The empirical forming, storming, norming, and performing group action model of the former U.S. Navy research psychologist, Bruce Tuckman, is essentially an independently derived restatement of Kuhn’s scientific revolution model, and is also consistent with Jaspers’ reading of the last several thousand years of human history. This, of course, makes complete sense as each of these scientists was studying and describing exactly the same subject matter; i.e., the reliably repeating patterns of humanity’s individual and group behavior through time.
Usually, according to Tuckman (1965, pp. 396-397), when people come into chronic, unavoidable contact with others, the individuals concerned undergo a four-stage sequence of group development:1
Groups initially concern themselves with orientation accomplished primarily through testing. Such testing serves to identify the boundaries of both interpersonal and task behaviors. Coincident with testing in the interpersonal realm is the establishment of dependency relationships with leaders, other group members, or preexisting standards. It may be said that orientation, testing, and dependence constitute the group process of forming.
The second point in the sequence is characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues, with concomitant emotional responding in the task sphere. These behaviors serve as resistance to group influence and task requirements and may be labeled as storming.2
Resistance is overcome in the third stage in which ingroup feeling and cohesiveness develop, new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted. In the task realm, intimate, personal opinions are expressed. Thus, we have the stage of norming.
Finally, the group attains the fourth and final stage in which interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task activities. Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into the task. Structural issues have been resolved, and structure can now become supportive of task performance. This stage can be labeled as performing.
In the Kuhn sphere of study of human group behavior, the individuals concerned are chronically involved in the same scientific field, working individually and with others to improve and refine the tools and performance of a particular scientific discipline. In science, the forming stage of Tuckman is represented by both the education of young, new scientists, and by the gradual accretion of scientific knowledge underpinning the scientific field concerned. In rapidly evolving and rapidly improving scientific disciplines, the storming, norming, and performing stages of group behavior are constant and admixed – a disequilibrium that young and old scientists in especially innovative disciplines need to come to grips with in order to optimally serve their field of study and work.
The forming of Jaspers’ ‘axial age’ of human history took place as once isolated human populations grew large and active enough to cause mixing of formerly isolated human cultures. The ensuing storming and norming stages – establishment of new, more productive ways of thought and behavior within the then mixing populations – ultimately prepared Old World inhabitants (and those they strongly influenced) for the performing of modern human cultures.
Now, with relatively new, extremely powerful means of cultural admixture via immediate and near-constant electronic communication, more individuals than ever before in human history have simultaneously been drawn into a huge Tuckmanian forming and storming process. Given this circumstance, the present great din of human discord is expected and unavoidable. The very good news, of course, is that in the natural order of things, and with good effort, good faith, and free speech, the currently noisy and very unsettled individual and group behavior will continue on into the norming stage, and then once again break on through into the other side — productive and cooperative performing.
This same four-stage sequence is seen during the formation of successful human marriages.
With regard to the business of successfully passing through the discordant storming stage, however, note that Tuckman warns (p.396): “After the "newness" of the group has "worn off," the members react to both the imposition of the group and the task emotionally and negatively, and pose a threat to further development.”
This was a pleasure to see. I couldn’t count the times I used this when I was training teams at work. From self-directed work teams to project teams. It offered a bright little memory. Thanks.