Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tuckman1965DevelopmentalSequence PDF
Tuckman1965DevelopmentalSequence PDF
Bruce W. Tuckman
Editor's Note
In a subsequent 1977 article, Stages of Small-Group
As group facilitators we are often concerned about the Development Revisited, Tuckman and coauthor Mary Ann
development of the groups with which we work. Jensen noted that subsequent empirical studies
Frequently we make reference to "the stages of group suggested a termination stage which they named
development" and the stages most frequently cited are adjourning. While Table 1 below summarizes the stages
forming, storming, norming and performing. These stages with a description of their associated group structures
were proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 based on his and task activities, the original article provides a much
examination of empirical research studies. In this classic more complete understanding of their context, meaning,
article, Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, we find and limitations. Although other articles in this special
a rich description of these stages under a variety of issue suggest the limitations of "stage models" such as
settings as well as their applicability to both group this, the memorability and popularity of Tuckman's model
structure and task activity. make this article required reading for every group
facilitator.
Group Structure
Task Activity
The pattern of interpersonal
The content of interaction as related
relationships; the way members act
to the task at hand.
and relate to one another.
Forming:
orientation, testing and Testing and dependence Orientation to the task
dependence
Copyright 1965 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission. This article appeared
in Psychological Bulletin, Volume 63, Number 6, Pages 384-99.
Abstract
Fifty articles dealing with stages of group development over time are separated by group setting, as follows:
therapy-group studies, T-group studies, and natural- and laboratory-group studies. The stages identified in these
articles are separated into those descriptive of social or interpersonal group activities and those descriptive of
group-task activities. Finally, 4 general stages of development are proposed, and the review consists of fitting the-
stages identified in the literature to those proposed. In the social realm, these stages in the developmental sequence
are testing-dependence, conflict, cohesion, and functional roles. In the task realm, they are orientation, emotionality,
relevant opinion exchange, and the emergence of solutions. There is a good fit between observed stages and the
proposed model. Further study of temporal change as a dependent variable via the manipulation of specific
independent variables is suggested.
The purpose of this article is to review the literature dealing with the developmental sequence in small groups, to
evaluate this literature as a body, to extrapolate general concepts about group development and to suggest fruitful
areas for further research.
I Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Org. Studies 2:419-27, 1977.
2 Runkel, P. J., Lawrence M., Oldfield S., Rider M. & Clark C. Stages of group development -- an empirical test of
Tuckman's hypothesis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7:180-93, 1971.
In an attempt to bring the facts and the issues into sharper focus, existing research in the area of small-group
development will be cited, and a framework within which this phenomenon can be better understood and further
investigated will be presented. This framework will also serve to integrate the variety of studies cited in a meaningful
way.
describes an initial phase of working through of hostility,' Thorpe and Smith (1953) see the stage of intragroup
followed by a stage of Working through of anxieties'. The hostility grading into a period of unity, support, and
hostility phase is characterized by disruption and freedom of communication. Martin and Hill (1957)
fragmentation which are reduced gradually in the anxiety theorize about a stage featuring awareness that the
phase. group is an organism preceding the final stage of
The remaining studies fail to identify this stage. Some development. Abrahams (1949) describes the
of them jump from stage 1 directly to stage 3, while development of eve-consciousness' in the third stage,
others deal with task development as concerns the first while Mann (1953) sees the third stage as one of personal
two stages of therapy-group development. mutual exploration anal analysis during which the group
Task activity: emotional response to task attains unity.
demands. The outstanding feature of this second task The notion that the group becomes a simulation of
stage appears to be the expression of emotionality by the the family constellation (that is, through transference
group members as a form of resisting the techniques of members react to one another as members of their
therapy which require that they `expose' themselves and family), with the unity and cohesion generally accepted in
of challenging the validity and usefulness of therapy that structure, fits as a close parallel to the stage of
(Bach, 1954; Barton, 1953; Cholden, 1953; Clapham and development of group cohesion being postulated.
Sclare, 1958; Mann, 1953; Mann and Semrad, 1948; Beukenkamp (1952) describes the middle stage of reliving
Martin and Hill, 1957; Stoute, 1950; Wender 1964). the process of the family constellation where the group
Furthermore, mention is made of the fact that this is a becomes a family-like structure, while King (1959) utilizes
period of extreme resistance to examination and a similar description (that is, family unity in the group)
disclosure (Abrahams, 1949; Barton, 1953), and an for the final stage in activity-group therapy. Wender
attempt at analysis of this resistance is made (Wolf, (1946) and Wolf (1949) both describe a stage preceding
1949). Others emphasize ambivalence toward the the final stage in which the group becomes the new family
therapist (Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld, 1958), the through the displacement of parent love.
discussion of sensitive areas (Powdermaker and Frank, Studies that fail to identify this stage are those that
1948), psychodrama (Schindler, 1958) and resistance via deal primarily with task development or those that
`putting one on' (Thorpe and Smith, 1953). integrate it as part of the final stage.
Task activity: discussing oneself and other group
members. Many researchers observed probing and
Stage 3 revealing by group members at a highly intimate level
during this period and labeled it as - (a) confiding
Group structure: development of group cohesion.
(Clapham and Sclare, 1958; Coffey et al., 1950; Thorpe
Twenty-two of the twenty-six studies reviewed identified a
and Smith, 1953), (b) discussing personal problems in
stage in which the group became a cohesive unit and
depth (Corsini, 1957; Mann and Semrad, 1948; Osberg
developed a sense of being as a group. Bach (1954),
and Berliner, 1956; Taylor, 1950), (c) exploring the
Barton (1953) and Clapham and Sclare (1958) identify a
dynamics at work within 'the individual (Dreikurs, 1957;
stage during which in-group consciousness is developed
Noyes, 1953), and (d) exploring the dynamics at work
and establishment and maintenance of group boundaries
within the group (Bach, 1954; Martin and Hill, 1957;
is emphasized. Bion (1961) discusses the basic
Powdermaker and Frank, 1948).
assumption of pairing in which the emphasis is on
Beukenkamp (1952) observed that recalled material
cohesion, but the unit is the pair as opposed to the whole
was related to the family; Abrahams (1949) observed the
group. Coffey et al. (1950), and Taylor (1950) describe a
process of common ideation; and Shellow, Ward and
stage following the stage of intragroup hostility in which
Rubenfeld (1958) and Wolf (1949) emphasized patients'
the group becomes unified and is characterized by the
discussion of topics related to transference to the
existence of a common goal and group spirit. Parker
therapist and to other group members which took place
(1958) and Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld (1958) see the
during this period.
stage of crisis and factions being followed by one featuring
consensual group action, cooperation, and mutual
Stage 4
support. Grotjahn (1950), Mann and Semrad (1948), and
Powdermaker and Frank (1948) describe a third stage Group structure: functional role-relatedness.
characterized by group integration and mutuality. Noyes Only twelve of the therapy studies are at all explicit in
(1953) describes a middle stage of group integration, while their identification of this stage. Almost all of the
Stoute (1950) and
74
Special Issue on Group Development
liar to the group as an entity. Bradford and Mallinson (1957) discusses mutual acceptance and use of
(1958) describe stage 3 as one of reorganization, in which differences in the collaborative process during the fourth
reforming and repair take place and a flexible and fifth group stages, while Miles (1953) sees group
organization emerges. structure as tending `to be functional and not loved for
Bradford (1964a) describes a third stage in which the itself alone' as it was in the preceding stage. The support
group norm of `openness' emerges, and a fourth stage in function is further emphasized by Miles when he says (p.
which the group generates additional norms to deal with 94);
self-revelation and feedback. Furthermore, Bradford in groups where the interpersonal bonds are
(1964b) identifies a third stage as one of developing a genuine and strong ... members give one another
group climate of permissiveness, emotional support and a great deal of mutual evaluative support, which
cohesiveness in which learning can take place. This seems to be a prime requisite for successful
description would appear to subserve both interpersonal behavior change.
and task realms.
Bennis and Shepard (1956) describe a third stage in Semrad and Arsenian (1961) describe a final phase
which resolution of authority problems occurs, and a of productive collaboration; while Thelen and Dickerman
fourth stage characterized by smooth relations and (1949) identify the group as an effective social instrument
enchantment as regards the interpersonal sphere of during this period. Barron and Krulee (1948) see, as one
group functioning. Finally, Barron and Krulee (1948) group function occurring during the final two meetings,
identify the third stage as increasing member the sharing and refining of feelings through the group
responsibility and changing faculty role in which a process.
definite sense of structure and goal orientation emerge in Bennis and Shepard (1956) see the stage of group
the group. cohesion being followed by another period of conflict, in
Task activity: discussing oneself and others. which the issue is intimate social relations versus
Herbert and Trist (1953) identify a second stage labeled aloofness. The final stage is then one of consensual
as execution, in which the group settles down to the validation in which group interpersonal problems are
description of a single basic problem and learns to accept solved and the group is freed to function as a
`the examination of what was going on inside of itself as a problem-solving instrument.
regular part of the task ....' Stock 'and Thelen (1958) The Tulane studies (1957) describe the stage
describe a third task phase in which the group shows a following the emergence of cohesion as one in which
new ability to express feelings constructively and behavior roles become dynamic, that is, behavior is
creatively. While emotionality is still high, it now changed as a function of the acceptance of group
contributes to work. structure. An additional stage is also identified in this
While the social function of the third stage is to study in which structure is institutionalized by the group
cause a unique and cohesive group structure to emerge, and thus becomes rigid. Perhaps this stage, not identified
the task function is to attempt to use this new structure by other researchers, would most apply to groups with a
as a vehicle for discovering personal relations and long or indefinite group life.
emotions by communicating heretofore private feelings. The remaining T-group studies describe task
development exclusively during the final group phase.
Stage 4 Task activity: insight. Bradford's (1964b) fourth
phase is one in which members discover and utilize
Group structure: functional role-relatedness. various methods of inquiry as ways of group development
There is some tendency for T-groupers, as there was for and individual growth while, in his fifth and final stage,
the therapy groupers, to emphasize the task aspects of members learn how to internalize, generalize and apply
the final stage, namely, the emergence of insight into the learnings to other situations. Herbert and Trist (1953)
interpersonal process. In doing this, it is made implicit label their final stage as evaluation. Stock and Thelen
that the group as a social entity characterized by (1958) describe the fourth and final stage as one
task-oriented role-relatedness makes the emergence of characterized by a high degree of work in the absence of
such insight possible by providing support and an affect. The issues are dealt with in a less excited way.
opportunity for experimentation and discovery. The over-all fit between stages of development
Bradford (1964a) sees the group becoming a work postulated in this paper for application in all settings and
organization which provides member support, mutual those delineated by T-groupers is high
acceptance, and has strong but flexible norms. Hearn
lighted in the fourfold scheme presented by Golembiewski Schroder and Harvey (1963) identify a second stage of
(1962), based on his examination of some T-group negative independence featuring rebellion, opposition and
development studies already reviewed in this paper. conflict. In this stage, the greater emphasis is on
Golembiewski describes his stages as: (a) establishing the autonomy and individual rights. Theodorson (1953)
hierarchy, (b) conflict and frustratio, (c) growth of group observed more friction, disharmony, and animosity early
security and autonomy, (d) structuring in terms of in the group life than during later periods.
problems facing the group rather than in terms of Schutz (1958) postulates a second stage in which the
stereotypic role prescriptions. group. deals with problems of control. This entails a
leadership struggle in which individual members
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN NATURAL AND compete to establish their place in the hierarchy
LABORATORY GROUPS culminating in resolution.
Few studies or theoretical statements have concerned In the task area, the stage of emotional response to
themselves with the developmental sequence in natural task demands is not delineated, presumably due to the
l b impersonal and nonthreatening nature of the task in
these settings. When the task does not deal with the self
at a penetrating level, extreme emotionality in the task
Group structure: testing and dependence.
area is not expected.
Modlin and Faris (1956), studying an interdisciplinary
professional group, identify an initial stage of Stage 3
structuralization, in which members are dependent upon
roles developed outside of the group, well-established Group structure: development of Group Cohesion.
traditions, and a fixed hierarchy of responsibility. . Modlin and Faris (1956) identify change as the third
Schroder and Harvey (1963) describe an initial stage stage, characterized by the formation of the concept of
of absolutistic dependency, featuring the emergence of a the group as a functioning unit and the emergence of a
status hierarchy and rigid norms which reduce ambiguity team `dialect'. Schroder and Harvey (1963) refer to stage
and foster dependence and submission. 3 as conditional dependence, featuring a group concern
Theodorson (1953) observed a tendency initially for with integration and an emphasis on mutuality and the
only one leader to emerge and for group members to maintenance of interpersonal relationships.
categorize one another so that they could define the Theodorson (1953) observed the following group
situation and reduce ambiguity. tendencies over time (i.e., tending to occur later as
Schutz (1958)1 sees the group dealing initially with opposed to earlier in group development): (a) discovering
problems of inclusion-to join or not to join, to commit what is common to the members and developing a
oneself or not. The group concern, thus, is boundary within-group `parochialism'; (b) the growth of an
problems, and the behavior of members is individually interlocking network of friendship; (c) role
centered. This description is somewhat suggestive of interdependence; (d) mutual involvement and
testing. identification between members with a concomitant
Task activity: orientation. Bales (1953) and Bales increase in harmony and solidarity; and (e) the
and Strodtbeck (1951), using Bales' (1950) establishment of group norms for dealing with such
interaction-process categories, discovered that leaderless areas as discipline.
laboratory groups begin by placing major emphasis on Schutz (1958) postulated a third stage wherein
problems of orientation (as reflected in Bales' categories: problems of affectation are dealt with. Characteristic of
`asks for orientation' and `gives orientation. This this stage are emotional integration, pairing, and the
orientation serves to define the boundaries of the task resolution of intimacy problems.
(i.e., what is to be done) and the approach that is to be Task activity: expression of opinions. Bales (1953)
used in dealing with the task (i.e., how it is to be and Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) observed that the
accomplished). orientation phase was followed by a period in which
major emphasis was placed on problems of evaluation (as
reflected by categories: `asks for opinion' and `gives
Stage 2
opinion. Evaluation' as a descriptor of the exchange of
Group structure: intragroup hostility. Modlin and opinions appears to be comparable to the third task stage
Faris (1956) describe unrest characterized by friction and in therapyand training-group development which was
disharmony as the second stage, while here
conducted in the therapy-group setting and other Although the model was largely induced from the
settings as well. literature, it would seem to withstand the test of common
A final criticism concerns the description and control sense as well as being consistent with developmental
of independent variables. Since most of the studies in theory and findings in other areas. It is not unreasonable
the therapy-, training- and natural-group settings used a to expect `newness' of the group-to-be greeted by
single group, the control and systematic manipulation of orienting behavior and resultant unsureness and
independent variables was impossible. In the absence of insecurity overcome through dependence on an authority
the manipulation of independent variables and the figure, as proposed in the model. Such orienting
consequent discovery of their differential effects within responses and dependence on authority are
studies, these effects can only be approximately discerned characteristic of the infant during the first year (Ilg and
by comparing studies. However, many independent Ames, 1955), the young child when first apprehending
variables are likely to vary from study to study, for rules (Piaget, 1932), and the patient when first entering
example, group composition, duration, etc., and little psychotherapy (Rotter, 1954).
light will be shed on the effects of these variables on the After the `newness' of the group has `worn off, the
developmental process. Therefore, no conclusions about members react to both the imposition of the group and
the specific effects of independent variables on the task emotionally and negatively, and pose a threat to
developmental phenomena will be drawn, and further further development. This proposal is mirrored by the
work along these lines is encouraged. rebelliousness of the young child following his `obedient'
In order to isolate those concepts common to the stages (Ilg and Ames, 1955; Levy, 1955).
various studies reviewed (across settings), a Such emotionality, if overcome, is followed by a sense
developmental model was proposed. This model was of `pulling together' in the group and being more
aimed at serving a conceptual function as well as an sensitive to one another. This sensitivity to others is
integrative and organizational one. The model will be mirrored in the development of the child (Ilg and Ames,
summarized here. 1955; Piaget, 1932) and represents an essential aspect of
Groups initially concern themselves with orientation the socialization process (Mead, 1934).
accomplished primarily through testing. Such testing Finally, the group becomes a functional instrument
serves to identify the boundaries of both interpersonal for dealing with the task. Interpersonal problems lie in
and task behaviors. Coincident with testing in the the group's `past', and its present can be devoted to
interpersonal realm is the establishment of dependency realistic appraisal of and attempt at solutions to the task
relationships with leaders, other group members, or at hand. This interdependence and `marriage to reality' is
pre-existing standards. It may be said that orientation, characteristic of the `mature' human being (Erikson,
testing and dependence constitute the group process of 1950; Fromm, 1941) and the `mature' nine-year-old child
forming. (Ilg and Ames, 1955).3
The second point in the sequence is characterized by The suggested stages of group development are
conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues, highly visible in the literature reviewed. The fit is not
with concomitant emotional responding in the task perfect, however. Some of the studies identify some, but
sphere. These behaviors serve as resistance to group not all, of the suggested stages. In some of these cases,
influence and task requirements and may be labeled as two of the suggested stages have been welded into one
storming. by the observer. For instance, Barton (1953) describes
Resistance is overcome in the third stage in which three stages; the first and second fit the first two
ingroup feeling and cohesiveness develop, new standards conceptual stages closely, while Barton's third stage is
evolve, and new roles are adopted. In the task realm, descriptive of the third and fourth conceptual stages in
intimate, personal opinions are expressed. Thus, we have so far as it is characterized by both the emergence of
the stage of norming. cohesiveness and the working through of problems. In
Finally, the group attains the fourth and final stage other cases, one or more of the hypothesized stages have
in which interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task been clearly missing, and thus not recognized in the
activities. Roles become flexible and functional, and group or groups being observed. For instance,
group energy is channeled into the task. Structural Powdermaker and Frank (1948) identify three stages that
issues have been resolved, and structure can now fit the first three conceptual stages fairly closely, but
become supportive of task performance. This stage can they do not identify any fourth stage. Perhaps cases like
be labeled as performing.
79
Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001
References
Corsini, R. J. (1951), On the theory of changes resulting
Abrahams, J. (1949), Group psychotherapy: implications
from group therapy, Group Psychotherapy, 4, 179-80.
for direction and supervision of mentally ill patients, in
Corsini, R. J. (1957), Methods of Group Psychotherapy,
Theresa Muller (ed.), Mental Health in Nursing, Catholic
McGraw-Hill, 119-20.
University Press, 77-83.
Deutsch, M. A. (1949), A theory of cooperation and
Bach, G. R. (1954), Intensive Group Psychotherapy,
competition, Human Relations, 2, 129-52.
Ronald Press, 268-93.
Dreikurs, R. (1957), Group psychotherapy from the point
Bales, R. F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A
of view of Adlerian psychology, International Journal of
Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-Wesley.
Group Psychotherapy, 7, 363-75.
Bales, R. F. (1953), The equilibrium problem in small
Erikson, E. H. (1950), Childhood and Society, Norton,
groups, in T. Parsons, R. F. Bales and E. A. Shils
213-20.
(eds.), Working Papers in the Theory of Action, Free
Fromm, E. (1941), Escape from Freedom, Holt, Rinehart
Press, 111-61.
& Winston.
Bales, R. F., and Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951), Phases in
Golembiewski, R.T. (1962), The Small Group, University
group problem-solving, Journal of Abnormal and Social
of Chicago Press, 193-200.
Psychology, 46, 485-95.
Grotjahn, M. (1950), The process of maturation in group
Barron, M. E., and Krulee, G. K. (1948), Case study of a
psychotherapy and in the group therapist, Psychiatry,
basic skill training group, Journal of Social Issues, 4,
13, 63-7.
10-30.
Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., and Schroder, H. M. (1961),
Barton, W. E. (1953), Group psychotherapy of the
Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization,
psychoses, Digest of Neurology and Psychiatry, 21,
Wiley.
148-9.
Hearn, G. (1957), The process of group development,
Bennis, W. G., and Shepard, H. A. (1956), A theory of
Autonomous Groups Bulletin, 13, 1-7.
group development, Human Relations, 9, 415-37.
Herbert, E. L., and Trist, E. L. (1953), The institution of
Beukenkamp, C. (1952), Some observations made during
an absent leader by a student's discussion group,
group therapy, Psychiatric Quarterly. Supplement, 26,
Human Relations, 6, 215-48.
22-26.
Ilg, F. L., and Ames, L. B. (1955), Child Behavior, Harper
Bion, W. R. (1961), Experience in Groups, Basic Books.
& Row.
Bradford, L. P. (1964a), Trainer-intervention: case
Jennings, H. H. (1947), Sociometric differentiation of the
episodes, in L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. D. Benne
psychegroup and sociogroup, Sociometry, 10, 71-9.
(eds.), T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method, Wiley,
King, C. H. (1959), Activity group therapy with a
136-67.
schizophrenic boy follow-up two years later,
Bradford, L. P. (1964b), Membership and the learning
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 9,
processes, in L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. D.
184-94.
Benne (eds.), T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method,
Levy, D. M. (1955), Oppositional syndromes and
Wiley, 190-215.
oppositional behavior, .in P. H. Hoch and J. Zubin
Bradford, L. P., and Mallinson, T. (1958), Group
(eds.), Psychopathology of Childhood, Grune &
formation and development, in Dynamics of Group Life,
Stratton, 204-26.
National Education Association, National Training
Mann, J. (1953), Group therapy with adults, American
Laboratories, Washington.
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 23, 332-7.
Cholden, L. (1953), Group therapy with the blind, Group
Mann, J., and Semrad, E. V. (1948), The use of group
Psychotherapy, 6, 21-9.
therapy in psychoses, Journal of Social Casework, 29,
Clapham, H. I., and Sclare, A. B., (1958), Group
176-81.
psychotherapy with asthmatic patients, International
Martin, E. A., and Hill, W. F. (1957), Toward a theory of
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 8, 44-54.
group development: six phases of therapy group
Coffey, H. S. (1952), Socio and psyche group process:
development, International Journal of Group
integrative concepts, Journal of Social Issues, 8, 65-74.
Psychotherapy, 7, 20-30.
Coffey, H., Freedman, M., Leary, T., and Ossorio, A.
Mead, G. H. (1934), Self, Mind and Society, University of
(1950), Community service and social research -group
Chicago Press.
psychotherapy in a church program, Journal of Social
Miles, M. B. (1953), Human relations training: how a
Issues, 6 (1), 14-61.
group grows, Teachers College Record, 55, 90-96.
1. The classification of Schutz's theory as one primarily descriptive of natural and laboratory groups is arbitrary.
Some would argue that Schutz is working in the T-group tradition.
2. As mentioned earlier, Psathas (1960), working with therapy groups, observed the same phase movement, namely,
orientation to evaluation to control. However, Talland (1955) failed to get this phase movement in therapy groups.
3. A more detailed model of individual development (similar to the group model proposed here), along with many
citations of supporting literature, may be found in Harvey, Hunt and Schroder (1961).
Bruce Tuckman is Professor of Education at the Ohio State University College of Education. His current
research focuses on motivation and educational achievement. He has served on the education faculties at
Rutgers University, the City University of New York, and Florida State University. His major books include
Conducting Educational Research, Theories and Applications of Educational Psychology, and Evaluating
Instructional Programs. Professor Tuckman was kind enough to provide us with his personal comments
about this oft-cited article nearly thirty-five years since its original publication.