Storming Isn’t the Problem: It’s What Your Team Does Next That Matters

I was with one of my teams recently as they worked through my C.A.M.P. Roundtable Series for Supervisors, and we got into a conversation about team development. We were reviewing the familiar four stages — Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. I wanted to spend more time on one particular stage: Storming. Leaders often see conflict, disagreement or tension and conclude that something has gone wrong. Sometimes it has. But sometimes what we are witnessing is simply a team becoming real.

Bruce Tuckman’s model remains useful because most teams recognize themselves in it. Forming is the early stage when people are polite, roles are unclear and the leader provides considerable direction. Storming begins when differences surface, personalities become clearer, people test boundaries and frustration increases. If the team works through that stage, it begins Norming, where trust grows, roles and processes become clearer, and collaboration feels more natural. Eventually, some teams reach Performing, where members operate with greater independence, sh

ared leadership, accountability and commitment to collective results.

The important point is that teams do not automatically move from Storming to Norming. There is a choice in the middle.

The Muck in the Middle

I often introduce teams to Sam Kaner’s Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making. Ideas begin by diverging, but eventually the group has to converge around decisions. Between those two points is what Kaner calls the Groan Zone. My mother, Deborah Mackin (author of The Team-Building Tool Kit), often called it the Muck in the Middle. It is where the easy answers disappear, the vision gets fuzzy, decisions get tougher, roles become confusing and people begin to feel the pain of working through real differences.

The danger is that leaders often try to rescue teams from this stage. They make the decision, settle the disagreement or tell everyone to move on. In doing so, they may unintentionally prevent the team from developing one of the most important capabilities of a high-performing team: the ability to work through difficult things together.

Conflict is not necessarily the opposite of teamwork. Patrick Lencioni’s work makes the connection clearly: trust enables healthy conflict, conflict supports commitment, commitment makes accountability possible, and accountability drives results. The absence of conflict can sometimes mean a team simply has not learned how to say what it really thinks.

The Pivot Point: Hidden Conflict to Handled Conflict

I have started thinking about the transition between Storming and Norming as a Trust and Decision Bridge. Teams do not move from conflict to harmony. They move from hidden conflict to handled conflict.

Norming does not mean everyone suddenly agrees. It means the team is learning what to do when it does not agree.

The first move is repair before rules. During Storming, people often begin collecting small frustrations. I use the concept of stamp collecting — suppressing concerns, storing grievances and avoiding difficult conversations until something finally erupts. The unhealthy pattern becomes: Avoid → Suppress → Collect → Explode → Damage Trust. A healthier team develops a different habit: Notice → Address Early → Clarify → Repair → Strengthen Trust.

The second move is to choose the norms. Team norms should not be generic statements like “communicate better” or “be respectful.” They become meaningful when they grow out of real experience. Storming shows the team where the friction actually is. That makes the transition into Norming the ideal time to ask: How are we going to work together now in the best interest of the whole team or organization?

One exercise I use is: Stop. Start. Protect. Ask each person to consider three questions: What behavior or habit do we need to stop because it is making teamwork harder? What do we need to start doing more consistently? What is already working that we need to protect?

The key instruction is to talk about behaviors, not people. Then compare answers, identify themes and turn them into clear commitments. “We need better communication” might become, “We address concerns directly and early rather than letting frustration accumulate.” “People need to follow through” might become, “If we commit to something, we own it - or communicate early when circumstances change.” “We need less conflict” might become, “We challenge ideas openly while protecting relationships.”

The final question I like to ask is: Which of these commitments will require the most courage from us? That is usually where the real conversation begins.

One of the leader’s most important responsibilities during Storming is to resist solving everything for the team. In my team-development model, the leader shifts from the teaching coach to the coaching coach during the Storming stage — still willing to call out destructive behavior and reinforce standards, but also willing to let the team struggle productively.

Because eventually, a high-performing team has to become capable of more than simply following a good leader. It has to disagree without destroying relationships, give feedback without humiliation, hold peers accountable, repair trust and keep moving toward the shared goal when the work gets uncomfortable.

Storming is not a detour on the way to becoming a good team. Storming is part of how good teams are made!