are subject to human fallibility in the form of cognitive biases. One of these is the Focusing Illusion. Here are some examples to watch for.

Coercion by Presupposition

Coercion, physical or psychological, has no place in the workplace. Yet we see it and experience it frequently. We can end the use of presupposition as a tool of coercion, but only if we take personal responsibility for ending it.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

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