From Team Competition to Collaboration

As I’ve been re-reading Stephen M. R. Covey The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, I’ve found myself thinking about win-win in the context of real teams. Not the theory of it, but the lived experience. The difference between people genuinely working in view of one another, and people who are technically aligned, yet operating largely within their own space.

Competition has its place when organisations are looking outward, positioning themselves in a wider market or responding to external pressure. Internally, however, it creates a different energy. I have rarely seen it strengthen delivery in any sustained way. When comparison begins to creep in, even quietly, people tend to protect their own area a little more carefully, information flows less freely and attention narrows to what is directly affects them.

The work continues and deadlines are usually still met, yet something changes in how it feels...

I saw this dynamic in large, multi-department settings where competition was never explicitly encouraged, but emerged through how work was structured and how performance conversations were framed. As pressure increased, departments would instinctively tighten around their own responsibilities; it wasn’t because of defensiveness, but as a natural response to uncertainty.

What changed the trajectory was not a renewed call for collaboration or a cultural reset; it was far more practical than that. During periods of significant delivery challenge, I introduced a weekly check-in between department leads which created a predictable space to surface pressure early and consider capacity collectively.

This check-in wasn’t a performance update, and it wasn't designed for reporting upwards. Instead, it became a working conversation where leaders could notice where they needed each other's support, and how they were supporting all members of the department (rather than focusing on their team). The questions remained steady from week to week, which meant the conversation became routine rather than reactive. Where is capacity thinning? What needs support? Where can time be released? What needs to shift collectively to keep delivery stable?

This structure mattered most during a period of significant organisational change when we were operating with around a 40 percent vacancy rate. On paper, this level of pressure should have disrupted core delivery. In practice, delivery held, not because people worked longer hours or absorbed more individually, but because pressures remained visible and adjustments were made together rather than within departmental silos.

What stays with me from that period is the steadiness of collaboration under sustained pressure, rather than individual effort. It was a team which genuinely supported each other and cared about delivery.  

This is the thinking which sits behind our Leading in Action Solution. It is designed for operational leaders who are holding live delivery while navigating escalation and competing priorities. The focus is not on abstract cultural ideals, but on strengthening the working patterns which shape how decisions are made, shared, and sustained, particularly when conditions are demanding.

As I reflect on this, I am also aware of the subtle ways competition can shape my own assumptions as a leader. Collaboration is less about agreement with a principle and more about repeated practice, especially during the moments when it would feel simpler to protect one’s own ground.

If this resonates with your experience, I am always open to a conversation about how these working rhythms might translate into your own context.