Stages of Team Development and Group Behavior, Explained

UPI Study › Courses › Project Management › Free lessons › Lesson 11.3 Free with a free account

Stages of Team Development and Group Behavior

Project Management · Chapter 11: Team Dynamics and Conflict ResolutionSection 11.3 · lesson 69 of 7315 min · free with a free account

← Cross-Organizational Collaboration and PartnershipsNext lesson: Groupthink: Causes, Examples, and Prevention →

Earn 3 college credits for Project ManagementRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Business 230 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Project Management · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Recognize team development stages and match leadership to observed behavior.

  • Describe Tuckman's five stages and the limits of the model
  • Explain norms, cohesion, conformity and social loafing in project teams
  • Identify unfilled and conflicting task and relationship roles
  • Match leader actions to observed team needs and interpret pulse-check results

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (2,140 words). Read along, or search it.

Opening Question

Arguing in Every Meeting by Week Two

Two weeks into a new project, Meridian's video-visit design team is arguing in every meeting. Mateo, the user researcher, wants patient interviews before any sketching. Jun, the lead developer, wants rough prototypes tested early. Meanwhile Ana, a developer, has said almost nothing since week two. Dana has just taken over as team lead. Is this a team in trouble, or a team going through a normal stage? And what should she do?

Groups and Teams

Linked Results and Coordination Cost

Start with what a team is. A group is two or more people who interact, and see themselves as belonging together. A team is a group whose members depend on one another to reach a shared goal, hold distinct roles, and answer together for the result. A project team is assembled to deliver one project, and it usually disbands when the project ends. People in a clinic waiting room are neither. They share a place, but nobody needs the others to succeed. Individuals become a team when their results are linked, so that what one person does changes what another can do. That linkage makes a team more than the sum of its members. People watch each other, copy what seems acceptable, and form expectations they'd never hold alone. It also carries a coordination cost: time spent aligning work, passing information, and settling who does what. That cost grows faster than headcount, because anyone can interact with anyone. The number of pairs is the headcount, times one less, divided by two. Five people make ten pairs. Eight people make twenty-eight. Add three people, and the pairs nearly triple.

Tuckman Stages

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning

In 1965, the psychologist Bruce Tuckman proposed that small groups tend to pass through four stages, in order. A fifth was added in 1977. Forming comes first. Members learn what the team is for and who the others are, and look to the leader for direction. Behavior is polite and tentative: lots of questions about the goal, the rules, and who decides, and few opinions. Work is modest, and mostly done alone. Storming is second. Differences in views, working styles, and expectations about authority come into the open, as conflict. People argue about methods, take sides, and resist direction. Work can slow, with rework. But storming isn't only loss: it's how hidden assumptions surface. Norming is third. Members settle on shared ways of working, and accept each other's roles. Feedback opens up, and people say we more than I. Its risk: members may protect the new harmony by holding back disagreements they still have. Performing is fourth. The team works effectively, with flexible roles. Members help each other unasked, and decide quickly. But it isn't permanent. Adjourning comes last. The work is done, and the team disbands: records wrapped up, lessons reviewed, and mixed feelings of pride and loss. Quality can slip as people turn to their next assignments, so handing over files and unfinished items needs deliberate attention. Across the stages, productivity typically dips in storming, and peaks in performing.

Model Limits

A Vocabulary, Not a Universal Sequence

How solid is the model? It's a descriptive framework, drawn from early studies of small groups. It's not a proven universal sequence. Real teams skip stages, repeat them, or revisit them. People who've worked together before may pass quickly through forming. A new member, a new leader, a changed goal, or a crisis can send a performing team back toward forming or storming. And different members can be at different stages at once. So don't infer a stage from how long a team has existed. Treat the stage as a hypothesis, tested against what people actually do. Project teams, with fixed deadlines and changing members, may differ from the groups first studied. The model is most useful as a vocabulary, and a prompt: what does this team need now?

Norms and Cohesion

Unwritten Expectations, Cohesion and Conformity

Every team also develops norms: unwritten, shared expectations about how members ought to behave, enforced by teammates' approval or disapproval. Norms form through repeated experience. Early behavior sets them, the leader's conduct is watched closely, and critical events teach what's safe. Suppose the first person on a team to report a delay is thanked. Others learn that reporting is welcome, and problems surface early. If that first reporter is blamed, people learn to hide delays. The norm becomes concealment, and nobody chose it. A rule is different: explicit, usually written, and enforced by someone with authority. Where a rule and a lived norm conflict, the norm often wins. Cohesion is the strength of members' bond to the team and to each other. It grows with shared goals, time together, successes, and fair treatment. But cohesion isn't a measure of good work. A close team can hold a norm of low effort as firmly as one of high effort. Conformity is adjusting your behavior or stated views to match what the team expects. It's separate from cohesion, and too strong a pull to agree chokes the questioning good decisions need.

Social Loafing

Making Individual Contributions Visible

Now Ana, the quiet developer. One explanation Dana considers is social loafing: putting in less effort in a group than alone, most likely when contributions are hard to see. It thrives when work is pooled into one output, the team is large, people assume others will cover, or the task seems unimportant or unclear. But low output isn't always loafing, so check first. A person may lack a skill, not know what's expected, be overloaded, or be unable to get information from others. Loafing means the person could do more, and does less, because the situation hides the shortfall. Design responses change the situation without accusing anyone. Make individual contributions visible: an owner for each piece, and status everyone can see. Cut work into smaller tasks one person can own and finish quickly. And use peer feedback, specific and observable, from the people best placed to notice. Keep the team no larger than the work needs. And use visibility for recognition, not surveillance. People who feel watched start performing busyness.

Team Roles

Task Roles, Relationship Roles and Gaps

So Dana asks Ana directly. Ana isn't disengaged at all. She can't start until the team settles its method, and nobody owns that decision. That's a role problem. A role is the set of behaviors expected of someone, because of their position or function in the team. Task roles move the work forward: proposing, gathering information, clarifying, summarizing a discussion into a decision, checking quality, and tracking progress. Relationship roles keep the team able to work together: encouraging, easing tension, making sure a quiet member is heard, and noticing a drop in mood. A team needs both. Task roles alone burn through goodwill. Relationship roles alone make a friendly team that never finishes. Two problems arise. An unfilled role is a needed behavior that nobody performs. Here, nobody turns the method argument into a decision. Conflicting roles arise when two people take the same role, like Mateo and Jun each acting as the one who sets the method, or when one person's roles pull against each other. The remedy starts with description: list the behaviors the team needs, note who performs each, and discuss the gaps and overlaps openly.

Leader Actions

Directing, Coaching, Facilitating and Delegating

What should a leader do? Match the action to what the team is observed to need. Directing means clear instructions, tasks, deadlines, and close monitoring. It suits forming. Coaching means explaining reasons, inviting views, building skill, and helping people work through differences, while still setting direction. It suits storming. Facilitating means asking questions, helping the team agree how it works and decides, and removing obstacles, leaving content decisions to the team. It suits norming. Delegating means handing over decisions and results, and staying available. It suits performing. Adjourning calls for closing actions: recognition, handover, and a lessons review. Mismatches cost something. Delegating to a team that's still forming leaves people unsure who decides. Directing a performing team keeps the leader in details, and lowers ownership. Observation comes first. The action follows.

Applied Choice

Choosing Coaching Over Directing

Back in the meeting room, Dana reads the signs that separate ordinary storming from a real problem. Are the arguments about the work, or about people? Does everyone still attend and speak? Is work being produced? Is anyone shut out? The arguments stay on the work, both sides keep producing, and attendance is complete. Only Ana's silence didn't fit, and now Dana knows why. So she chooses coaching over directing. She asks each side what evidence would convince them. Then she proposes a two-week mixed approach. Mateo runs three interviews, while Jun builds one rough prototype to use in them. Ana gets the test setup, so she has work from the first day. The team reviews everything together at the end. The trade-off is a slower, noisier start, in exchange for a method the team owns. And she sets a limit: if the arguments turn personal, or the review ends without agreement, she'll direct.

Quick Check

A Courteous New Team Awaiting Direction

Quick check. A brand-new Meridian team meets for the first time. Members are courteous, wait to be told what to do, and keep asking who is responsible for which task. Which leader action fits best right now? Pause, and decide. Directing. Courteous waiting and questions about who does what are classic forming behavior. Members want clarity: clear tasks, goals, and rules, plus introductions. Delegating would leave them unsure who decides. Coaching suits a team whose differences are already out in the open, and these haven't surfaced yet.

Virtual Teams

Stages Across Distance and Time Zones

Lina, the team's designer, works from home, three time zones away. She's part of a virtual team: members in different places, working mainly through calls, messages, and shared documents. The stages still apply, but informal cues mostly vanish. A brief message can read as curt, and silence might mean agreement, confusion, or absence. Norms form more slowly. Storming may show up as quiet disengagement instead of argument, and a struggling member can go unnoticed for weeks. A time zone gap shrinks the hours people share. A question asked at the end of one person's day may wait a whole day. If the same people always take the early or late meetings, it becomes a fairness grievance. But work can also pass around the clock, if every handover is clearly written. The remedy is deliberate habits: a short personal check-in, written response times, one place for decisions, rotating meeting times, asking each person by name, and a daily handoff note.

Pulse Checks

Reading Averages and Spread in Ratings

How healthy is the team, really? Dana starts with signs she can see or hear: who speaks and who never does, whether work arrives usable, and how often it's redone. Also the tone, how disagreement is handled, whether problems surface early, and whether people help each other. Each sign is evidence, not a verdict. Then she asks. A pulse check is a short questionnaire, rated on a fixed scale and repeated at intervals. Hers has five statements, rated one to five by all six members. Each average is the statement's sum divided by six. Clear goal: 27, so 4.5. Comfortable disagreeing: 12, just 2.0. Fair share of work: 18, so 3. Fair decisions: 24, so 4. Reachable and heard: 21, so 3.5. All thirty ratings add to 102, an overall average of 3.4. It looks adequate, and that's the reason not to rely on it. Nobody rates disagreeing above three, so people don't feel free to disagree. Fair share ranges from two to four, so members see the workload very differently. Dana shares the results, starting from the lowest score, and asks for examples. Then the team picks one or two actions, each with an owner and a date. It runs the check again in a few weeks. Results never rank or discipline individuals. Anonymous answers stay anonymous, and one team's scores aren't a standard for another.

Quick Check

An Average of Three With Split Views

Quick check. Next month, a new statement gets six ratings: five, five, one, five, one, one. What's the average, and what should Dana conclude from it? Pause, and decide. An average of three point oh, with views split. The ratings sum to eighteen, and eighteen divided by six is three. But half the team strongly agrees, and half strongly disagrees. Nobody is actually neutral, so broad agreement is wrong, and three point five miscounts the sum. Read the spread, not just the average.

Case Resolved

Normal Storming With One Unfilled Role

Back to the arguing team from the start. Was it trouble, or a normal stage? Mostly a normal stage: storming, about the work, with everyone still producing. Inside it sat one real problem, an unfilled role, which looked like a quiet developer. Dana didn't judge by the calendar. She looked at behavior, asked before assuming, and chose an action to match what she saw.

Key Takeaways

Stages, Behavior and Leader Responses

To recap: a team's members have linked results, and the coordination pairs grow fast as it grows. Tuckman's stages, forming to adjourning, are a useful vocabulary, not a law every team obeys. Check skill, clarity, load, and information before calling low output loafing, and look for unfilled roles. Match the leader's action to what the team is observed to need, and read pulse checks by their spread.

About Project Management at UPI Study

Project Management (Business 230) is a self-paced online course of 73 video lessons in 12 chapters, from starting and defining a project to planning, budgets, scheduling tools, proposals, contracts, execution, monitoring, closure, teams and certification. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →

Why take it here

Why students take Project Management with UPI Study

How projects are planned, run and closedProject Management teaches how to deliver work on time and on budget: scope, schedules, the critical path, budgets and earned value, risk, contracts, monitoring and closing a project, and leading the team. It is a common course in business, management and engineering degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Project Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Stages of Team Development and Group Behavior

What are Tuckman's stages of team development?
Bruce Tuckman proposed in 1965 that small groups pass through forming, storming, norming and performing, and a fifth stage, adjourning, was added in 1977. Forming is polite and tentative, storming brings conflict into the open, norming settles shared ways of working, performing is effective and flexible, and adjourning wraps up the work. Real teams can skip, repeat or revisit stages.
What is the difference between team norms and team rules?
Norms are unwritten, shared expectations about how members ought to behave, enforced by teammates' approval or disapproval, while rules are explicit, usually written, and enforced by someone with authority. When a rule and a lived norm conflict, the norm often wins. Norms form from early behavior and the leader's conduct, so if the first person to report a delay is blamed, concealment can become the norm.
What is social loafing and how can a project manager reduce it?
Social loafing is putting in less effort in a group than alone, most likely when individual contributions are hard to see. Before assuming it, check for missing skills, unclear expectations, overload or blocked information. Design responses include naming an owner for each piece of work, cutting tasks into small finishable pieces, giving specific peer feedback and keeping the team no larger than the work needs.
Which leadership approach fits the storming stage of a team?
Coaching usually fits storming: explaining reasons, inviting views, building skill and helping people work through differences while still setting direction. Directing suits forming, facilitating suits norming and delegating suits performing. The action should follow observed behavior rather than the calendar, and a leader can set a limit, switching to directing if arguments turn personal or a time-boxed effort ends without agreement.

About the Project Management course

How many college credits is Project Management?
Project Management (Business 230) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Project Management cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 73 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Project Management take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 73 lessons total about 15 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Project Management.

73 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Project Management →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Project Management
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →