The First Few Weeks Set the Stage for More Than You Might Expect
When a new team is formed, everyone focuses on the work first: who will do what, what tools will we use, and what are our initial goals? This is an understandable reflex. But during this process, something else—something invisible—is also established: how will we work?
This question is rarely asked. The answer emerges on its own. And that answer shapes the team’s years to come.
J. Richard Hackman, in over twenty years of team research, found the following (Leading Teams, 2002): team norms crystallize in the first few weeks, and intervening in these norms later on is much harder than establishing them from the start. If one person talked a lot during the first meeting while others remained silent, that pattern takes hold. If no one replied to emails after 5:00 p.m., that, too, becomes a norm—whether intentional or not.
Tuckman’s Model Still Holds True
In 1965, Bruce Tuckman proposed a four-stage model: forming, storming, norming, and performing. The adjourning stage was added later.
This model has been tested by research over the course of decades, and its fundamental patterns remain intact.
During the forming stage, team members size each other up, look to the leader for guidance, and uncertainty is high. This period should be kept short but not rushed; the foundation for relationships is laid here.
The “Storming” stage is inevitable. Differences in roles, responsibilities, and work styles come to the surface. Trying to suppress this stage does not work; it only postpones the issue. The postponed conflict usually erupts at a worse time and in a worse way.
By the time the team reaches the Norming stage, it is developing shared ways of working. This is where conscious intervention makes the biggest difference.
Why a Working Agreement Is Powerful
One tool is particularly valuable during the first 90 days: the working agreement. This is a clear, written document outlining the working norms the team has agreed upon together.
How do we prepare for meetings? How do we handle disagreements? How do we give feedback? How does communication work in emergencies?
These questions may seem ordinary. But if left unanswered, everyone acts based on their own assumptions. And when these assumptions clash—which they inevitably do—the problem becomes personal.
Patrick Lencioni’s model of the five dysfunctions (The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, 2002) identifies a lack of trust as the root problem. A work agreement does not automatically create trust; rather, it provides a framework within which trust can be built.
Early Successes Should Not Be Overlooked
Making successes visible during the first 90 days is not a trivial leadership ritual. Teresa Amabile’s research on the progress principle (The Progress Principle, 2011) shows that team members’ motivation and commitment respond more strongly to small daily progress than to grand goals. The sense of “we can make this work,” established early on, acts as a buffer during subsequent challenging periods.
“If you don’t know how to build teams, you’ll get average results even with the best individuals.” > J. Richard Hackman, Leading Teams, 2002
Cevvela’s Perspective
- Team norms are established and solidified in the first few weeks; intervening in this period later on is much more difficult (Hackman, 2002).
- Tuckman’s “storming” phase cannot be skipped; if suppressed, it will resurface at a worse time (Tuckman, 1965).
- A working agreement is one of the most productive investments made in the first 90 days; it makes assumptions explicit.
- Making early successes visible creates a buffer against challenging moments later on (Amabile, 2011).
- Team coaching can be used during this process to consciously manage the establishment of norms and navigate the storming phase constructively.
{{contact}} To discuss this topic with Cevvela {{/contact}}