Every project manager has been there: a team that looks good on paper but struggles to perform. People are skilled, deadlines are set, tools are in place — and yet something is missing. More often than not, what’s missing isn’t capability. It’s sequence.
The Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance Model solves exactly this problem. Developed by Allan Drexler and David Sibbet over a decade of applied research in the 1980s and early 1990s, the model maps the seven predictable stages that teams must navigate — not just to form, but to sustain high performance over time.
Unlike generic team models that describe behaviour after the fact, the Drexler/Sibbet model is diagnostic. It tells you where a team is stuck, why, and what to do about it. That’s what makes it as relevant in today’s hybrid, AI-augmented, globally distributed workplaces as it was in a traditional office environment.
| Why This Model Still Matters Now Gartner’s 2025 Future of Work Trends report identifies hybrid complexity as a top driver of employee burnout and declining productivity. As teams become more distributed and AI tools reshape collaboration, a structured, question-based framework like Drexler/Sibbet is more valuable — not less — for keeping teams aligned and high-performing. |
Origins and Background of the Model
Allan Drexler and David Sibbet spent more than ten years refining their framework before publishing it through The Grove Consultants International in the early 1990s. Their goal was practical: build a field-tested, non-jargon model that integrated both the social and task dimensions of teamwork — something practitioners could actually use on real projects with real people.
The result was a visual performance wheel — sometimes called the Team Performance Curve — that shows seven stages arranged in a cyclical sequence. The visual design itself is deliberate: the early stages represent a journey from open aspiration downward into the grounded realities of roles, goals, and constraints, before bouncing upward through implementation, creativity, and ultimately high performance.
The model spread through organisation development, leadership programmes, and consulting practices because it was memorable, visually clear, and directly applicable. It is today used across healthcare, education, technology, contact centres, and government, and forms the foundation of The Grove’s Team Performance System.
The Seven Stages at a Glance
The model divides team development into two distinct arcs: four stages to create the team and three stages to sustain and deepen performance.
| # | Stage | Core Question | Unresolved Risk | Key Insight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | Why are we here? | Disorientation / Purpose | Clarity of purpose enables commitment from day one. |
| 2 | Trust Building | Who are you? | Caution / Mistrust | Psychological safety fuels honest collaboration. |
| 3 | Goal Clarification | What are we doing? | Confusion / Divergence | Shared definition of success avoids costly rework. |
| 4 | Commitment | How will we do it? | Dependency / Avoidance | Clear accountability turns plans into action. |
| 5 | Implementation | Who does what, when? | Conflict / Miscommunication | Visible progress and process discipline drive momentum. |
| 6 | High Performance | Wow — how did we do that? | Complacency / Over-reliance | Synergy and autonomy unlock breakthrough results. |
| 7 | Renewal | Why continue? | Stagnation / Burnout | Reflection and adaptation sustain long-term performance. |
Table 1: Drexler/Sibbet Seven Stages — summary reference
Stage-by-Stage Breakdown: What Leaders Need to Know
Stage 1 — Orientation: Why Are We Here?
Every team begins with a fundamental question of purpose. When orientation is handled well — through a structured kickoff meeting, a project charter, or even a simple team mandate document — every member aligns on the ‘why’ before they debate the ‘how.’
When it isn’t handled well, teams start executing with different assumptions about what they’re there to achieve. This is one of the most common and costliest mistakes in project management: skipping orientation because ‘everyone already knows what we’re doing.’
| Hybrid Adaptation For remote or hybrid teams, orientation requires deliberate effort. A shared virtual workspace pinned with the team’s purpose, a recorded kickoff session accessible asynchronously, and a written charter that every member can reference helps replicate the clarity that co-located teams establish naturally in a room. |
Stage 2 — Trust Building: Who Are You?
Trust is not a soft skill. It’s the structural foundation that determines whether team members ask for help, flag risks early, challenge bad decisions, and cover for each other when it matters. Without it, information hoarding, political behaviour, and performative agreement undermine even the best plans.
This stage involves identifying team members’ skills, working styles, and roles, as well as recognising key stakeholders who influence outcomes from outside the team. The concept of psychological safety — the belief that one can speak up without fear of punishment — is central here, and is supported by extensive research as a primary driver of team effectiveness.
| Practical Tip from Experience In contact centre and operations environments, where team members often rotate or span multiple shifts, trust-building activities embedded into team meetings — rather than off-site events — deliver more lasting results. Short ‘working style’ check-ins during standups outperform annual team-building days. |
Stage 3 — Goal Clarification: What Are We Doing?
Once the team trusts each other, they can engage honestly with the substance of the work. Goal clarification moves beyond the high-level purpose established in orientation into the specifics: stakeholder expectations, deliverable criteria, success metrics, and constraints.
This is the stage where teams align on the definition of ‘done.’ It prevents the common failure pattern where everyone is busy and productive — but producing outputs that stakeholders don’t actually need.
- Define success metrics in measurable terms, not just descriptions
- Involve stakeholders in validating goal statements before committing to plans
- Document assumptions explicitly — they are future risks in disguise
- In agile environments, connect goal clarification to the product vision and sprint objectives
Stage 4 — Commitment: How Will We Do It?
With shared goals established, teams move into commitment — defining the ‘how.’ This encompasses detailed planning, scheduling, budget allocation, resource assignment, and agreement on ways of working. Critically, commitment is not just about task assignment. It’s about each team member personally owning their contribution to the collective goal.
Leaders who rush this stage — moving from goals straight into execution — often discover mid-project that team members were never truly committed; they were merely compliant. The difference shows up clearly when things go wrong.
| In AI-Augmented Teams (2025 Context) As AI tools increasingly handle routine task execution, commitment conversations are shifting. Teams now need to agree not just on who does what, but which decisions are human-led versus AI-assisted, how AI outputs will be reviewed, and what accountability looks like when automation is involved. |
Stage 5 — Implementation: Who Does What, When, Where?
Implementation is where plans meet reality. High-performing teams in this stage break down milestones into specific tasks, maintain visible progress tracking, and communicate proactively about blockers before they become crises.
The most common failure in implementation is not poor planning — it’s poor coordination. As teams grow and work becomes more interdependent, informal communication channels become insufficient. Project managers who establish lightweight, consistent coordination rhythms (standups, status updates, shared dashboards) dramatically outperform those who rely on ad-hoc check-ins.
- Use visual task boards (physical or digital) to maintain shared situational awareness
- Establish explicit escalation paths so blockers surface early
- Separate status reporting from problem-solving to protect both
- In distributed teams, over-communicate decisions in writing — verbal alignment in meetings degrades quickly across time zones
Stage 6 — High Performance: Wow — How Did We Do That?
High performance is the stage every team aspires to, and few fully reach. It is characterised by genuine synergy: the team’s collective output exceeds what any individual could produce, members anticipate each other’s needs, trust is implicit, and innovation emerges naturally from the collaboration.
What is often misunderstood about this stage is that it requires active maintenance. High-performing teams can slip backward — particularly under organisational pressure, personnel changes, or scope disruption. The ‘Wow’ stage is not a permanent destination; it’s a dynamic equilibrium that must be protected.
| Leadership Insight One of the most effective ways leaders can sustain Stage 6 is by protecting the team from external interference. High-performing teams need autonomy, clear boundaries, and air cover from unnecessary bureaucracy. Micromanagement at this stage is not just unhelpful — it actively destroys the conditions that created the performance. |
Stage 7 — Renewal: Why Continue?
All teams and projects eventually face change: key members leave, priorities shift, the market evolves, or the project enters a new phase. Renewal is the stage where teams honestly reassess their purpose, composition, and ways of working in light of this change.
Without a renewal mechanism, teams either drift into irrelevance — continuing to operate as if nothing has changed — or dissolve unnecessarily when recalibration would have preserved the value they’ve built. The model’s cyclical structure reflects this reality: renewal often loops back to orientation, restarting the cycle with accumulated experience and trust as assets.
- Build renewal checkpoints into project governance, not just project closes
- Treat team retrospectives as renewal conversations, not just process audits
- Acknowledge personnel changes openly rather than absorbing them silently
- Revisit the team charter when scope, strategy, or membership changes significantly
Drexler/Sibbet vs. Tuckman’s Ladder: Which Model Fits When?
Most project managers encounter Tuckman’s Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing model before they discover Drexler/Sibbet. Both are valuable, but they serve different purposes.
| Dimension | Tuckman’s Ladder | Drexler/Sibbet Model |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Stages of team behaviour | Questions teams must resolve |
| Direction | Linear (Forming → Adjourning) | Cyclical — teams revisit stages |
| Utility | Broad team lifecycle | Diagnostic + intervention guide |
| Performance lens | Describes behaviour | Predicts blockers & prescribes fixes |
| Best for | General team awareness | Project, cross-functional & hybrid teams |
Table 2: Drexler/Sibbet vs. Tuckman’s Ladder — comparative reference
The key differentiator is the Drexler/Sibbet model’s question-based diagnostic approach. While Tuckman describes what a team looks like at a given stage, Drexler/Sibbet tells you what question is unresolved and why the team is stuck — giving leaders specific, actionable interventions rather than general stage awareness.
Applying the Model in Hybrid and Remote Environments
The most significant shift in team management since this model was developed is the rise of hybrid and remote working. According to Forrester, 30% of economic labour in the US is now performed from home daily, making hybrid the dominant model for knowledge-based roles. This fundamentally changes how teams move through the Drexler/Sibbet stages.
The table below maps each stage to practical hybrid adaptations:
| Stage | Hybrid / Remote Adaptation |
|---|---|
| Orientation | Virtual kickoff with recorded session; digital team charter pinned in shared workspace |
| Trust Building | Structured icebreakers in video calls; ‘working styles’ doc shared before project begins |
| Goal Clarification | Collaborative whiteboard sessions (Miro/Mural); async comment rounds on goal documents |
| Commitment | Written RACI shared and acknowledged; async approval workflows for key decisions |
| Implementation | Visual dashboards (Jira, Monday, Asana); async standup tools (Geekbot, Slack threads) |
| High Performance | Protect deep work blocks; minimize meeting load; celebrate wins publicly in shared channels |
| Renewal | Structured retrospectives with anonymous input; virtual team health checks |
Table 3: Stage-by-stage hybrid adaptations
The Model in the Age of AI-Augmented Teams
The emergence of AI as an active participant in team workflows — not just a background tool — introduces new complexity that the Drexler/Sibbet model is well-positioned to address. Teams that integrate AI agents, automation systems, or AI-assisted decision-making need to resolve additional questions at each stage.
- Orientation: What is AI’s role in this team? What decisions will it support versus make?
- Trust Building: How does the team build calibrated trust in AI outputs — neither blind reliance nor blanket scepticism?
- Goal Clarification: Which outcomes are human-led and which are AI-assisted? How is success measured when output is partly automated?
- Commitment: Who is accountable when an AI recommendation proves incorrect?
- Implementation: How are AI-generated outputs reviewed, validated, and communicated to stakeholders?
- High Performance: How do teams maintain human judgement and creativity when AI handles the routine?
- Renewal: How does the team reassess when AI capabilities evolve or new tools are introduced?
According to Microsoft’s 2025 Work Trend Index, 28% of managers are already considering hiring AI workforce managers to lead hybrid teams of people and AI agents. The Drexler/Sibbet framework provides a structured foundation for thinking through these questions before they become problems.
Using the Model as a Diagnostic Tool
One of the most practical applications of the Drexler/Sibbet model is as a diagnostic instrument. Rather than waiting for a team to fail and then analysing why, leaders can use the model proactively to assess team health and intervene early.
How to Run a Team Diagnostic
Step 1 — Assess. Ask each team member independently: ‘At which of the seven stages does our team feel most uncertain or unresolved right now?’ Collect responses anonymously if trust is low.
Step 2 — Map. Plot responses visually. Clustering at a particular stage reveals the team’s true bottleneck, regardless of where the calendar says the project is.
Step 3 — Intervene. Match the unresolved stage to a targeted intervention:
- Orientation stuck: Re-run a focused purpose conversation. Bring the project sponsor in to reinforce the ‘why.’
- Trust Building stuck: Introduce structured relationship-building activities. Address any interpersonal conflicts directly and privately.
- Goal Clarification stuck: Run a goal alignment workshop. Revalidate with stakeholders. Clarify success metrics.
- Commitment stuck: Revisit the plan together. Check for hidden blockers, unclear roles, or resource constraints that weren’t surfaced.
- Implementation stuck: Improve coordination mechanisms. Introduce visual progress tracking. Review escalation paths.
- High Performance stuck: Protect the team from overload. Review whether external demands are disrupting team cohesion.
- Renewal stuck: Facilitate an honest retrospective. Reassess purpose. Acknowledge what has changed.
Step 4 — Reassess. After the intervention, run the diagnostic again within 2–4 weeks. Track movement as a leading indicator of team health.
Applying the Model in Agile and Project Management Contexts
The Drexler/Sibbet model integrates naturally with both traditional project management and agile frameworks, though the application differs.
In Traditional Project Management
Map the first four stages — Orientation through Commitment — to the project initiation and planning phases. Use stage completion as a readiness gate before moving into execution. The final three stages map to delivery, go-live, and post-project review.
In Agile Environments
The cyclical nature of the model fits particularly well with iterative delivery. Each sprint or product increment can be evaluated against the seven stages: is the team’s orientation still aligned? Has trust been maintained through the sprint? Are goals still clear after backlog refinement? This makes the model a useful lens for Sprint Retrospectives and PI Planning in SAFe environments.
In Operations Settings
My experience across different operational environments shows a specific application: new team formation after organizational restructuring or outsourcing transitions. These teams often skip Orientation and Trust Building entirely — jumping straight into Implementation — with predictable consequences for quality and morale. Running a condensed Drexler/Sibbet workshop during transition can compress months of dysfunction into weeks of productive alignment.
Limitations and Critical Considerations
No model is perfect, and the Drexler/Sibbet framework has honest limitations worth acknowledging:
- It assumes a degree of stability that not all teams have. Highly dynamic teams with frequent membership changes may find it difficult to complete stages before conditions shift.
- The model was developed for co-located, project-based teams. Some adaptations are required for permanent functional teams or fully asynchronous remote teams.
- Stage progression is not always linear. Teams can and do regress — particularly after leadership changes, scope disruptions, or significant setbacks.
- The model does not address power dynamics, organisational politics, or systemic inequities that affect how teams actually experience each stage.
Used with these caveats in mind, the model remains one of the most practically useful frameworks available — precisely because it is question-based, diagnostic, and action-oriented rather than purely descriptive.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance Model in simple terms?
It’s a seven-stage framework that maps the questions teams must answer to move from first forming to high performance. It helps leaders identify exactly where a team is stuck and what to do about it.
How is it different from Tuckman’s model?
Tuckman describes how teams behave at each stage (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing). Drexler/Sibbet goes further by identifying the specific question that must be resolved at each stage and prescribing interventions when a team is stuck. It’s more diagnostic and more actionable.
Can the model be used for remote or hybrid teams?
Yes — and increasingly it should be. The core questions remain the same; the tools and practices used to resolve them adapt to a digital environment. Asynchronous communication, virtual facilitation, and written artefacts replace some of the in-person mechanisms.
Is the model used in agile or scrum environments?
Yes. The model’s cyclical nature maps well to iterative delivery. Many agile coaches use it to assess team health during retrospectives and to diagnose why teams underperform despite having the right skills and backlog.
What happens if a team skips a stage?
Skipped stages don’t disappear — the unresolved questions resurface later, typically at the worst possible moment. A team that skips Trust Building will encounter mistrust and conflict during Implementation. A team that skips Goal Clarification will discover misalignment when the first major deliverable is reviewed.
How long does each stage take?
There is no fixed duration. Experienced, well-led teams can move through the first four stages in days. Dysfunctional or newly formed teams under pressure may spend weeks stuck in a single stage. The model is a diagnostic lens, not a calendar.
Conclusion
The Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance Model has endured for over three decades because it addresses something fundamental about how human teams work: progress is not automatic. It happens when the right questions get answered, in the right sequence, with honesty and intention.
In a world of hybrid teams, AI-augmented workflows, and rapid organizational change, the model is not a historical artifact. It’s a practical operating framework for any leader who wants to build teams that don’t just perform when conditions are ideal — but that sustain performance when conditions are not.
The next time your team is struggling, resist the instinct to add more process or more tools. Instead, ask: which of the seven questions haven’t we fully answered yet? The answer will tell you exactly where to focus.
| Related Resources on ProjInsights Explore more team management and operations frameworks at projinsights.com — including the Attrition Rate Calculator, Standard Time Calculator, and the Status Report Writer tool for project managers. |