There are a number of models of team development, which
provide perspectives on how teams evolve over time. Most commonly cited is
Tuckman’s four stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. Less well known
is the seven stage … And even less known is the concept of team performance
cycles (Marks et al, 2001)
In Tuckman’s model, teams begin with little shared purpose,
collaboration or process. In storming, they experiment and test relationships
and ways of working. In norming, they develop agreed ways of working and
mutually supportive relationships. In performing, they take on more of the
characteristics of a true team – collaborative, making effective decisions and
focused on collective goals. Tuckman subsequently added a fifth phase,
adjourning, where the team disbands, having fulfilled its purpose. (Tuckman,
1977)
Drexler and Sibbet expand this to seven stages: orientation,
trust building, goal clarification, commitment, implementation, high performance
and renewal.
Marks et al indicate that team
work occurs in cycles of goal-directed activity, divided into two distinctive
phases: a transition phase, where teams engage in evaluation or planning
activities and an action phase, where teams perform activities that directly
contribute to accomplishing their goals accomplishment. Over time, they
repeatedly cycle through these two phases.
The problem with all of these models is that they are
basically linear and, in the case of the Tuckman and Drexler-Sibbet models,
based on newly-formed teams. They also assume that one stage leads to another
in a logical progression. In reality team evolution is far more complex than
that. For example: a new team member can cause the team to revert to an earlier
stage of development – for example, in recreating trust (and indeed, this may
be an essential step for the team to assimilate the newcomer).
Moreover:
- A new team leader can radically change the
culture and the collective purpose of the team, but their ability to do so may
be constrained by the historical legacy of his or her predecessor. The
longer-established the team, the more ingrained old habits tend to be
- They do not adequately take into account the
issue of collective identity – how the team perceives itself in the context of
its environment
- They do not encompass the influences of external
agencies, such as stakeholders who may enlarge or cut budgets, or change their
requirements of the team
- They do not define what is meant by high
performance (so, a team may be delivering to the satisfaction of one set of
stakeholders but to the detriment of another)
- The Drexler-Sibbet model includes a stage of
renewal, to maintain high performance. But this assumes the team composition is
relatively static. In practice, successful teams continue to thrive by
reinventing themselves – which often means in essence emerging from a chrysalis
of change into a new team with new membership and different purpose.
- In a complex, changing environment, goal setting
may be an emergent process. (David et al, 2013)
A systemic approach to team evolution would address how the
team develops in line with its
environment. Evolution within the team is related to evolution of the
context, in which it works.
A systemic framework of transitions might then involve:
- Initiation – where stakeholders and the team
leader define the purpose and expectations of the team
- Gathering – selection of team members on the
basis of what they can contribute to the purpose (becoming a group)
- Becoming a team – absorbing the purpose,
developing the norms and procedures that will allow the team to deliver,
building the relationships of trust that underpin collaborative endeavour
- Becoming a high performing team – engaging with
each other and with stakeholders to enhance the processes, relationships and
access to resources that will enable the team to achieve its potential
- Continuous reinvention – reacting to (and
sometimes precipitating) change in its stakeholders’ needs, using the arrival
of new members to stimulate rethinking, restructuring and the deepening of
relationships
This model is anything but linear. Team purpose may be the
most “fixed” element, but in a VUCA world, it is liable to evolve over the life
of the team. Gathering is a continuous purpose of changing team membership to
reflect changing needs, but also a matter of necessity, as people leave and
must be replaced. Whenever this situation arises, it is an opportunity to
reconsider the mix of skills and expertise the team currently requires. Becoming
a team is not a one-off event. It requires continuous effort to absorb
newcomers and to enhance collaboration. (For example, conflict arises in all
teams and teamwork will fluctuate according to how externally induced change to
roles, responsibilities and methods of working affect the balance of positive
and negative conflict.) These issues are even more significant in high
performing teams, because the balance between being high performing and
mediocre is often very fine. (For a comparison, think of champion downhill
skiers, where high performance may be measured in a fraction of one second!)
Continuous reinvention lies at the heart of the model,
therefore, because standing still is not enough.
Team coaches typically come in to help groups that have
either never become a team, or teams which have become stale. For the latter, the
temptation is to try and fix a few, fairly obvious barriers (such as lack of
trust). But entropy is the enemy of evolution – all successful teams decay
unless they put continued effort into evolving. One of the greatest gifts a
team coach can leave with a team is the habit of, at least once a year, working
through the stages of this model, as if they were just coming together for the
first time. Stakeholders, of course should be an integral part of this process.
From this return to the cocoon, the next glorious butterfly may emerge!
© David Clutterbuck, 2019