How two teams in the public service redefined the way they work together
When people discuss successful collaboration, the term’ team building’ comes up quickly. Typically, it’s about building trust: bringing people together, helping them get to know each other, sharing experiences, and creating a sense of connection. And while trust is essential, it often isn’t enough, especially when work relationships are more complex. That’s where team development comes into play.
Unlike teambuilding, which focuses primarily on relationships and bonding, team development goes deeper. It’s about clarifying roles, responsibilities, handover points, and decision paths. It asks the tough but necessary question: how can this team become more effective as a system? A real-life example from the public sector shows what this distinction looks like in action.
Two teams – one internal customer, many friction points
In one department, two teams handled different parts of the same process: one team prepared the groundwork, while the other took over afterward. Although both worked for the same internal customer, repeated friction developed over time. Information was shared too late, roles weren’t clearly defined, and tasks were either passed along without explanation or done twice.
The downstream team often felt unsupported, but instead of voicing concerns directly, they made occasional comments to their team lead. For a long time, the two managers didn’t address the issue with each other, assuming the tension wasn’t significant.
After several complaints, it became clear that these weren’t isolated frustrations—there were deeper structural issues at play. The two leaders decided to take action and initiated a joint team development process.
From working in parallel to working together
At the first joint session, both teams demonstrated a willingness to resolve the issues, but they were noticeably cautious. A structured, facilitated process helped surface the root causes. Both teams shared what they saw as their areas of responsibility—and it quickly became clear there was a large gray zone between them. There were no clear rules for handovers or decision-making at those boundaries.
In a constructive working phase, they mapped the process: Who does what, up to which point? What does a “usable” handover look like? Who decides in case of uncertainty? Clear agreements started to emerge—some of which came as a surprise. One team hadn’t realized how much their way of working was making things difficult for the other.
Looking inward: Recognizing internal gaps
Through this process, a second realization surfaced: both teams also had internal challenges. Over the years, many team members have developed their own ways of working, resulting in inconsistent formats and standards, particularly at interface points. There was also a lack of regular communication—both among team members and with their managers.
Each team took steps to improve internal coordination and standardization. They also established new communication routines to increase awareness of how much they rely on each other. The managers agreed to take early warning signs seriously and step in to facilitate conversations before issues escalated.
Follow-up session and a shared path forward
A few weeks later, both teams came together again. The goal: reflect on what had been implemented, identify what still needed work, and celebrate progress. The feedback was largely positive, mainly because people felt heard and their concerns had been taken seriously.
This time, the session included targeted team development exercises to build stronger personal connections. The tone was more open, with a noticeably higher level of trust. Building on that momentum, the teams agreed on a shared approach moving forward.
A recurring format for sustainable collaboration
To ensure ongoing alignment, the teams now meet quarterly for a joint review. The purpose: revisit the agreements, track what’s working, and make adjustments early if needed. When team-level issues arise that can’t be resolved internally, the managers are committed to addressing them collaboratively with those involved.
This case illustrates that effective collaboration needs more than goodwill and good intentions. It takes structure, transparency, mutual understanding, and a shared commitment to success. That’s the essence of team development. Tools like the Coverdale Aims Grid, the Planning Grid, and our Systematic Approach will continue to help this team work together effectively and with purpose.
Recent Comments