Management and Organizational Behavior

419

Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited

BRUCE W. TUCKMAN

MARY ANN C. JENSEN

The purpose of this review was to examine published research on small-group development done in the last ten years that would constitute an empirical test of Tuckman’s (1965) hypothesis that groups go through the stages of "forming,"

"storming," "norming," and "performing." Of the twenty-two studies reviewed,

only one set out to directly test this hypothesis, although many of the others could

be related to it. Following a review of these studies, a fifth stage, "adjourning," was added to the hypothesis, and more empirical work was recommended.

Tuckman (1965) reviewed fifty-five articles dealing with stages of small-

group development in an attempt to isolate those concepts common to the

various studies and produce a generalizable model of changes in group life over

time. He examined studies of (1) therapy groups, (2) human relations training or

T-groups, and (3) natural and laboratory-task groups in terms of two realms-

task and interpersonal. The way members acted and related to one another was

considered group structure or the interpersonal realm; the content of the inter-

action as related to the task was referred to as the task-activity realm. Both

realms represented simultaneous aspects of group functioning because mem-

bers completed tasks while relating to one another.

THE MODEL

As a result of the literature reviewed, Tuckman proposed a model of devel-

opmental stages for various group settings over time, labeled (1) testing and

Group & Organization Studies, December 1977, 2(4), 419-427 Copynght @ 1977 by International Authors, B V 420

dependence, (2) intragroup conflict, (3) development of group cohesion, and (4) functional role relatedness. The stages of task activity were labeled (1) orien-

tation to task, (2) emotional response to task demands, (3) open exchange of

relevant interpretations, and (4) emergence of solutions. An essential corre-

spondence between the group-structure realm and the task-activity realm over

time caused Tuckman to summarize the four stages as &dquo;forming,&dquo; &dquo;storming,&dquo;

&dquo;norming,&dquo; and &dquo;performing.&dquo; He acknowledged, however, that this was &dquo;a

conceptual statement suggested by the data presented and subject to further

test&dquo; (p. 5).

Tuckman cited several limitations of the literature, e.g., that the literature

could not be considered truly representative of small-group developmental

processes because there was an overrepresentation of therapy and T-group set-

tings and an underrepresentation of natural or laboratory-group settings, mak-

ing generalizing difficult. He suggested the need for further research on natural

and laboratory groups, indicated the need for more rigorous methodological considerations in studying group process, and criticized the use of a single

group for observation because it made control and systematic manipulation of

independent variables impossible.

Tuckman provided a developmental model of group process by organizing and conceptualizing existing research data and theoretical precepts rather than

by presenting original empirical data to support a particular model. He stated,

however, that his model was in need of further testing.

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS REVIEW

The purpose of this follow-up study is to discover whether anyone has em-

pirically tested the model of group development proposed by Tuckman in

1965, to investigate any new models in light of Tuckman’s hypothesis, and to

determine whether any alternative models have been conceived.

To locate any studies referencing the 1965 Tuckman article, the Science

Citation Index from 1965 and the Social Science Citation Index from 1970 were

consulted and a list of fifty-seven articles was compiled. Of these, only those

studies concerned primarily with empirical research (approximately twenty-

two) were reviewed.

REVIEW OF THE &dquo;NEW&dquo; LITERATURE

Only one study could be found that set out to test Tuckman’s hypothesis. Runkel et al. (1971) studied three groups of fifteen to twenty college students in

a classroom setting. The task of each group was to decide on a project, collect

and interpret data, and write a final report. During meetings of the work group, sixteen observers, armed with descriptions of the Tuckman model of stage de-

velopment, observed the group &dquo;until something happened that fitted a behav-

ior described by Tuckman as belonging to one of the four stages of group structure or task activity&dquo; (p. 186). The observers rotated among groups in an 421

effort to reduce observer bias. Ratings from observers supported Tuckman’s

theory of group development.

Although this empirical test of Tuckman’s hypothesis supported his sug-

gested developmental sequence, observers were given only descriptions of

Tuckman’s four stages and asked to &dquo;fit&dquo; their observations to that model. A

methodology less prone to observer bias would have been to have observers

record particular behaviors apparent in the group; at a later time, these could

have been reviewed in light of particular models. Runkel et al. did, however,

provide an empirical base for further testing of the Tuckman model.

Several articles from the literature contained elements of the Tuckman

model. Zurcher (1969) offered some explanation of the developmental se-

quence in natural groups, an area Tuckman described as underrepresented in

the literature. Data were obtained from 174 meetings of twelve poverty pro-

gram neighborhood action committees in Topeka, Kansas, over a nineteen-

month period. Results from a team of participant-observers indicated that the

stages of development for these neighborhood committees included (1) orien-

tation, (2) catharsis, (3) focus, (4) action, (5) limbo, (6) testing, and (7) purposive. Zurcher stated that these seven stages &dquo;could parsimoniously have been re-

duced to four stages suggested by Tuckman&dquo; (p. 245) as shown below.

Although Zurcher’s results would serve to support the Tuckman model, he

did not specifically set out to test any particular model of group development and did not present any statistical treatment of his data.

Smith (1966) observed, over a period of approximately four months, a

group of seven men stationed in Antarctica and collected data on technical-

task activities as well as on behavioral dimensions of informal structure. He re-

ported on only two developmental stages rather than the four listed by Tuck-

man. However, Smith’s two developmental stages appear to be task-activity behavior and interpersonal behavior, both of which were identified by Tuck-

man as the realms of group behavior. Smith’s results serve to reinforce the

hypothesis that task and interpersonal dimensions play a substantial role in the

way groups develop

Smith also concluded that the order of development would be different for

various groups. Although the interpersonal &dquo;stage&dquo; seemed most important for

therapy or training groups, task activity was stressed by the men in Antarctica.

That the content or task activity appeared prior to development of a group structure might be due to the specific nature of the group assignment and to the

well-defined roles of the participants, which suggest that those aspects related

to the primary purpose of the group develop first. Due to the uniqueness of his

group in terms of task and setting, Smith’s results might not be applicable to

other types of groups. 422

Shambaugh and Kanter (1969) described the evolution of a therapy group for spouses of patients on hemodialysis machines. A group of six spouses met

weekly for a period of eight months. As observed by the group leader/psy-

chiatrist, the stages of group development included (1) initial experience,

(2) formation of the group, (3) optimism and partial separation, and (4) final

stage.

The authors believed that this group was a &dquo;paradigm of the unconscious

forces inherent in group structure and process&dquo; and that &dquo;the overall devel-

opmental sequence was that of the usual small group&dquo; (p. 936). They did not

attempt to &dquo;test&dquo; any particular model of group development; however, their

observations appeared to fit the behaviors characterizing Tuckman’s stages of

&dquo;forming,&dquo; &dquo;storming,&dquo; &dquo;norming,&dquo; and &dquo;performing&dquo; (i.e., dependence on

leader, criticism among members, optimism, and cohesiveness). Shambaugh and Kanter did not describe behaviors characteristic of each stage clearly, which made it difficult to differentiate among them. The authors did observe,

however, that their observations supported Tuckman’s four-stage theory.

A second problem with this study was the introduction of new members

into the group prior to the final stage, which made identification of the four

stages and the characteristic behaviors pertinent to each difficult.

Lacoursiere (1974) observed stage development while using a group method to facilitate learning for student nurses involved in a psychiatric set-

ting. The student nurses, in their twenties, single, and female (except for one

male student in each of the three groups observed), worked in a state mental

hospital and met as a group for one and one-half hours each week to discuss

their concerns. Over a ten-week period, Lacoursiere observed four stages of

group development:

1. Orientation, characterized by fears and anxieties and fairly strong posi- tive expectations;

2. Dissatisfaction, characterized by an increasing sense of frustration,

along with depression and anger;

3. Production, demonstrated by a more realistic appraisal of what could

be accomplished; and

4. Termination, concerned with sadness and some self-evaluation.

Lacoursiere’s four stages differed from Tuckman’s in three respects. First,

in stage 2, dissatisfaction, there was a lack of intragroup conflict among the stu-

dent nurses. Any anger and hostility present was directed toward the hospital, the staff, and psychiatry in general rather than toward group members. Second,

Lacoursiere combined &dquo;norming&dquo; and &dquo;performing&dquo; into stage 3, production, at which time students’ expectations became more realistic and they desired

&dquo;to learn what can be learned and to do what they can reasonably do as student

nurses&dquo; (p. 348). Third, and the major difference between models, was the addi-

tion of the termination stage.

Another article dealing with the training of nursing students was one by

Spitz and Sadock (1973), who observed twenty-one second-year nursing stu- 423

dents, all white females from twenty to forty years old, using techniques such

as role playing, video taping, and analysis of dreams. Spitz and Sadock cate-

gorized group life into three phases:

1. Stage One, characterized by anxiety, guardedness, dependency, and a

mixture of curiosity and confusion;

2. Stage Two, the period of beginning trust, cohesiveness, inter-

dependence, and group interaction;

3. Stage Three, the final phase of disengagement, anxiety about separa- tion and termination, and positive feelings toward the leader.

Stages one and two contain elements of Tuckman’s &dquo;forming&dquo; and &dquo;norm-

ing&dquo; stages, respectively. Tuckman’s second stage, &dquo;storming,&dquo; has for the most

part been eliminated. Although Lacoursiere’s group demonstrated anger and

hostility toward an outside force, Spitz and Sadock’s group appeared only to

touch on themes of anger and discontent in their group discussions. It is of sig- nificance that neither student-nurse group demonstrated noticeable character-

istics of intragroup conflict. Possibly the close association experienced by student nurses unites them in a cohesive, personal group. Also, the groups’ com-

position-overwhelmingly female-might be a factor, as women have tradition-

ally been socialized to be more passive and trusting. Spitz and Sadock also

observed third-year medical students and found them to be more guarded and

more &dquo;overtly hostile.&dquo; Group composition, therefore, may be one of the vari-

ables that influence appearance of stages in the developmental process.

A second variation in Spitz and Sadock’s model, which also was found in

the Lacoursiere model, was the addition of a stage concerned with termination

and separation, a significant departure from the Tuckman model.

Braaten (1975) compiled an interesting review of fourteen models of the

developmental stages of groups. Several of the more recent models not re-

viewed in the 1965 Tuckman article demonstrated a resemblance to his four-

stage model. For example, Yalom (1970) presented a four-stage model, in-

cluding an initial phase of orientation and hesitant participation; a second

phase of conflict, dominance, and rebellion; a third phase of intimacy, close-

ness, and cohesiveness; and a final phase of termination (differing from

Tuckman).

Braaten presented a composite model of the fourteen theories and also set

forth his own model. His composite model utilized the three stages identified

by Tuckman as &dquo;forming,&dquo; &dquo;storming,&dquo; and &dquo;performing&dquo; (which incorporated

&dquo;norming&dquo;) and added a final stage of termination. Braaten’s own model fol-

lowed the composite model fairly closely:

1. Initial phase lacking in structure;

2. An early phase characterized by hostility and conflicts between sub-

groups ;

3. The mature work phase in which norms are resolved and inter-

dependency and trust formation are apparent;

4. Termination, concerned with disengagement and ending. 424

Braaten concluded, as did Tuckman, that there appeared to be substantial

agreement among authors on the aspects of a developmental phase model but

that systematic research was needed to verify the theoretical concepts. Braa-

ten’s review of the literature suggests that empirical research in stages of small-

group development is sparse and inconclusive.

Only two of the journal articles reviewed substantially deviated from the

four-stage Tuckman model. Dunphy (1968) conducted an empirical study of

the developmental process in self-analytic groups (therapy and T-groups). He

observed two sections of a Harvard Social Relations 120 course for a period of

nine months. Through the use of a computer system of content analysis, Dun-

phy identified six development phases for the group:

1. Maintenance of external normative standards;

2. Individual rivalry;

3. Aggression;

4. Negativism;

5. Emotional concerns;

6. High affection.

Individual rivalry, aggression, and negativism parallel Tuckman’s second

stage, &dquo;storming.&dquo; Emotional concerns and high affection might be viewed in

terms of the &dquo;norming&dquo; stage. However, Dunphy’s model does not include any

stage resembling &dquo;performing.&dquo; Dunphy acknowledged that his results might not be generalizable to all self-analytic groups and that further testing was

needed to establish the extent of their validity.

A study by Heckel, Holmes, and Salzberg (1967) examined whether dis-

tinct verbal behavioral phases occur in group psychotherapy. Seventeen neu-

ropsychiatric male and female patients were observed over eighteen sessions of

group therapy. Verbal responses of participants were recorded and grouped ac-

cording to type of response and specific category (i.e., therapist-directed re-

sponse, etc.). Results revealed a significant change between the seventh and

eighth and twelfth and thirteenth sessions. Therapist-directed responses were

most noticeably affected, going from fifty-nine to twenty-three; group-directed

responses went from twenty-one to thirty-nine. On the basis of these results, Heckel et al. believed their findings were &dquo;somewhat supportive&dquo; of a two-

stage hypothesis of group development. The authors did not describe charac-

teristics of the two stages, however, nor did they attempt to propose their own

theoretical model for further testing.

A second study by Heckel, Holmes, and Rosecrans (1971) employed a fac-

tor-analytic approach for analyzing verbal responses of group-therapy mem-

bers. Utilizing the theory of two-stage development derived from the 1967

study, the authors rated responses from approximately thirty male neuropsy- chiatric patients during their second and third sessions and from seventeen of

these patients during the twelfth and thirteenth sessions. The authors reported that combined results from sessions two and three indicated low group cohe-

siveness, high defensiveness and superficial verbal interaction and a pattern of 425

personal and group-building responses. An obvious change had occurred by the

twelfth and thirteenth sessions, but the loss of almost half the members of the

group by this time also may have had an impact on changes in their verbal re-

sponses. Without observing interactions over the life of the group, the sugges- tion that these four sessions represent the only changes taking place seems

premature.

Mann (1967) offered a third variation to the four-stage model. Through the

use of factor analysis, he categorized five stages of group development: (1) in-

itial complaining, (2) premature enactment, (3) confrontation, (4) inter-

nalization, (5) separation and terminal review. This model appears to

incorporate characteristics of Tuckman’s &dquo;forming,&dquo; &dquo;storming,&dquo; &dquo;norming,&dquo; and &dquo;performing&dquo; stages, with the addition of stage 5-termination.

Braaten (1975) included an updated version of Mann’s (1971) devel-

opmental model:

1. Dependency upon trainer;

2. Initial anxiety and/or resistance;

3. Mounting frustration, hostility;

4. Work phase, intimacy, integration, mutual synthesis;

5. Separation.

DISCUSSION

This review of articles was undertaken to discover whether the Tuckman

(1965) model of group development had been empirically tested. Only Runkel

et al. (1971) set out to test this model. Their conclusions were supportive of

Tuckman’s four-stage model, but their results may not be reliable because of

the researchers’ methodology.

The bulk of the literature from 1965 to the present has been theoretical in

nature; those articles describing empirical research were not primarily con-

cerned with testing already existing models. Many of the authors described a

group’s behavior and offered their own models of group development, however

similar to models already described in the literature. Two studies and a review

did identify termination as an important final stage overlooked by Tuckman.

Braaten’s (1975) review of fourteen models led to a composite model in-

corporating &dquo;forming,&dquo; &dquo;storming,&dquo; and &dquo;performing&dquo; stages and including a

termination stage.

Gibbard and Hartman (1973) introduced the concept of a &dquo;life cycle&dquo; model as developed by Mills (1964). Proponents of a life cycle approach recog- nize the importance of separation concerns as an issue in group development.

Although Tuckman saw performing as the final stage of group evolution, those

who agree with a life cycle model view separation as an important issue

throughout the life of the group and as a separate and distinct final stage. With

1Other studies examined but not cited because of their limited relevance to the

discussion are Lundgren (1971), Liebowitz (1972), Tucker (1973), and Adelson (1975). 426

a substantial amount of activity taking place in training and therapy groups in

which presumably strong interpersonal feelings are developed, the &dquo;death of

the group&dquo; becomes an extremely important issue to many of the group mem-

bers. As a reflection of the recent appearance of studies postulating a life cycle

approach (Mann, 1971; Gibbard & Hartman, 1973; Spitz & Sadock, 1973; La-

coursiere, 1974; Braaten, 1975), the Tuckman model is hereby amended to in-

clude a fifth stage: adjourning.

CONCLUSION

It is noteworthy that since 1965 there have been few studies that report

empirical data concerning the stages of group development. It is also of interest

that most authors, although writing from a theoretical framework, call for fur-

ther research to verify their hypotheses. A virtually untapped field is the empi- rical testing of existing models of group-stage development. There is a need to

supply statistical evidence as to the usefulness and applicability of the various

models suggested in the literature.

A major outcome of this review has been the discovery that recent re-

search posits the existence of a final discernible and significant stage of group

development-termination. Because the 1965 model was a conceptual state-

ment determined by the literature, it is reasonable, therefore, to modify the

model to reflect recent literature. The model now stands: forming, storming,

norming, performing, and adjourning.

REFERENCES

Adelson, J. Feedback and group development. Small Group Behavior, 1975 6(4), 389- 401.

Braaten, L. J. Developmental phases of encounter groups and related intensive groups: A critical review of models and a new proposal. Interpersonal Development, 1974-

75,5 , 112-129.

Dunphy, D. Phases, roles and myths in self-analytic groups. Journal of Applied Behav-

ioral Science, 1968, 4(2), 195-225.

Gibbard, G., & Hartman, J. The oedipal paradigm in group development: A clinical

and empirical study. Small Group Behavior, 1973, 4(3), 305-349.

Heckel, R., Holmes, G., & Salzberg, H. Emergence of distinct verbal phases in group

therapy. Psychological Reports, 1967, 21, 630-632.

Heckel, R. V., Holmes, G. R., & Rosecrans, C. J. A factor analytic study of process vari-

ables in group therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1971, 27(1), 146-150.

Lacoursiere, R. A group method to facilitate learning during the stages of a psychiatric affiliation. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1974, 24, 342-351.

Liebowitz, B. A method for the analysis of the thematic structure of T-groups. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1972, 8(2), 149-173.

Lundgren, D. C. Trainer style and patterns of group development. The Journal of Ap-

plied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7(6), 689-709.

Lundgren, D. C. Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of emergent status in training

groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 141-153. 427

Mann, R. D. The development of the member-trainer relationship in self-analytic groups. In C. L. Cooper & I. L. Mangham (Eds.), T-groups: A survey of research. London: Wiley-Interscience, 1971.

Mann, R. D. Interpersonal styles and group development. New York: John Wiley, 1967.

Mills, T. M. Group transformation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Runkel, P. J., Lawrence, M. Oldfield, S., Rider, M., Clark, C. Stages of group devel-

opment : An empirical test of Tuckman’s hypothesis. The Journal of Applied Be- havioral Science, 1971, 7(2), 180-193.

Shambaugh, P., & Kanter, S. Spouses under stress: Group meetings with spouses of

patients on hemodialysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1969, 125, 928-936.

Smith, W. M. Observations over the lifetime of a small isolated group; structure, dan-

ger, boredom, and vision. Psychological Reports, 1966,19, 475-514.

Spitz, H., & Sadock, B. Psychiatric training of graduate nursing students. N. Y State

Journal of Medicine, June 1, 1973, pp. 1334-1338.

Tucker, D. M. Some relationships between individual and group development. Human

Development, 1973, 16, 249-272.

Tuckman, B. W. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,

1965, 63(6), 384-399.

Yalom, I. The theory andpractice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books, 1970.

Zurcher, L. A., Jr. Stages of development in poverty program neighborhood action committees. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1969, 5(2), 223-258.

Bruce W. Tuckman is professor of education and director of the Bureau of Research and Development of the Rutgers Univer-

sity Graduate School of Education. He completed his masters and doctoral training in psychology at Princeton University in 1963 and, after two years at the Naval Medical Research In-

stitute, joined the Rutgers faculty as an associate professor. He has published extensively, including two textbooks, and has de-

veloped several instruments in use today on teacher style and on personality. He is currently a Fellow in the American Psy- chological Association and an active member of both the Amer- ican Educational Research Association and Phi Delta Kappa.

Mary Ann Conover jenaen is a doctoral candidate in coun-

seling psychology at the Rutgers University Graduate School of Education. She has been involved in counseling both residen- tial and commuting students at a four-year college, served as a

small-group facilitator for a series of &dquo;life-skills&dquo; workshops, and has conducted research in the area of small-group devel-

apment. Presently she is an intern at a community guidance center, participating in child psychotherapy, family therapy, and individual and group counseling.