Five Useful Models for Facilitators Expanded
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Kolb Learning Cycle
Johari Window
Ladder of Inference
Tuckman’s Model of Group Dynamics
Brunswick (to add)
Model 1: Kolb’s Learning Cycle (and Styles)
Kolb (1984) provides one of the most useful descriptive models of the adult learning process
available, inspired by the work of Kurt Lewin.
A way of using Kolb's learning styles is a cycle whereby we learn. This is different from Kolb's
styles which state that people have preferred static positions regarding these.
Experiencing
Experimenting
Reflecting
Theorizing
i. Experiencing
First of all, we have an experience. Most experiences are not worth further movement on the
cycle as we are already familiar with them and they need no further interpretation and hence no
need for learning.
ii. Reflecting
Having experienced something which does not fit well into our current system of
understanding, we then have to stop and think harder about what it really means. This
reflection is typically a series of attempts to fit the experience to memories and our internal
models (or schemata).
iii. Theorizing
1
When we find that we cannot fit what we have experienced into any of our memories or
internal models, then we have to build new models. This theorizing gives us a possible answer
to our puzzling experiences.
iv. Experimenting
After building a theoretical model, the next step is to prove it in practice, either in 'real time' or
by deliberate experimentation in some safe arena. If the model does not work, then we go
through the loop again, reflecting on what happened and either adjusting the model or building
a new one.
So what?
So help people learn by giving them experiences, helping them reflect and build internal models,
and then giving them the means of trying out those models to see if they work in practice.
Taken from: http://changingminds.org/explanations/learning/learning_cycle.htm
Original source: Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
David Kolb has defined one of the most commonly used models of learning. As in the diagram
below, it is based on two preference dimensions, giving four different styles of learning.
Two Preference dimensions
Concrete
Experience
ACCOMODATORS
DIVERGERS
^
Perception
|
Active
Experimentation
<------
-- Processing --------
------>
Reflective
Observation
|
|
V
CONVERGERS
Abstract
conceptualizatio
n
ASSIMILATORS
2
A. Perception dimension
In the vertical Perception dimension, people will have a preference along the continuum
between:
•
•
Concrete experience: Looking at things as they are, without any change, in raw detail.
Abstract conceptualization: Looking at things as concepts and ideas, after a degree of
processing that turns the raw detail into an internal model.
People who prefer concrete experience will argue that thinking about something changes it,
and that direct empirical data is essential. Those who prefer abstraction will argue that meaning
is created only after internal processing and that idealism is a more real approach.
This spectrum is very similar to the Jungian scale of Sensing vs. Intuiting.
B. Processing dimension
In the horizontal Processing dimension, people will take the results of their Perception and
process it in preferred ways along the continuum between:
•
Active experimentation: Taking what they have concluded and trying it out to prove that it
works.
• Reflective observation: Taking what they have concluded and watching to see if it works.
Four learning styles
The experimenter, like the concrete experiencer, takes a hands-on route to see if their ideas will
work, whilst the reflective observers prefer to watch and think to work things out.
1. Divergers (Concrete experiencer/Reflective observer)
¾ Divergers take experiences and think deeply about them, thus diverging from a single
experience to multiple possibilities in terms of what this might mean.
¾ They like to ask 'why', and will start from detail to constructively work up to the big
picture.
¾ They enjoy participating and working with others but they like a calm ship and fret
over conflicts.
¾ They are generally influenced by other people and like to receive constructive
feedback.
¾ They like to learn via logical instruction or hands-one exploration with conversations
that lead to discovery.
2. Convergers (Abstract conceptualization/Active experimenter)
¾ Convergers think about things and then try out their ideas to see if they work in
practice.
¾ They like to ask 'how' about a situation, understanding how things work in practice.
¾ They like facts and will seek to make things efficient by making small and careful
changes.
¾ They prefer to work by themselves, thinking carefully and acting independently.
¾ They learn through interaction and computer-based learning is more effective with
them than other methods.
3
3. Accomodators (Concrete experiencer/Active experimenter)
¾ Accommodators have the most hands-on approach, with a strong preference for doing
rather than thinking.
¾ They like to ask 'what if?' and 'why not?' to support their action-first approach.
¾ They do not like routine and will take creative risks to see what happens.
¾ They like to explore complexity by direct interaction and learn better by themselves
than with other people.
¾ As might be expected, they like hands-on and practical learning rather than lectures.
4. Assimilators (Abstract conceptualizer/Reflective observer)
¾ Assimilators have the most cognitive approach, preferring to think than to act.
¾ They ask 'What is there I can know?' and like organized and structured understanding.
¾ They prefer lectures for learning, with demonstrations where possible, and will respect
the knowledge of experts. They will also learn through conversation that takes a logical
and thoughtful approach.
¾ They often have a strong control need and prefer the clean and simple predictability of
internal models to external messiness.
¾ The best way to teach an assimilator is with lectures that start from high-level concepts
and work down to the detail. Give them reading material, especially academic stuff and
they'll gobble it down. Do not teach through play with them as they like to stay
serious.
So what?
So design learning for the people you are working with. If you cannot customize the design for
specific people, use varied styles of delivery to help everyone learn. It can also be useful to
describe this model to people, both to help them understand how they learn and also so they
can appreciate that some of your delivery will for others more than them (and vice versa).
http://changingminds.org/explanations/learning/kolb_learning.htm
David Kolb’s own website: http://www.learningfromexperience.com/
(David Kolb, Professor of Organizational Development, Case Western Reserve, Cleveland, Ohio,
USA)
More on this: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm
4
Model 2: Johari Window
The Johari Window model is a simple and useful tool for illustrating and improving selfawareness, and mutual understanding between individuals within a group. The Johari Window
tool can also be used to assess and improve a group's relationship with other groups. The Johari
Window model was developed by American psychologists Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham in the
1950's, while researching group dynamics. Today the Johari Window model is especially relevant
due to modern emphasis on, and influence of, 'soft' skills, behaviour, empathy, cooperation,
inter-group development and interpersonal development.
Over the years, alternative Johari Window terminology has been developed and adapted by other
people - particularly leading to different descriptions of the four regions, hence the use of
different terms in this explanation. Don't let it all confuse you - the Johari Window model is
really very simple indeed.
Interestingly, Luft and Ingham called their Johari Window model 'Johari' after combining their
first names, Joe and Harry. In early publications the word actually appears as 'JoHari'. The Johari
Window soon became a widely used model for understanding and training self-awareness,
personal development, improving communications, interpersonal relationships, group dynamics,
team development and inter-group relationships.
The Johari Window model is also referred to as a 'disclosure/feedback model of self awareness',
and by some people an 'information processing tool'. The Johari Window actually represents
information - feelings, experience, views, attitudes, skills, intentions, motivation, etc - within or
about a person - in relation to their group, from four perspectives, which are described below.
The Johari Window model can also be used to represent the same information for a group in
relation to other groups. Johari Window terminology refers to 'self' and 'others': 'self' means
oneself, ie, the person subject to the Johari Window analysis. 'Others' means other people in the
person's group or team.
The four Johari Window perspectives are called 'regions' or 'areas' or 'quadrants'. Each of these
regions contains and represents the information - feelings, motivation, etc - known about the
person, in terms of whether the information is known or unknown by the person, and whether
the information is known or unknown by others in the group.
The Johari Window's four regions, (areas, quadrants, or perspectives) are as follows, showing the
quadrant numbers and commonly used names:
1. what is known by the person about him/herself and is also known by others - open
area, open self, free area, free self, or 'the arena'
2. what is unknown by the person about him/herself but which others know - blind area,
blind self, or 'blindspot'
3. what the person knows about him/herself that others do not know - hidden area,
hidden self, avoided area, avoided self or 'facade'
4. what is unknown by the person about him/herself and is also unknown by others unknown area or unknown self
Like some other behavioural models (eg, Tuckman, Hersey/Blanchard), the Johari Window is
based on a four-square grid - the Johari Window is like a window with four 'panes'. Here's how
the Johari Window is normally shown, with its four regions.
5
This is the standard representation of
the Johari Window model, showing
each quadrant the same size.
The Johari Window 'panes' can be
changed in size to reflect the relevant
proportions of each type of
'knowledge' of/about a particular
person in a given group or team
situation.
In new groups or teams the open free
space for any team member is small
(see the Johari Window new team
member example below) because
shared awareness is relatively small.
As the team member becomes better
established and known, so the size of
the team member's open free area
quadrant increases. See the Johari
Window established team member
example below.
Johari Window Model - Explanation of the Four Regions
Refer to the free detailed Johari Window model diagram in the free resources section - print a
copy and it will help you to understand what follows.
Johari quadrant 1 - 'open self/area' or 'free area' or 'public area', or 'arena'
Johari region 1 is also known as the 'area of free activity'. This is the information about the
person - behaviour, attitude, feelings, emotion, knowledge, experience, skills, views, etc - known
by the person ('the self') and known by the group ('others').
The aim in any group should always be to develop the 'open area' for every person,
because when we work in this area with others we are at our most effective and
productive, and the group is at its most productive too. The open free area, or 'the
arena', can be seen as the space where good communications and cooperation occur,
free from distractions, mistrust, confusion, conflict and misunderstanding.
Established team members logically tend to have larger open areas than new team members.
New team members start with relatively small open areas because relatively little knowledge
about the new team member is shared. The size of the open area can be expanded horizontally
into the blind space, by seeking and actively listening to feedback from other group members.
This process is known as 'feedback solicitation'. Also, other group members can help a team
member expand their open area by offering feedback, sensitively of course. The size of the open
area can also be expanded vertically downwards into the hidden or avoided space by the person's
disclosure of information, feelings, etc about him/herself to the group and group members.
Also, group members can help a person expand their open area into the hidden area by asking
the person about him/herself.
6
Managers and team leaders can play an important role in facilitating feedback and disclosure
among group members, and in directly giving feedback to individuals about their own blind
areas. Leaders also have a big responsibility to promote a culture and expectation for open,
honest, positive, helpful, constructive, sensitive communications, and the sharing of knowledge
throughout their organization. Top performing groups, departments, companies and
organizations always tend to have a culture of open positive communication, so encouraging the
positive development of the 'open area' or 'open self' for everyone is a simple yet fundamental
aspect of effective leadership.
Johari quadrant 2 - 'blind self' or 'blind area' or 'blindspot'
Johari region 2 is what is known about a person by others in the group, but is unknown by the
person him/herself. By seeking or soliciting feedback from others, the aim should be to reduce
this area and thereby to increase the open area (see the Johari Window diagram below), ie, to
increase self-awareness. This blind area is not an effective or productive space for individuals or
groups. This blind area could also be referred to as ignorance about oneself, or issues in which
one is deluded. A blind area could also include issues that others are deliberately withholding
from a person. We all know how difficult it is to work well when kept in the dark. No-one works
well when subject to 'mushroom management'. People who are 'thick-skinned' tend to have a
large 'blind area'.
Group members and managers can take some responsibility for helping an individual to reduce
their blind area - in turn increasing the open area - by giving sensitive feedback and encouraging
disclosure. Managers should promote a climate of non-judgemental feedback, and group
response to individual disclosure, which reduces fear and therefore encourages both processes to
happen. The extent to which an individual seeks feedback, and the issues on which feedback is
sought, must always be at the individual's own discretion. Some people are more resilient than
others - care needs to be taken to avoid causing emotional upset. The process of soliciting
serious and deep feedback relates to the process of 'self-actualization' described in Maslow's
Hierarchy of Needs development and motivation model.
Johari quadrant 3 - 'hidden self' or 'hidden area' or 'avoided self/area' or
'facade'
Johari region 3 is what is known to ourselves but kept hidden from, and therefore unknown, to
others. This hidden or avoided self represents information, feelings, etc, anything that a person
knows about him/self, but which is not revealed or is kept hidden from others. The hidden area
could also include sensitivities, fears, hidden agendas, manipulative intentions, secrets - anything
that a person knows but does not reveal, for whatever reason. It's natural for very personal and
private information and feelings to remain hidden, indeed, certain information, feelings and
experiences have no bearing on work, and so can and should remain hidden. However, typically,
a lot of hidden information is not very personal, it is work- or performance-related, and so is
better positioned in the open area.
Relevant hidden information and feelings, etc, should be moved into the open area through the
process of 'disclosure'. The aim should be to disclose and expose relevant information and
feelings - hence the Johari Window terminology 'self-disclosure' and 'exposure process', thereby
increasing the open area. By telling others how we feel and other information about ourselves
we reduce the hidden area, and increase the open area, which enables better understanding,
cooperation, trust, team-working effectiveness and productivity. Reducing hidden areas also
reduces the potential for confusion, misunderstanding, poor communication, etc, which all
distract from and undermine team effectiveness.
7
Organizational culture and working atmosphere have a major influence on group members'
preparedness to disclose their hidden selves. Most people fear judgement or vulnerability and
therefore hold back hidden information and feelings, etc, that if moved into the open area, ie
known by the group as well, would enhance mutual understanding, and thereby improve group
awareness, enabling better individual performance and group effectiveness.
The extent to which an individual discloses personal feelings and information, and the issues
which are disclosed, and to whom, must always be at the individual's own discretion. Some
people are more keen and able than others to disclose. People should disclose at a pace and
depth that they find personally comfortable. As with feedback, some people are more resilient
than others - care needs to be taken to avoid causing emotional upset. Also as with soliciting
feedback, the process of serious disclosure relates to the process of 'self-actualization' described
in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs development and motivation model.
Johari quadrant 4 - 'unknown self' or 'area of unknown activity' or
'unknown area'
Johari region 4 contains information, feelings, latent abilities, aptitudes, experiences etc, that are
unknown to the person him/herself and unknown to others in the group. These unknown
issues take a variety of forms: they can be feelings, behaviours, attitudes, capabilities, aptitudes,
which can be quite close to the surface, and which can be positive and useful, or they can be
deeper aspects of a person's personality, influencing his/her behaviour to various degrees. Large
unknown areas would typically be expected in younger people, and people who lack experience
or self-belief.
Examples of unknown factors are as follows, and the first example is particularly relevant and
common, especially in typical organizations and teams:
•
•
•
•
•
•
an ability that is under-estimated or un-tried through lack of opportunity,
encouragement, confidence or training
a natural ability or aptitude that a person doesn't realise they possess
a fear or aversion that a person does not know they have
an unknown illness
repressed or subconscious feelings
conditioned behaviour or attitudes from childhood
The processes by which this information and knowledge can be uncovered are various, and can
be prompted through self-discovery or observation by others, or in certain situations through
collective or mutual discovery, of the sort of discovery experienced on outward bound courses
or other deep or intensive group work. Counselling can also uncover unknown issues, but this
would then be known to the person and by one other, rather than by a group.
Whether unknown 'discovered' knowledge moves into the hidden, blind or open area depends
on who discovers it and what they do with the knowledge, notably whether it is then given as
feedback, or disclosed. As with the processes of soliciting feedback and disclosure, striving to
discover information and feelings in the unknown is relates to the process of 'self-actualization'
described in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs development and motivation model.
Again as with disclosure and soliciting feedback, the process of self discovery is a sensitive one.
The extent and depth to which an individual is able to seek out discover their unknown feelings
must always be at the individual's own discretion. Some people are more keen and able than
others to do this.
8
Uncovering 'hidden talents' - that is unknown aptitudes and skills, not to be confused with
developing the Johari 'hidden area' - is another aspect of developing the unknown area, and is
not so sensitive as unknown feelings. Providing people with the opportunity to try new things,
with no great pressure to succeed, is often a useful way to discover unknown abilities, and
thereby reduce the unknown area.
Managers and leaders can help by creating an environment that encourages self-discovery, and to
promote the processes of self discovery, constructive observation and feedback among team
members. It is a widely accepted industrial fact that the majority of staff in any organization are
at any time working well within their potential. Creating a culture, climate and expectation for
self-discovery helps people to fulfil more of their potential and thereby to achieve more, and to
contribute more to organizational performance.
A note of caution about Johari region 4: The unknown area could also include repressed or
subconscious feelings rooted in formative events and traumatic past experiences, which can stay
unknown for a lifetime. In a work or organizational context the Johari Window should not be
used to address issues of a clinical nature. Useful references are Arthur Janov's seminal book
The Primal Scream (read about the book here), and Transactional Analysis.
© alan chapman adaptation, review and code 1995-2006, based on ingham and luft's original
johari window concept.
http://www.businessballs.com/johariwindowmodel.htm
Interactive johari’s window - http://kevan.org/johari
9
Model 3: The Ladder of Inference
We are so skilled at thinking that we jump up the ladder without knowing it:
•
•
•
•
We tacitly register some data and ignore other data.
We impose our own interpretations on these data and draw conclusions from them.
We lose sight of how we do this because we do not think about our thinking.
Hence, our conclusions feel so obvious to us that we see no need to retrace the steps we
took from the data we selected to the conclusions we reached.
The contexts we are in, our assumptions, and our values channel how we jump up the
ladder:
•
•
Our models of how the world works and our repertoire of actions influence the data we
select, the interpretations we make, and the conclusions we draw.
Our conclusions lead us to act in ways that produce results that feed back to reinforce
(usually) our contexts and assumptions.
Our skill at reasoning is both essential and gets us in trouble:
•
If we thought about each inference we made, life would pass us by.
10
•
•
•
But people can and do reach different conclusions. When they view their conclusions as
obvious, no one sees a need to say how they reached them.
When people disagree, they often hurl conclusions at each other from the tops of their
respective ladders.
This makes it hard to resolve differences and to learn from one another.
http://www.actiondesign.com/resources/concepts/ladder_intro.htm
The Ladder of Inference
Excerpt from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Copyright 1994 by Peter M. Senge, Art Kleiner,
Charlotte Roberts, Richard B. Ross, and Bryan J. Smith. Reprinted with permission.
We live in a world of self-generating beliefs which remain largely untested. We adopt those
beliefs because they are based on conclusions, which are inferred from what we observe, plus
our past experience. Our ability to achieve the results we truly desire is eroded by our feelings
that:
•
•
•
•
Our beliefs are the truth.
The truth is obvious.
Our beliefs are based on real data.
The data we select are the real data.
For example: I am standing before the executive team, making a presentation. They all seem
engaged and alert, except for Larry, at the end of the table, who seems bored out of his mind.
He turns his dark, morose eyes away from me and puts his hand to his mouth. He doesn't ask
any questions until I'm almost done, when he breaks in: "I think we should ask for a full report."
In this culture, that typically means, "Let's move on." Everyone starts to shuffle their papers and
put their notes away. Larry obviously thinks that I'm incompetent -- which is a shame, because
these ideas are exactly what his department needs. Now that I think of it, he's never liked my
ideas. Clearly, Larry is a power-hungry jerk. By the time I've returned to my seat, I've made a
decision: I'm not going to include anything in my report that Larry can use. He wouldn't read it,
or, worse still, he'd just use it against me. It's too bad I have an enemy who's so prominent in the
company.
In those few seconds before I take my seat, I have climbed up what Chris Argyris calls a "ladder
of inference," -- a common mental pathway of increasing abstraction, often leading to misguided
beliefs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
I started with the observable data: Larry's comment, which is so self- evident that it
would show up on a videotape recorder . . .
. . . I selected some details about Larry's behavior: his glance away from me and apparent
yawn. (I didn't notice him listening intently one moment before) . . .
. . . I added some meanings of my own, based on the culture around me (that Larry
wanted me to finish up) . . .
. . . I moved rapidly up to assumptions about Larry's current state (he's bored) . . .
. . . and I concluded that Larry, in general, thinks I'm incompetent. In fact, I now believe
that Larry (and probably everyone whom I associate with Larry) is dangerously opposed
to me . . .
. . . thus, as I reach the top of the ladder, I'm plotting against him.
It all seems so reasonable, and it happens so quickly, that I'm not even aware I've done it.
Moreover, all the rungs of the ladder take place in my head. The only parts visible to anyone else
are the directly observable data at the bottom, and my own decision to take action at the top.
The rest of the trip, the ladder where I spend most of my time, is unseen, unquestioned, not
11
considered fit for discussion, and enormously abstract. (These leaps up the ladder are sometimes
called "leaps of abstraction.")
I've probably leaped up that ladder of inference many times before. The more I believe that
Larry is an evil guy, the more I reinforce my tendency to notice his malevolent behavior in the
future. This phenomenon is known as the "reflexive loop": our beliefs influence what data we
select next time. And there is a counterpart reflexive loop in Larry's mind: as he reacts to my
strangely antagonistic behavior, he's probably jumping up some rungs on his own ladder. For no
apparent reason, before too long, we could find ourselves becoming bitter enemies.
Larry might indeed have been bored by my presentation -- or he might have been eager to read
the report on paper. He might think I'm incompetent, he might be shy, or he might be afraid to
embarrass me. More likely than not, he has inferred that I think he's incompetent. We can't
know, until we find a way to check our conclusions.
Unfortunately, assumptions and conclusions are particularly difficult to test. For instance,
suppose I wanted to find out if Larry really thought I was incompetent. I would have to pull him
aside and ask him, "Larry, do you think I'm an idiot?" Even if I could find a way to phrase the
question, how could I believe the answer? Would I answer him honestly? No, I'd tell him I
thought he was a terrific colleague, while privately thinking worse of him for asking me.
Now imagine me, Larry, and three others in a senior management team, with our untested
assumptions and beliefs. When we meet to deal with a concrete problem, the air is filled with
misunderstandings, communication breakdowns, and feeble compromises. Thus, while our
individual IQs average 140, our team has a collective IQ of 85.
The ladder of inference explains why most people don't usually remember where their deepest
attitudes came from. The data is long since lost to memory, after years of inferential leaps.
Sometimes I find myself arguing that "The Republicans are so-and-so," and someone asks me
why I believe that. My immediate, intuitive answer is, "I don't know. But I've believed it for
years." In the meantime, other people are saying, "The Democrats are so-and-so," and they can't
tell you why, either. Instead, they may dredge up an old platitude which once was an assumption.
Before long, we come to think of our longstanding assumptions as data ("Well, I know the
Republicans are such-and-such because they're so-and-so"), but we're several steps removed
from the data.
Using the Ladder of Inference
You can't live your life without adding meaning or drawing conclusions. It would be an
inefficient, tedious way to live. But you can improve your communications through reflection,
and by using the ladder of inference in three ways:
•
•
•
Becoming more aware of your own thinking and reasoning (reflection);
Making your thinking and reasoning more visible to others (advocacy);
Inquiring into others' thinking and reasoning (inquiry).
Once Larry and I understand the concepts behind the "ladder of inference," we have a safe way
to stop a conversation in its tracks and ask several questions:
•
•
•
•
What is the observable data behind that statement?
Does everyone agree on what the data is?
Can you run me through your reasoning?
How did we get from that data to these abstract assumptions?
12
•
When you said "[your inference]," did you mean "[my interpretation of it]"?
I can ask for data in an open-ended way: "Larry, what was your reaction to this presentation?" I
can test my assumptions: "Larry, are you bored?" Or I can simply test the observable data:
"You've been quiet, Larry." To which he might reply: "Yeah, I'm taking notes; I love this stuff."
Note that I don't say, "Larry, I think you've moved way up the ladder of inference. Here's what
you need to do to get down." The point of this method is not to nail Larry (or even to diagnose
Larry), but to make our thinking processes visible, to see what the differences are in our
perceptions and what we have in common. (You might say, "I notice I'm moving up the ladder
of inference, and maybe we all are. What's the data here?")
This type of conversation is not easy. For example, as Chris Argyris cautions people, when a fact
seems especially self-evident, be careful. If your manner suggests that it must be equally selfevident to everyone else, you may cut off the chance to test it. A fact, no matter how obvious it
seems, isn't really substantiated until it's verified independently -- by more than one person's
observation, or by a technological record (a tape recording or photograph).
Embedded into team practice, the ladder becomes a very healthy tool. There's something
exhilarating about showing other people the links of your reasoning. They may or may not agree
with you, but they can see how you got there. And you're often surprised yourself to see how
you got there, once you trace out the links.
http://www.solonline.org/pra//tool/ladder.html
13
Model 4: Tuckmans’ Model of Group
Dynamics
Forming - Storming - Norming - Performing
This model was first developed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. It is one of the best known team
development theories and has formed the basis of many further ideas since its conception.
Tuckman's theory focuses on the way in which a team tackles a task from the initial formation of
the team through to the completion of the project. Tuckman later added a fifth phase;
Adjourning and Transforming to cover the finishing of a task. Tuckman's theory is particularly
relevant to team building challenges as the phases are relevant to the completion of any task
undertaken by a team.
One of the very useful aspects of team building challenges contained within a short period of
time is that teams have an opportunity to observe their behaviour within a measurable time
frame. Often teams are involved in projects at work lasting for months or years and it can be
difficult to understand experiences in the context of a completed task.
Forming
•
The team is assembled and the task is allocated.
•
Team members tend to behave independently and although goodwill may exist they do
not know each other well enough to unconditionally trust one another.
•
Time is spent planning, collecting information and bonding.
Storming
•
The team starts to address the task suggesting ideas.
•
Different ideas may compete for ascendancy and if badly managed this phase can be
very destructive for the team.
•
Relationships between team members will be made or broken in this phase and some
may never recover.
•
In extreme cases the team can become stuck in the Storming phase.
•
If a team is too focused on consensus they may decide on a plan which is less effective
in completing the task for the sake of the team.
•
This carries its own set of problems. It is essential that a team has strong facilitative
leadership in this phase.
Norming
•
As the team moves out of the Storming phase they will enter the Norming phase.
•
This tends to be a move towards harmonious working practices with teams agreeing on
the rules and values by which they operate.
•
In the ideal situation teams begin to trust themselves during this phase as they accept
the vital contribution of each member to the team.
•
Team leaders can take a step back from the team at this stage as individual members
take greater responsibility.
14
•
The risk during the Norming stage is that the team becomes complacent and loses
either their creative edge or the drive that brought them to this phase.
Performing
•
Not all teams make it to the Performing phase, which is essentially an era of high
performance.
•
Performing teams are identified by high levels if independence, motivation, knowledge
and competence.
•
Decision making is collaborative and dissent is expected and encouraged as there will be
a high level of respect in the communication between team members.
Adjourning & Transforming
•
This is the final phase added by Tuckman to cover the end of the project and the break
up of the team.
•
Some call this phase Mourning, although this is a rather depressing way of looking at the
situation.
•
More enlightened managers have called Progressive Resources in to organise a
celebratory event at the end of a project and members of such a team will undoubtedly
leave the project with fond memories of their experience.
•
It should be noted that a team can return to any phase within the model if they
experience a change, for example a review of their project or goals or a change in
members of a team.
•
In a successful team when a member leaves or a new member joins the team will revert
to the Forming stage, but it may last for a very short time as the new team member is
brought into the fold
http://www.teambuilding.co.uk/Forming_Storming_Norming_Performing.html
(Note: Similar description but with more focus on leader’s role)
Bruce Tuckman's 1965 Forming Storming Norming Performing teamdevelopment model
Dr Bruce Tuckman published his Forming Storming Norming Performing model in 1965. He
added a fifth stage, Adjourning, in the 1970's. The Forming Storming Norming Performing
theory is an elegant and helpful explanation of team development and behaviour. Similarities can
be seen with other models, such as Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum and especially with
Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership® model, developed about the same time.
Tuckman's model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish,
and the leader changes leadership style. Beginning with a directing style, moving through
coaching, then participating, finishing delegating and almost detached. At this point the team
may produce a successor leader and the previous leader can move on to develop a new team.
This progression of team behaviour and leadership style can be seen clearly in the Tannenbaum
and Schmidt Continuum - the authority and freedom extended by the leader to the team
increases while the control of the leader reduces. In Tuckman's Forming Storming Norming
Performing model, Hersey's and Blanchard's Situational Leadership® model and in
Tannenbaum and Schmidt's Continuum, we see the same effect, represented in three ways.
15
The progression is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Features of each phase:
Forming - stage 1
High dependence on leader for guidance and direction. Little agreement on team aims other
than received from leader. Individual roles and responsibilities are unclear. Leader must be
prepared to answer lots of questions about the team's purpose, objectives and external
relationships. Processes are often ignored. Members test tolerance of system and leader. Leader
directs (similar to Situational Leadership® 'Telling' mode).
Storming - stage 2
Decisions don't come easily within group. Team members vie for position as they attempt to
establish themselves in relation to other team members and the leader, who might receive
challenges from team members. Clarity of purpose increases but plenty of uncertainties persist.
Cliques and factions form and there may be power struggles. The team needs to be focused on
its goals to avoid becoming distracted by relationships and emotional issues. Compromises may
be required to enable progress. Leader coaches (similar to Situational Leadership® 'Selling'
mode).
Norming - stage 3
Agreement and consensus is largely forms among team, who respond well to facilitation by
leader. Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted. Big decisions are made by group
agreement. Smaller decisions may be delegated to individuals or small teams within group.
Commitment and unity is strong. The team may engage in fun and social activities. The team
discusses and develops its processes and working style. There is general respect for the leader
and some of leadership is more shared by the team. Leader facilitates and enables (similar to the
Situational Leadership® 'Participating' mode).
Performing - stage 4
The team is more strategically aware; the team knows clearly why it is doing what it is doing. The
team has a shared vision and is able to stand on its own feet with no interference or participation
from the leader. There is a focus on over-achieving goals, and the team makes most of the
decisions against criteria agreed with the leader. The team has a high degree of autonomy.
Disagreements occur but now they are resolved within the team positively and necessary
changes to processes and structure are made by the team. The team is able to work towards
achieving the goal, and also to attend to relationship, style and process issues along the way.
team members look after each other. The team requires delegated tasks and projects from the
leader. The team does not need to be instructed or assisted. Team members might ask for
assistance from the leader with personal and interpersonal development. Leader delegates and
oversees (similar to the Situational Leadership® 'Delegating' mode).
16
Tuckman's fifth stage - Adjourning
Bruce Tuckman refined his theory around 1975 and added a fifth stage to the Forming,
Storming, Norming, Performing model - he called it Adjourning, which is also referred to as
Deforming and Mourning. Adjourning is arguably more of an adjunct to the original four stage
model rather than an extension - it views the group from a perspective beyond the purpose of
the first four stages. The Adjourning phase is certainly very relevant to the people in the group
and their well-being, but not to the main task of managing and developing a team, which is
clearly central to the original four stages.
Adjourning - stage 5
Tuckman's fifth stage, Adjourning, is the break-up of the group, hopefully when the task is
completed successfully, its purpose fulfilled; everyone can move on to new things, feeling good
about what's been achieved. From an organizational perspective, recognition of and sensitivity to
people's vulnerabilities in Tuckman's fifth stage is helpful, particularly if members of the group
have been closely bonded and feel a sense of insecurity or threat from this change. Feelings of
insecurity would be natural for people with high 'steadiness' attributes (as regards the 'four
temperaments' or DISC model) and with strong routine and empathy style (as regards the
Benziger thinking styles model, right and left basal brain dominance
17
http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm
18