‎## **Why ODM May Have Skipped the Storming Stage and Why It Matters Now** ‎ ‎Political organizations, much like any other group, evolve through recognizable stages of development. ‎ ‎Psychologist Bruce Tuckman’s model (forming, storming, norming, and performing) offers a useful lens for understanding how groups mature, resolve conflict, and build stable internal cultures. ‎ ‎But sometimes, groups appear to “skip” a stage, especially the storming phase, where power struggles and internal disagreements rise to the surface and get resolved. ‎ ‎Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) presents an interesting case. ‎ ‎ For nearly two decades, the party has operated under the long-term, unchallenged leadership of Raila Odinga. ‎ ‎His dominance provided cohesion, direction, and an anchor for party identity. ‎ ‎But it may also have suppressed the very internal contestation that would normally characterize the storming stage. ‎ ‎### **How Raila’s long-term control shaped ODM’s development** ‎ ‎Raila’s role as the party’s symbolic core meant that internal disagreements rarely escalated into open conflict. ‎ ‎Many disputes were resolved informally, postponed, or absorbed through personal networks rather than formal party processes. ‎ ‎Loyalty to the leader often overshadowed debates about ideology, succession, policy direction, or internal reform. ‎ ‎This level of centralized influence can create stability, but it also limits opportunities for the organization to develop the mechanisms needed to handle dissent. ‎ ‎ In Tuckman’s model, storming is not a dysfunction; it is a necessary developmental struggle where members test boundaries, roles, and competing visions. ‎ ‎### **The consequences of skipping the storming stage** ‎ ‎When a group bypasses storming, it often appears more unified from the outside. ‎ ‎But beneath the surface, unresolved tensions linger. ‎ ‎These untested fault lines become much more visible when a leadership transition begins or becomes inevitable. ‎ ‎For ODM, this dynamic is now increasingly evident. ‎ ‎Without decades of open internal contestation, the party lacks: ‎ ‎1.A clear succession framework** ‎ Strong centralized leadership can delay debate about who comes next ,until it suddenly becomes urgent. ‎ ‎2.Established channels for internal disagreement** ‎ Conflict that should have been normalized earlier may now manifest in unpredictable or disruptive ways. ‎ ‎3.A shared understanding of long-term identity and ideology** ‎ When unity has been built around a leader, not a process, leadership change can trigger questions about what the party actually stands for. ‎ ‎In essence, avoiding storming does not eliminate conflict , it only postpones it. ‎ ‎When the time for transition arrives, the organization may face more volatility, not less. ‎ ‎### **What ODM’s experience illustrates** ‎ ‎ODM’s situation offers a broader lesson about organizational development: ‎ ‎**Leadership strength can protect a group from storms, but it can also prevent the group from learning how to navigate them.** ‎ ‎When the leader is no longer the stabilizing force, all the unresolved tensions that were once held at bay surface at once, creating confusion over vision, authority, and direction. ‎ ‎For political parties and any long-running institution the storms are not a sign of collapse. ‎ ‎They are a sign of growth. ‎ ‎Skipping them may feel comfortable, but the bill eventually comes due. ‎ ‎--- Beloud