4 ms·

Tuckman as a 'real' framework is a belief so that is fair. He clearly communicated in 1977 that his ideas were never formally validated and that he cautioned a

Tuckman as a 'real' framework is a belief so that is fair. He clearly communicated in 1977 that his ideas were never formally validated and that he cautioned about their use in other contexts. I think that the concepts can be useful, if you took them as anything more than a guiding framework that may or may not be appropriate for a particular need. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725856.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725856.pdf I personally find value in team and org mission statements, especially for building a shared purpose, but to be honest, any of the studies on that are more about manager satisfaction then anything else. There is far more data on the failure of strategy execution, and linking strategy with purpose as well as providing runways and goals is one place I find vision and mission statements useful. As up to 90% of companies fail on strategy execution, and because employee engagement is in free fall, the fact that companies are still in business means little. Context is king, and this is horses for courses, but I would caution against ignoring more recent, Nobel winning theories like Holmström's theorem. Most teams don't experience the literal steps Tuckman suggested, rarely all at once, and never as one time singular events. As the above link demonstrated, some portions like the storming can be problematic. Make them operationalize their mission statement, and they will and it will be in concrete. Remember von MoltKe "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength." There is a balance between C2 and mission command styles, the risk is trying to force or worse intentionally causing people to resort to c2 when almost always you need a shifting balance between command and intent based solutions. The Feudal Mode of Production was sufficient for centuries, but far from optimal. The NUMMI reference was exactly related to the same reason Amazon profits historically raised higher despite head count increases that should have allowed. Small cross functional teams, with clearly communicated tasks, and enough freedom to accomplish those tasks efficiently. You can look at Trist's study about the challenges with incentivizing teams to game the system. Same problem happened under Balmer at MS, and DEC failed the opposite way, trying to do everything at once and please everyone. https://www.uv.es/=gonzalev/PSI%20ORG%2006-07/ARTICULOS%20RRHH%20SOCIOTEC/Trist%20Long%20Wall%20Method%20HR%201951.pdf https://www.uv.es/=gonzalev/PSI%20ORG%2006-07/ARTICULOS%20RR... The reality is that the popularity of frameworks rarely relates to their effectiveness, building teams is hard, making teams work as teams across teams is even harder. Tuckerman may be useful in that...but this claim is wrong: > "Modern mission frameworks prioritize adaptability within durable purpose, avoiding the pitfalls you’ve rightly flagged" Modern _ frameworks prioritize adoption and depending on the framework to solve your companies needs will always fail. You need to choose a framework that fits your strategy and objectives, and adapt it to fit your needs. Learn from others, but don't ignore the reality on the ground.

neom 2y ago
Regarding Tuckman's model, there are actually numerous studies validating its relevance and practical application: Gren et al. (2017) validated it specifically for agile teams across eight large companies. Natvig & Stark (2016) confirmed its accuracy in team development contexts. Bonebright's (2010) historical review demonstrated its ongoing relevance across four decades of application. I feel we're talking past each other here. My original point was about which AI model is better for MY WORK. (I run a starup accelerator for first time founders) 4.5, in 30 seconds over minutes, provided more practical value to founders building actual businesses, and saved me time. While I appreciate your historical references and academic perspectives, they don't address my central argument about GPT-4.5's response being more pragmatically useful. The distinction between academic precision and practical utility is exactly what I'm highlighting. Founders don't need perfect theoretical models - they need frameworks that help them bridge vision and execution in the real world. When you bring up feudal production modes and von Moltke, we're moving further from the practical question of which AI response would better guide someone trying to align teams around a meaningful mission that drives business results. It's exactly why I formed the 2 prompts in the manner I did, I wanted to see if it was an academic or an expert. My assessment stands that GPT-4.5's 30 seconds of thinking reflects well how mission operationalizes vision reflects how successful businesses actually work, not how academics might describe them in theoretical papers. I've read the papers, I've studied the theory deeply, but I also have NYSE and NASDAQ ticker symbols under my belt, from seed. That, is the whole point here.
- nyrikki 2y ago
  OK maybe we are using different meanings of the word "operationalize" If I were say in middle management and you asked me to "operationalize" the impact of mission statements, I would try to associate the existence of a mission statement on a team to some metric like financial performance. If I was on a small development team and you asked me to "operationalize" our mission statement, I would probably make the same mistake the software industry always does, like trying it to tickets closed, lines of code, or even the Dora metrics. Under my understanding of "operationalize" and the only way I can find it referenced related to mission statements themselves, I would actually de-emphasize deliverables, quality, stakeholders changing demands etc... Even if I try to "operationalize" in a more abstract way, like define an impact score, which may not directly map to business objectives or even team building. Almost every LLM offers a similar definition I offered above E.G. > "operationalization" refers to the process of defining an abstract concept in a way that allows it to be measured and observed through specific, concrete indicators Impact scores, which are subjective can lead to Google's shelfware problems, and even scrum rituals often leads to hard but high value tasks being ignored because of the incentives don't allow for it. In both of your cites, they were situations where existing cultures were enhanced, not fully replaced. Both were also short term, and wouldn't capture the long tail problems I am referencing. Heck even Taylorism worked well for the auto industry until outside competition killed it. Well at least for the companies, consumers suffered. The point is that "operationalization" specifically is counterproductive under a model, where infighting during that phase is bad. If you care about delivering on execution, it would seems to be important to you. But I realize that you may not be targeting repeat work...I just don't know. But I am sure some McKinsey BA probably has put that consern in a PDF someplace by now because the GoA Agile assessment guide is being incorporated and even ITIL and TOGAF reference that coal face paper I cited. The BCGs and McKinseys of the world are absolutely going to shift to detection of common confabulations to show value. While I do take any tools possible to make me more productive, correctness of content concerns me more than exact verbage. But yes, different needs, I am in the nitch of rescuing failed initiatives, which admittedly is far from the typical engagement style. To be honest the lack of scratch space on 4.5 compared to CoT models is the main blocker for me.

neom 2y ago

Regarding Tuckman's model, there are actually numerous studies validating its relevance and practical application: Gren et al. (2017) validated it specifically for agile teams across eight large companies. Natvig & Stark (2016) confirmed its accuracy in team development contexts. Bonebright's (2010) historical review demonstrated its ongoing relevance across four decades of application. I feel we're talking past each other here. My original point was about which AI model is better for MY WORK. (I run a starup accelerator for first time founders) 4.5, in 30 seconds over minutes, provided more practical value to founders building actual businesses, and saved me time. While I appreciate your historical references and academic perspectives, they don't address my central argument about GPT-4.5's response being more pragmatically useful. The distinction between academic precision and practical utility is exactly what I'm highlighting. Founders don't need perfect theoretical models - they need frameworks that help them bridge vision and execution in the real world. When you bring up feudal production modes and von Moltke, we're moving further from the practical question of which AI response would better guide someone trying to align teams around a meaningful mission that drives business results. It's exactly why I formed the 2 prompts in the manner I did, I wanted to see if it was an academic or an expert. My assessment stands that GPT-4.5's 30 seconds of thinking reflects well how mission operationalizes vision reflects how successful businesses actually work, not how academics might describe them in theoretical papers. I've read the papers, I've studied the theory deeply, but I also have NYSE and NASDAQ ticker symbols under my belt, from seed. That, is the whole point here.

nyrikki 2y ago
OK maybe we are using different meanings of the word "operationalize" If I were say in middle management and you asked me to "operationalize" the impact of mission statements, I would try to associate the existence of a mission statement on a team to some metric like financial performance. If I was on a small development team and you asked me to "operationalize" our mission statement, I would probably make the same mistake the software industry always does, like trying it to tickets closed, lines of code, or even the Dora metrics. Under my understanding of "operationalize" and the only way I can find it referenced related to mission statements themselves, I would actually de-emphasize deliverables, quality, stakeholders changing demands etc... Even if I try to "operationalize" in a more abstract way, like define an impact score, which may not directly map to business objectives or even team building. Almost every LLM offers a similar definition I offered above E.G. > "operationalization" refers to the process of defining an abstract concept in a way that allows it to be measured and observed through specific, concrete indicators Impact scores, which are subjective can lead to Google's shelfware problems, and even scrum rituals often leads to hard but high value tasks being ignored because of the incentives don't allow for it. In both of your cites, they were situations where existing cultures were enhanced, not fully replaced. Both were also short term, and wouldn't capture the long tail problems I am referencing. Heck even Taylorism worked well for the auto industry until outside competition killed it. Well at least for the companies, consumers suffered. The point is that "operationalization" specifically is counterproductive under a model, where infighting during that phase is bad. If you care about delivering on execution, it would seems to be important to you. But I realize that you may not be targeting repeat work...I just don't know. But I am sure some McKinsey BA probably has put that consern in a PDF someplace by now because the GoA Agile assessment guide is being incorporated and even ITIL and TOGAF reference that coal face paper I cited. The BCGs and McKinseys of the world are absolutely going to shift to detection of common confabulations to show value. While I do take any tools possible to make me more productive, correctness of content concerns me more than exact verbage. But yes, different needs, I am in the nitch of rescuing failed initiatives, which admittedly is far from the typical engagement style. To be honest the lack of scratch space on 4.5 compared to CoT models is the main blocker for me.