What if certain types of management or leadership rose in popularity because they fit the social structures of the time? And what if those social structures were influenced by other factors? Factors that also impacted work. And what if each leadership style was optimal for it's given context?
Tuckman's Theory of Group Development was first published by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. In Tuckman's original explanation, groups and teams go through four stages as they become a cohesive, high-performing unit; Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing.
While a commonly accepted model of how teams form, science tells us that Tuckman's Theory is wrong. The stages he defines are not really stages at all, do not happen in a specific sequence, and are not all experienced by all teams. Our top argument for why teams need to be kept stable has been invalidated.
The Autonomy, Connection, Excellence, and Diversity (#CultureACED) framework is foremost in our minds and directs the work that we do. Our customers have and will become familiar with these ideas. Not just the words, but the actual tools and techniques we've successfully used in a number of organizations.