In the article “40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development,” Denise A. Bonebright comprehensively covers both the importance and the shortcomings of Bruce W. Tuckman’s model. His model outlines the stages of small group development. Initially, the model consisted of four stages main stages (Bonebright). There’s nothing like Tuckman’s model, considering my own experiences with the trend of group projects both at higher institutions and professional settings. For example, in college, multiple of my group projects went through what is undoubtedly the storming phase, where there were conflicting opinions resulting in debates. It agrees with what was described by Tuckman as conflict and resistance during the storming phase. Now that I understand the stages, I can deal better with such conflicts and come out with a more productive outcome.

On a larger scale, Tuckman’s model can be traced in most real-life situations, be it the development of organizational teams or the management of projects. The stages of this model reflect common experiences in work teams where initial conflicts give way to united and productive work. However, this model is relatively limited because it does not explain phenomena brought about by external influences, and the model is rather linear in relation to group dynamics, which are much more complex and iterative. For example, in global teams, cultural differences and changes in organizations are external influences that impact group development in ways hardly explained by Tuckman’s model.