Answer First
The stage that is not part of the standard team development process is winning. Commonly cited phases include forming, storming, norming, and performing (or collaborating in some models), sometimes followed by adjourning. Winning is an outcome or goal, not a developmental phase. Other activities such as budgeting, auditing, or isolated training events are also not stages of team development, though they may support the process. The core progression describes how teams build trust, resolve conflict, establish norms, and achieve sustained performance over time.
Typical Stages in Established Team Development Models
Most frameworks describe team development as a sequence of behavioral stages. These models are widely used for onboarding, leadership coaching, and organizational development. Understanding which steps are actually developmental helps managers support teams more effectively and avoid misdiagnosing normal dynamics as problems.
Forming
In the forming stage, team members come together, clarify roles, and learn the basics of how the team will work. Behaviors often include politeness, seeking direction, and testing boundaries. Goals here include reducing uncertainty, establishing initial trust, and understanding expectations. Leaders typically provide clear structure, context, and early guidance.
Storming
The storming phase involves conflict, debate over approaches, and negotiation of influence. Disagreements about processes, ideas, or responsibilities are common. Constructive conflict can improve solutions and commitment, while unmanaged conflict can damage trust. Teams that navigate storming effectively move toward stronger ownership and deeper collaboration.
Norming
During norming, the team agrees on shared standards, expectations, and routines. Collaboration improves as members align on how decisions are made, how feedback is given, and how work is distributed. Norms may be explicit agreements or emerging patterns that help the team operate efficiently.
Performing
In performing, the team coordinates smoothly to deliver outcomes. Members understand their roles, communicate clearly, and adapt as conditions change. Performance is steady, trust is established, and the team can focus on results and continuous improvement. Leaders often shift to a supportive role, enabling autonomy and growth.
Common Models and Variations
Several well-known models describe team or group development, each with slight naming differences but similar underlying logic. Some include a fifth stage for maintenance or adjourning, especially for project-based teams. Many approaches also emphasize that movement between stages is not always linear; teams can regress or iterate as circumstances change.
Quick Comparison of Common Stage Models
| Model | Stages | Primary Use |
|---|---|---|
| Tuckman (classic) | Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing | General team development |
| Tuckman with Adjourning | Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning | Project or temporary teams |
| Drexler/Sibbet | Orientation, Trust Building, Goal Clarification, Roles, Approach, Discussion, Commitment, Action, Review | Executive and cross-functional teams |
| BCG Team Diagnostic | Diagnosis and targeted improvement |
What Is Often Confused With Team Development Stages
People sometimes label isolated activities or outcomes as stages. For example, winning a contract, hitting a quarterly target, or launching a product can be milestones, but they are not phases of development. Similarly, one-off events like a workshop or reorganization may impact the team without representing a stage. Treating outcomes or events as stages can obscure the real work of building capability and trust.
Why Differentiating Matters for Teams
Misidentifying a stage can lead to mismatched expectations and ineffective interventions. A team in storming may need facilitation, not more goals. A team performing well still needs feedback and opportunities to evolve. Recognizing what is not a stage—such as winning—keeps the focus on the behaviors, norms, and conditions that actually enable sustained performance and resilience.
Practical Takeaways
- Use proven stage models to diagnose where the team currently is and what support it needs.
- Avoid labeling outcomes or one-off events as stages; they are milestones or enablers, not phases.
- Expect non-linear movement; teams can return to earlier stages after major changes.
- Match leadership and interventions to the current stage to be effective.
- Clarify goals, norms, and roles to help the team progress from forming to performing.
Common Questions
Teams and leaders often ask whether specific activities count as stages. In brief, budgeting, reorganizing, training in isolation, and winning are not stages of development. They may influence or be influenced by the process, but the core stages describe how people relate, communicate, and coordinate over time. Models vary, but the distinction between developmental phases and outcomes or events remains important for meaningful support.