MBA503F Summer 2018: A Critical Analysis of Tuckman’s Model

This essay offers a comprehensive analysis of Tuckman's Model of Group Development, initially proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. The essay highlights the model's key concepts—Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing—and critically evaluates its strengths and limitations. It relates these stages to a real-world group project experience, detailing conflicts that arose and the strategies employed for resolution. The discussion extends to the impact of group decisions and differentiates between work groups and work teams, ultimately assessing which structure yields better results. The analysis draws upon academic sources and personal experience to provide a balanced perspective on the model's applicability and effectiveness in understanding and managing team dynamics. The document is available on Desklib, a platform offering study tools for students.

Running head: TUCKMAN’S MODEL
ANALYSIS OF TUCKMAN’S MODEL OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT
Name of Student
Name of University
Author note

1TUCKMAN’S MODEL
The Tuckman’s model of group development is one of the most popular
models that is used for the analysis of team development. It was proposed by Bruce
Tuckman in 1965, and has explained the different phases of the team development.
The theory of Tuckman’s model helps in the identification of the team motive, the
problems that can arise and the different solutions to them. This procedure is highly
helpful in work planning and delivering complete and quality services. This
discussion will highlight the key theories of Tuckman’s model and critically analyse
the theories. Moreover, this discussion will also relate the theories to the work
experience of a group and also highlight the conflicts occurred in that period and the
subsequent solutions. This will help to further analyse the framing of group decisions
and how they affect the team. All these theories and analysis will help in the
differentiation between work groups and work teams and decide which one is better
for producing better results.
Figure 1: Tuckman’s Model (Source: Self- Developed)
The key concepts of Tuckman’s model of Group development consist of four
parts. They are Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing (Tuckman, 1965).
These four parts help in the step by step analysis of the group’s development and
Forming Storming Norming Performing

2TUCKMAN’S MODEL
help in the understanding of the different requirements of different stages and how
they can be fulfilled.
Firstly, Forming looks into the construction of the team where the team
members meet or the first time. According to Tuckman (1965), it looks into their
behaviour and how they start interacting with each other regarding the different
topics they are to work upon.
Secondly, Storming looks into the second stage of team development. This
stage analyses how the members co-operate with each other and voices their
opinions (Tuckman, 1965). These stage analyses how the decisions are taken and
the different factors that are involved in the process.
Thirdly, Norming discusses the third stage of development when the team is
completely aware of their purpose and how they should work to achieve a good
result (Tuckman, 1965). The team’s internal co-operation is more compact in this
stage and is able to face challenges and problems more efficiently.
Lastly, Performing is the final stage of the team development which measures
the performance of the team. The formation of the team is complete by this stage
and the members are more responsible about their outlook towards the results
(Tuckman, 1965). This allows them to be more critical about their approach to the
challenges and issues.
Tuckman’s model has been one of the most popular models analysing the
theories of the group development since its inception in 1965. On the other hand,
Tuckman himself identified the limitations of his original model and described them to
be more generalized and represented the psych-analytical theories instead of a more
quantitative research (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

3TUCKMAN’S MODEL
The observations of the model was based more on literature reviews and less
on the actual analysis of real life group settings. The limitations include the model’s
inability to discuss the changes that can happen in a group over a period of time.
The co-ordination and performance hence might be affected by the changing
attitudes of the team members (Raes, et al. 2015). However, the model does not
provide an in-depth analysis of how the creativity of a team can contribute to the
solution of challenges and issues faced by the team.
There might be several limitations in the model, but on the contrary, the model
is still the essential tool that defines the different stages in the progressive manner
(Betts & Healy, 2015). It is deeply rooted in the development of a group’s stages and
closely frames the group’s development in a more compartmentalised manner.
A project in the class requires the involvement of different individuals. It is
often difficult to understand how the different students would approach the problem
and how the primary requirements of the projects would be solved in the due
process. In accordance with the Tuckman’s model, the first development of forming
was done when we identified the students who were capable of the project. All of
them had an independent approach towards the project. The Storming part of the
model can be seen when the different students voiced their opinions in favour of the
task. Potential conflicts aroused as the part of these clash of ideas and in order to
avoid the conflict we held a discussion so that each opinion could be judged with
primary importance. The third part involves the Norming part, when we found the
solution to the conflicts by selecting the best opinions and together took a
sustainable approach towards the problem. Leadership played a very important part
in this stage of development as the leader directed the different members to their
roles. The final part involves the performance part, when the students took up

4TUCKMAN’S MODEL
different responsibilities and have a positive approach towards the task. This helps in
the co-ordination among them and produce the desired results according to the
requirements of the task.
Conflicts are common in group works. Firstly, they arise due to the clash of
ideas of the different team members. Secondly, these conflicts are also based on the
factors such as the position of power or leadership. The first type of conflict occurs
due to misunderstanding or trying to establish one’s dominance in the team (Zhu,
2016). When the team meets for the first time, the individuals may or may not to be
known to each other. However, each of the members have an independent approach
towards the task. According to Zhu (2016), whenever any contrary beliefs arise the
tendency of conflict is an inevitable probability. The second conflict arises due to the
power position and leadership issues. Every member wants their voices to be heard
and being the leader is the most convenient way to do that. Choosing a leader
creates conflict in a working group. Our team for the class project experienced
similar problems but we took a positive approach and discussed the problems and
chose the best solution in order to solve the issue.
Group decisions are the most important factor of a teamwork. A proper
positive approach is required for the sustainable development of the group. It is the
ability of a proper leader to consult the other team members and accordingly take a
proper decision for the team which can involve all the team members (Thürmer,
Wieber & Gollwitzer, 2015). The pros of such decision making leads the team
members to have a positive attitude towards each other. The cons of such decisions
however, might supress the best decisions due to lack of popular support from the
other team members.

5TUCKMAN’S MODEL
The work group consists of individuals who work as interdependent on each
other for the accomplishment of tasks. The work group is controlled by a leader who
takes decisions along with the team members and works together accordingly for a
common cause (Huczynski, Buchanan & Huczynski, 2013). Conflicts are rare in a
work group as the decisions are taken in group discussions. The work team consists
of individuals who work independently for a common project. The purpose of the
leader is to motivate the team members and help them achieve the goal. However,
conflicts arise in a team as everyone has an independent approach towards the task.
According to this analysis the work team can be seen to be more efficient, as they
can have a more creative approach to different challenges and there can be different
ideas which can solve the issues. Moreover, it creates a positive environment which
enhances productivity.
The above discussion significantly highlights the different theories involved in
Tuckman’s model of group development. The different stages and the developments
help to identify the efficiency of team and the different courses of it. Hence, it can be
concluded that the study and proper development of a team is very important for the
team to survive and produce quality results.

6TUCKMAN’S MODEL
References:
Betts, S., & Healy, W. (2015). Having a ball catching on to teamwork: an experiential
learning approach to teaching the phases of group development. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 19(2), 1.
Huczynski, A., Buchanan, D. A., & Huczynski, A. A. (2013). Organizational behaviour
(p. 82). London: Pearson.
Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Dochy, F. (2015). An
exploratory study of group development and team learning. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 26(1), 5-30.
Thürmer, J. L., Wieber, F., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). A Self‐regulation Perspective
on Hidden‐profile Problems: If–Then Planning to Review Information Improves
Group Decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(2), 101-113.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological
bulletin, 63(6), 384.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development
revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Zhu, H. (2016). Avoiding conflicts by group role assignment. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 46(4), 535-547.