How does your organization experience change? Is it a disruptive force driving business outcomes? Or is it just disruptive? What can leaders do to make change a force for performance improvement?

The words forming, storming, norming and performing are part of the business speak (BS) thrown around every day. But what does this process and what can we do as leaders to use it to help us lead change?

A change is a shift from one set of circumstances to another. The changes we are discussing here apply to the changes leaders make in an effort to improve the performance of their organizations. The same principles apply whenever people are introduced to change. The first impact of change is disruption. Change cannot be led by behaving like we always do; doing so makes it less likely the target outcome will be realized. Change requires us to alter our routine to gain the benefit of changing.

Let’s take the example of a team assigned to a key project. The team has been delegated the outcome, the resources, and provided information the sponsor deemed relevant to the project.

The forming stage begins. The team shows enthusiasm in its initial gatherings. Documents are reviewed and roles defined. Deliverables are planned and meetings scheduled. This is the forming stage. For the most part the things the team is doing are familiar to them. There is protocol for all of this. Everyone has participated in a project-planning meeting. Any disputes are low risk and quickly resolved. The honeymoon may go on for a period of time.

However, although there is explicit agreement, there are differences in the way the information is interpreted. Many of those conflicts go unseen and therefore participants assume they are in harmony. Stress begins to build however as team members put effort in but find results are lagging. Issues arise. Things slow down and team members may not seem as aligned as they were at the beginning of the project. The team is entering the storming phase.

Storming happens because the individuals do not have a share an understanding on some aspects of the work. The assumptions that propelled the group through forming do not match the reality of execution. Storming is an individual reaction occurring in a team setting. Each individual has different experiences that influence how a they respond to the problems they are facing. Adding to that some team members may be asked to do something they have never done before and have disparate approaches to their assignments. New problems have to be solved, and experts find the context of the current project renders past solutions obsolete. Stress increases with the expectation of progress as it becomes initial denial yields to the acceptance that things are slowing down. The cohesiveness of the team is on the line.

The team does not have an agreed upon way of handling the pace and the context of the change. Frustration arises, as it seems the agreements made in the forming stage are being violated.

Counterintuitively, key to navigating storming is to promote conflict. This requires an overt act of leadership. Don’t we need to reduce conflict and move ahead? Conflict is different perspectives on the same situation. The team needs to share their perspectives. Leaders need to bring these perspectives out and highlights differences to see the issues from all angles. This is a process, not a meeting. Leaders should coach individuals to have the courage to share their views. Dominant personalities may have to be tempered and less articulate team members afforded some patience in presenting their ideas. A leader encouraging conflict will get different perspectives out in front of the group. These perspectives allow the team to picture, state, hear, see and feel what others think. This in turn lets team members understand the differing perspectives. The advantage of seeing the problem from many angles is that blind spots will be illuminated for the whole team to see.

Norming starts as the team members address the different perspectives by developing the languages and rules for working together. These may be unique to the situation and this group of people. Standing beside the myth that conflict should be eliminated is the myth that agreement must be achieved. Individuals should be encouraged not to abandon their perspectives. Instead team members should be encouraged to examine the evidence in exercises of critical thinking.

As the team moves forward new information is generated, further defining the landscape. Team members alter their position as more evidence is assembled. Meanwhile the leader must obtain agreement on what the team will do going forward. Individuals with concerns may have to suspend their disbelief so the team can move ahead. Those with questions offset their concerns with the understanding that the team will check on progress and make adjustments along the path. The pace of progress increases. Things do not seem as hard as they did before.

The team transitions into performing as they establish a pattern of language and behavior that is understood by the team. They have gelled. The work moves ahead. Things are getting easier, even fun. In the end, the team may be reluctant to disband, having gone through a shared experience that bonded them together, but the same change trajectory will occur each time change occurs.

Successful organizations must keep changing. Leaders who try to move their teams from forming directly into performing without the cohesion gained in storming and forming put outcomes at risk. What is your team’s trajectory for change?

Joe Thompson