Bruce Tuckman (1965) remains the most cited originator of stage-based team development. His Forming–Storming–Norming–Performing model (later expanded with Adjourning, 1977) assumes a linear, sequential progression of team development. It provides a clear, intuitive framework but has been critiqued for its prescriptive nature, which may oversimplify the often non-linear, iterative nature of real-world team development.

Critique: Tuckman’s model lacks empirical rigor and assumes all teams move through stages uniformly—something later theorists would challenge.

Susan Wheelan’s Integrated Model of Group Development (IMGD) builds on Tuckman but grounds each stage in observable behavior and leadership transitions, enhancing practical relevance. Wheelan’s stages (Dependency, Counter-dependency, Trust, Productivity, and Termination) are supported by decades of research and offer a more evidence-based refinement of the stage model.

Michael T. Tubb’s (1995) model similarly proposes a linear four-phase process (Orientation, Conflict, Consensus, Closure), largely overlapping with Tuckman but with a communication studies lens. Its contribution lies in connecting communication dynamics with developmental phases.

Connie Gersick (1988, 1991) provided a critical departure with her Punctuated Equilibrium Model. Rather than progressing linearly, teams exhibit long periods of inertia punctuated by bursts of activity—often at the temporal midpoint.

Strength: Gersick’s model reflects the realities of many task-focused, deadline-driven teams and accounts for external influences and time pressure. Limitation: It is most applicable to short-term, project-based teams rather than long-term organizational units.

Meredith Belbin (1981) shifted focus from stages to team roles. His model of nine team roles (e.g., Shaper, Plant, Monitor-Evaluator) emphasizes individual personality traits and their influence on team balance. While widely used in team-building workshops, Belbin’s model faces criticism for lacking psychometric robustness and underplaying situational and systemic influences.

McGrath’s (1991) Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) Theory adds another layer by identifying four team functions — inception, conflict resolution, problem-solving, execution — that teams cycle through repeatedly, not sequentially. This cyclical, task-centered model offers a more flexible, functional view than stage-based approaches.

Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002) represents a turn toward diagnosing failure modes rather than mapping ideal development. His pyramid model highlights trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, and results. Though popular in leadership training, it is based more on anecdotal evidence than systematic research, and its model doesn’t match the lived experience of working in teams.

Ralph Stacey’s Complexity Theory (1996+) takes the most radical stance by rejecting prescriptive models altogether. Stacey argues that teams operate in complex adaptive systems, where unpredictability, non-linearity, and self-organization define behavior.

Insight: Stacey’s work is foundational in understanding team dynamics in turbulent, uncertain environments, such as agile or innovation-driven teams. Challenge: Its abstract nature makes practical application difficult without strong facilitation or systems thinking capability.

Stacey’s work has informed more recent complexity-informed contributions such as Snowden’s Cynefin and Arrow’s Small Groups as Complex Systems.

The history of team dynamics models reflects a shift from structure to complexity. Early models like Tuckman’s provided accessible foundations, while theorists like Gersick and Stacey introduced a more nuanced, real-world complexity. By contrast, functional and role based approaches presume the team is a sum of its constituents, and so doesn’t treat the team as the unit of analysis. Dysfunction oriented tools are too narrow in scope and suffer from detachment.

While no single model fully captures the dynamic nature of team behavior, integrating developmental stages (Tuckman, Wheelan) and systemic unpredictability (Stacey) offers a more complete toolkit for analyzing and supporting team effectiveness.

Our combined 40+ years of field research and practical experience in working with teams, and more than 10 years of academic research into the complex dynamics of teams resulted in a PhD in complex team dynamics. From this PhD (Maxwell, 2022) Shivoo was born. Shivoo is grounded in the complex teams work of Stacey, Snowden (Cynefin) and Arrow, and in the development and deliberate practice work of K. Anders Ericsson. It is a tool that outlines the six practices teams need to continually work at in order to develop and improve, no matter their context or level.

As such, the Shivoo model and the research behind it underpins other team dynamics models and approaches, providing a foundation on which to build your team development and performance.

Maxwell, C., 2022. It’s Just not That Simple a Complex Adaptive Systems Approach to Understanding Changing Dynamics in Leadership Teams. University of Technology Sydney (Australia).