Bruce Tuckman’s five-stage model has been a staple of organisational life since the 1960s. Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning offered leaders a reassuring map of how teams were expected to develop. It captured something true for its time: teams were often stable, co located, and given clear, bounded tasks. They typically did pass through phases of orientation, conflict and consolidation before reaching performance. The model became popular not only because of its descriptive accuracy, but because it gave leaders the illusion of control. If teams moved through these stages, leaders could believe that progress was unfolding as it should.

But the organisational context that gave rise to Tuckman’s model has changed. Work today is more dynamic, more distributed, and more interdependent than the world of the 1960s. Many teams do not stay together long enough to move linearly through five tidy stages. People rotate in and out. The work evolves while the team is doing it. Authority is more shared, culture more diverse, communication more hybrid, and expectations more fluid. Modern teams often experience multiple overlapping cycles of clarity, confusion, conflict, learning and reinvention, none of which map neatly onto the original sequence.

Moreover, Tuckman’s model is silent on essential conditions that modern research has brought to the forefront: psychological safety, inclusion, identity, belonging, distributed leadership and continuous learning. These are no longer peripheral concerns; they are central to whether teams can think well together. The presumption that teams “storm” early and then settle is contradicted by experience: teams encounter tensions whenever context shifts, membership changes or uncertainty increases. They revisit these moments regularly, and their success depends less on following a sequence and more on their capacity to create safety, connection and adaptability in real time.

None of this makes Tuckman irrelevant as a piece of history. It simply makes it insufficient. When leaders rely on it as the definitive story of team development, they risk imposing a structure that hides more than it reveals. They can misinterpret normal, healthy team behaviour as failure simply because it does not match the expected order. They can overlook the demands of modern complexity and cling to a model that was built for a different world.

For this reason, it is helpful to explore alternatives. The following is not a replacement or a universal truth. It is offered instead as a possible idea, a contemporary pattern based on what teams seem to need now. It frames team development not as a linear march through fixed stages, but as a set of recurring movements that teams cycle through repeatedly as conditions change. These movements are: Aligning, Belonging, Co Creating, Adapting and Sustaining.

They invite leaders and teams to pay attention not to the order of development, but to the experience and needs of the people doing the work.

A possible 21st century pattern: five developmental movements

Aligning

Modern teams rarely begin with certainty. They start with ambiguity, evolving expectations and stakeholders whose needs may shift even as the work begins. Aligning is the movement where teams create shared purpose, identity and intention. It goes beyond reviewing project documents; it requires honest conversation about why the team exists, what value it aims to create and what constraints it is operating within. Without aligning, teams move quickly but not coherently. They leap into activity without agreement on direction, leading to rework, frustration and conflicting assumptions.

Leadership moves for Aligning

  • Host conversations that draw out each member’s understanding of the task, then synthesise into a shared purpose the whole team recognises.
  • Bring hidden assumptions to the surface by asking, “What are we taking for granted that we have not yet discussed?”
  • Co write a working agreement that captures expectations for communication, responsibilities, decision rights and boundaries.
  • Ensure alignment is not a one-off event; revisit purpose whenever context shifts or membership changes.

Belonging

Belonging is the foundation on which all productive collaboration rests. It is not about creating a cosy atmosphere; it is about establishing psychological safety so that people can think aloud, disagree thoughtfully, raise concerns and bring their full perspective into the work. Where Tuckman positioned conflict early, modern research shows that conflict only becomes useful when belonging has been built first. People must feel accepted before they can challenge ideas without challenging identities.

Belonging is especially crucial in hybrid, multicultural and cross functional teams where differences in experience, status or communication norms can easily create distance or misinterpretation. Leaders who skip this movement often find themselves dealing with hidden tensions, passive disengagement or cautious participation, none of which are signs of a healthy team.

Leadership moves for Belonging

  • Model vulnerability by naming uncertainty, asking for input and admitting when you do not know.
  • Ensure balanced participation by actively inviting contributions from quieter voices.
  • Establish norms for respectful challenge: speak to the idea, not the person; assume good intent; stay curious rather than defensive.
  • Use check-ins or brief personal sharing to humanise team members and make space for real connection.

Co Creating

Once a team has built clarity and belonging, it can begin co creating its ways of working. This movement is dynamic and ongoing. It involves shaping norms together rather than inheriting them. Teams test new approaches, adjust processes, and evolve practices based on learning. Co creating acknowledges that modern work rarely fits established templates. Instead of settling into “norms” as Tuckman suggested, teams must design and redesign how they collaborate as the work unfolds.

Co creating is where teams strengthen their collective intelligence. They build shared memory, surface diverse thinking and learn to integrate different viewpoints into coherent action. It is the movement where collaboration becomes intentional rather than accidental.

Leadership moves for Co Creating

  • Introduce structured reflection sessions to regularly explore what is working and what needs redesigning.
  • Encourage shared authorship by involving the team in creating processes, templates, rituals and decision rules.
  • Normalise experimentation: encourage pilots, learning loops and small tests rather than large, rigid plans.
  • Ensure transparency by using shared tools that allow everyone to see progress, decisions and dependencies.

Adapting

In the 21st century, performance is not a destination but a capability. Teams that thrive are those that can adapt quickly to change. Adapting involves scanning the environment, noticing emerging challenges, shifting priorities and redistributing authority as needed. It is a movement rooted in flexibility, continuous learning and resilience.

This differs from Tuckman’s Performing stage, which implied stability and sustained execution. Modern work rarely offers such stability. High-performing teams are those that can reorient themselves repeatedly without losing cohesion. They update their practices in response to disruption. They treat change not as a problem but as a normal condition.

Leadership moves for Adapting

  • Introduce pauses and sense-making conversations whenever new information emerges or uncertainty rises.
  • Enable distributed leadership by empowering those with the most relevant knowledge to make timely decisions.
  • Frame change as learning rather than failure: “What is this shift inviting from us?”
  • Capture lessons learned continuously, not only at the end of projects.

Sustaining

All teams end, transition or transform. Sustaining is the movement where teams reflect on what they have created, how they have grown and what they want to carry into future work. It involves capturing learning, honouring contributions and ensuring that knowledge is not lost when people move on. This movement reframes endings as stewardship. It acknowledges that what a team leaves behind may be as important as what it delivered.

In many organisations, endings are rushed, transactional or overshadowed by the next deadline. Sustaining invites a different approach, one that treats transitions as opportunities to strengthen relationships and set up future teams for success.

Leadership moves for Sustaining

  • Facilitate reflective sessions where the team identifies insights about its work, culture and practices.
  • Create a knowledge bundle that captures key decisions, principles and artefacts for future teams.
  • Mark the ending with appreciation that recognises effort, learning and human contribution.
  • Support individual transitions by connecting members to new opportunities and relationships.

These movements are cyclical. Teams may return to aligning when new members join, revisit belonging when trust is strained, or re-enter co creating when tools or expectations shift. What matters is not following a sequence, but cultivating awareness and responsiveness. Modern teams succeed not because they march through five predictable stages, but because they attend to purpose, people, collaboration, learning and stewardship as ongoing, interconnected practices.

Any thoughts on this idea?

Do you have any tips or advice for developing the teams in the 21st century?

What has worked for you?

Do you have any recommended resources to explore?

Thanks for reading!