In management theory, what's being discussed is groups brought together for a particular project; when that project's over, the group is split and goes on to other tasks. This often doesn't happen in roleplaying, where the ideal for many is the open-ended campaign. At some point a group may have their last session, but it usually wasn't planned as their last session. In the case of a closed-ended campaign where the players will go on to other groups, we may see the Adjournment stage, however.

In the Adjournment stage, the group sees the end of their association coming. Different people will react to this differently. Some will react with happiness about past achievements, nostalgia for past events, and a regret that it's ending. Some will be unhappy with its ending, and insist that "we could go on, have a Part Two to this campaign." Others will begin to disengage from the campaign, losing interest, and either not showing up to the session, or being stupid with their characters. "The campaign will end soon anyway, so who cares."

The leaders of the group should take care to guide the group through the Adjournment stage, trying to bring disengaged players back into it. This can sometimes be done by having some memento of the campaign, like a session journal, web page, or small gift representing events of the campaign or someone's character. These things help the players feel that though the campaign has ended, it goes on in some way even without them. If the GM is known to run a series of campaigns in the same game world, using the events of one campaign as the history of the next, this can help keep players interested, too - they're "making history." See also Getting Players to Give a Toss.

However, as noted, many game groups never reach an Adjournment stage, either because the campaign is open-ended, or because it broke up in the midst of the Storming stage.