TEAM DEVELOPMENT THEORIES 4

The Theories AnalyzedAbstract

For a long time, organizations have recognized the importance of teams in the
realization of organizational goals and projects. In response, leadership and management
scholars have developed many theories and models of how teams develop and work. In this
paper, four of these theories and models are compared and examined, namely those
developed by Tuckman and Jensen, Kormanski and Mozenter, Bale, and Bennis and Shepard.
The first two assume team development to be a linear process and propose five differently
named but similar stages of team development. This assumption – of team development as a
linear process – constitutes their main weakness. The latter two models see team development
and function as cyclical rather than linear processes, and this constitutes their main strength
because, in reality, teams develop and work more in a cyclical and less in a linear manner.
That said, all four models represent useful and practical tools for leading and managing
teams.
Tuckman and Jensen’s Five-Stage Model of Team Development
Initially developed by the American psychological researcher Bruce Tuckman in
1965, this linear model of team development had four stages: forming, storming, norming,
and performing (Kriek, 2018; King, 1997). Later in 1977, Tuckman and Jensen added a fifth
stage to the model: adjourning. According to Tuckman, all these phases of team development
are necessary if a team is to grow, tackle challenges and problems, find solutions, plan its
work, and deliver results.
Forming is the first phase of team development, during which team members decide
to come together for an agreed purpose. They also try to understand one another’s behaviors
and expectations (Kriek, 2018). At this stage, each member is polite as they try to find out
how best to fit into the team. In the second stage, storming, members begin competing for
control, leadership, and status in the group. Having understood one another’s behavior,
members try to assert their roles in the group. As a result, inter-personal conflicts start to
emerge and necessitate members’ efforts to resolve the conflicts. In the third stage, norming,
the members begin moving in the same direction as they develop cooperative feelings. They
develop consensus and norms for the achievement of the team’s goal or goals. In the fourth
stage, performing, team members actually perform the tasks that need to be performed to
realize the team’s goals. In the final stage, adjourning, after the team has accomplished its
purpose, it is broken up.
Tuckman and Jensen’s theory is important because soon after its development, it
became the basis of many models that followed (Kriek, 2018). One such model that borrowed
from Tuckman and Jensen’s is Kormanski and Mozenter’s “Stages of Team Development,”
discussed in the following section.

TEAM DEVELOPMENT THEORIES 5
A major strength of Tuckman and Jensen’s theory is that it represents a fairly accurate
path that most high-performance teams actually follow (Kriek, 2018). Its main weakness is
that it conceptualizes team development as a linear process, assuming that one stage must be
completed for the next stage to ensue. In reality, many teams move back and forth between
the stages, depending on various events that may affect them. Also, the model assumes that
all teams go through all five stages. In practice, some teams stall in a given stage, never fully
realizing their potential. Despite these weaknesses, though, the model is a useful tool for team
leaders.
Kormanski and Mozenter’s Stages of Team Development
In 1987, Kormanski and Mozenter analyzed various theories of team development and
proposed the following stages of team development: awareness, conflict, cooperation,
productivity, and separation. It is worth noting that except for their different wording, these
stages are very similar to those suggested by Tuckman and Jensen. However, Kormanski and
Mozenter’s model differs from that of Tuckman and Jensen in the sense that in the former’s
model, each stage has two outcomes: a task outcome and a relationship outcome, as
illustrated in the comparison chart (King, 1997).
A summary of the five stages will suffice. In the awareness stage, team members get
to know and commit to one another as well as the goals of the team (Kriek, 2018). In the
second stage, conflict, members begin to ask questions as they seek to find their place in the
team. In the process, many inter-personal conflicts are bound to arise, necessitating
interactions aimed at resolving the conflicts. If the conflicts are successfully resolved, the
result is a sense of belonging to the group. In the third stage, cooperation, members get to
own and become involved in the team’s goals. In the fourth stage, productivity, members get
down to the work that needs to be done to achieve the team’s goals. In the final stage,

TEAM DEVELOPMENT THEORIES 6
separation, members decide to dissolve the team, having accomplished the goals they set out
to accomplish.
This theory is important because it integrates ideas from various theories of team
development to create a more complete and accurate picture of how teams actually develop
and work. This integration was possible because, of the four theories discussed in this paper,
Kormanski and Mozenter’s was the last to be developed (King, 1997). Thus, the two theorists
had the benefit of hindsight, unlike their predecessors.
A major strength of this model is that it gives team leaders a clearer and more explicit
picture of the outcomes they can expect or look out for at the end of each stage (King, 1997).
For example, at the end of the first stage, awareness, a team leader can expect commitment (a
task outcome) and acceptance (a relationship outcome). However, this model shares the same
weaknesses as Tuckman and Jensen’s: the assumptions that team development is a linear
process and that all teams must necessarily go through all the stages. Still, like Tuckman and
Jensen’s, this model provides a practical tool team leaders can use to assess the progress and
performance of their teams.
Bale’s Interaction Process Analysis (IPA)
Developed by Bales in 1950, the IPA model of team development distinguishes
between the socio-emotional and instrumental task functions of teams. As seen in the
preceding two theories, most teams are set up to accomplish specific purposes or goals by
performing several tasks. However, according to Bales, in the course of carrying out their
tasks, tensions build among team members and interfere with task performance (Kriek,
2018). These tensions must be discharged through socio-emotional activities if the team is to
continue functioning effectively. These socio-emotional functions include showing solidarity,
showing and releasing the tension, agreeing and disagreeing, and showing antagonism.

TEAM DEVELOPMENT THEORIES 7
Following the discharge of these tensions, the team is able to return to its task functions that
include giving and receiving suggestions, opinions, and orientation. This cycle – of
oscillating between socio-emotional and task activities – keeps repeating itself throughout the
life of the team. Thus, according to Bale’s team, development is cyclical rather than linear.
Bale’s theory is important because it brings out the fact that Tuckman and Jensen’s
and Kormanski and Mozenter’s models seem to miss: that team development and functioning
are cyclical rather than linear activities (Kriek, 2018). One stage need not be completed for
the next to proceed. Instead, a team can be in two stages simultaneously. Also, a team can
swing between stages as circumstances dictate. For example, there is nothing that stops a
team leader from solving interpersonal conflicts among some of their members, even as other
team members continue to discharge their tasks.
Thus, a major strength of Bale’s theory is that it is more realistic in terms of how
teams actually work. Its main weakness is that, unlike Kormanski and Mozenter’s model, it
does not explicitly tell a team leader what to expect out of a given phase, the phases being
task performance and tension discharge. Still, the theory represents a practical tool that team
leaders can resort to in managing their teams.
Bennis and Shepard’s Model of Team Development
Bennis and Shepard developed their theory of team development in 1956. Like Bale,
they too identified two main but slightly different stages of team development: dealing with
authority issues and dealing with intimacy and interdependence among team members (Kriek,
2018). Authority issues include being accepted as a group member, attempts to win the
leader’s approval and support, the splitting of the group into subgroups that compete with one
another to influence outcomes, and the resolution of conflicts to facilitate the attainment of
the group’s goals. Intimacy and interdependency issues arise when inter-personal tensions

TEAM DEVELOPMENT THEORIES 8
remain unresolved because the group is unable to communicate openly or build consensus.
They also arise from the reality of sub-groups within groups, as elaborated in the following
paragraph.
Bennis and Shepard’s theory is important because it captures a dynamic of groups that
the preceding three theories appear to miss: the phenomenon of sub-groups within the larger
group. Bennis and Shepard identified three types of possible sub-groups: “overpersonals,”
“counterpersonals” and a group that emerges to mediate and reconcile the first two subgroups
(Kriek, 2018). While “overpersonals” want inter-personal relationships within the group to be
personal and intimate, “counterpersonals” express discomfort at that degree of intimacy.
Thus, a major strength of Bennis and Shepard’s model is that it captures the dynamic of sub-
groups within groups. Also, the theorists caution that not all groups pass through all the
phases and sub-phases; unresolved tensions in early stages could kill a team pre-maturely.
Overall, this theory represents another practical tool that can help team leaders in managing
their teams.

TEAM DEVELOPMENT THEORIES 9

References

King, D. J. (1997). A structural approach to four theories of group development. Denton:
University of North Texas.
Kriek, D. (2018). Team Leadership: Theories, Tools, and Techniques. Johannesburg:
Knowledge Resources Pty Ltd.