Why Does a Good Team Stop Working Well Together?
Perhaps you've got a team that's worked well together for years. People know their jobs and generally get things done without too much intervention. Then something changes. Team members who used to help each other are finding fault instead and small frustrations that once got sorted out between them have started coming back to you to resolve. On top of that, someone who used to offer sensible suggestions now says very little in meetings. All in all, the work still gets done but it's taking more effort, not least because you're spending more time dealing with complaints rather than supporting the work.
It's tempting to put it down to personalities or assume that a couple of people have developed a poor attitude. Sometimes individual behaviour is part of the problem but it's worth looking more widely before deciding what needs to change. These difficulties don't always begin with a major incident or argument - a capable team can start struggling because the conditions around it have changed, even when the people haven't.
This post is for SME owners and managers who've noticed a previously effective team becoming less cooperative. You'll leave with a way to identify possible causes and decide what to address first. It focuses on everyday team effectiveness, rather than formal grievance, disciplinary or individual performance procedures.
If you want something more specific, these may help:
Why New Managers Struggle in Growing UK Businesses
Leadership Silence and Culture: What Teams Hear When Nothing Is Said
Why do employees think managers are treating them differently?
When different standards start affecting relationships
One place to look is how the business responds to the people it relies on most. Their contribution can be so valuable that a manager becomes reluctant to challenge behaviour which is affecting other team members.
Take the example of a software specialist whose knowledge of an ageing system makes them particularly valuable to the business. They're the person everyone relies on when something goes wrong, so their manager is understandably reluctant to risk losing them. Unfortunately, they're also reluctant to share their knowledge and can be dismissive when less experienced team members ask for help. Rather than address the behaviour, the manager overlooks it because of how much the business depends on them.
Over time, this creates frustration among other employees who are expected to work cooperatively while the specialist appears to be exempt from the same expectations. Nobody's questioning their technical expertise, but being exceptionally good at your job shouldn't mean that behaviour which makes other people's work more difficult goes unchallenged.
That sense of unfairness can develop in less obvious situations too.
For example, one employee may routinely be allowed to miss an agreed deadline while another is challenged for doing the same thing. There might be a sound reason for treating the situations differently, including circumstances that can't be shared with the wider team. Where the reason isn't apparent, though, people may start to suspect favouritism.
Managers can't always explain why they've made a particular allowance, but they can make sure everyone understands the general expectations and how decisions are made. They should also review whether they're applying those expectations consistently and be prepared to explain differences where it's appropriate to do so. This can help prevent misunderstandings without compromising anyone's confidentiality.
When employees stop raising concerns
People can also become less willing to contribute when experience suggests that raising concerns won't make any difference.
In this instance, maybe an employee who is responsible for preparing the monthly management reports points out that the deadline doesn't allow enough time for the latest financial information to come through. The manager acknowledges the concern but doesn't review the timetable, so every month the employee faces the same problem. Eventually, they stop raising it and simply do the best they can with the information available. The manager may assume the problem has been resolved, when in reality the employee has given up trying to get it addressed.
Not every suggestion can be adopted and employees won't always agree with the decision. What matters is whether concerns are considered and people understand what happened next. If the lack of involvement or follow up is the cause of the challenges, asking the team to be more engaged won't achieve much until managers improve how they respond.
When the way work is organised causes frustration
Equally, the way work is organised deserves just as much attention: a previously helpful team may become protective of its time when demand increases but capacity doesn't. Someone who once stepped in readily to help a colleague now has to choose between doing so and completing their own work. If priorities are changing regularly, everyday requests can become a source of irritation. What looks like poor cooperation may reflect competing expectations and too little time.
This calls for a proper look at what people are being asked to deliver and whether the available capacity is realistic. Encouraging colleagues to be more patient with each other may ease an awkward moment but it won't resolve an unsustainable workload.
Changes to how work is organised can cause similar frustration. A new client process might make complete sense to the owner yet create an extra step for employees that wasn't considered when it was introduced. Typically they each begin finding workarounds and tensions arise when different people deal with the process in different ways.
Before calling that resistance, ask what the change looks like from the employee's perspective and whether the business has helped make it workable. Involving people in change gives the business a better chance of spotting practical problems before they become established.
Growth can also expose conflicting priorities between teams. For example, on guidance from leadership a sales team promises a delivery date that operations can't meet. Team members are left arguing over commitments neither team can change, even though everyone is working hard to achieve their objectives. The frustration appears to be within the team but the reality is that management wasn't aligned.
The solution begins with the owner or management team agreeing priorities and resolving competing expectations. Employees can't consistently cooperate around objectives that their managers haven't made compatible.
How do you find out what’s actually happening?
Start with a specific example rather than a general description such as ‘the team's attitude has changed’. What happened and how regularly has it occurred? Then look back to when you first noticed the change. If the team took on a major contract around that time, for instance, explore whether the additional demands altered how people worked together. But bear in mind, the timing offers a clue, it’s not necessarily the full answer to the problem.
Speak with people individually or in small groups, depending on the circumstances. Ask where cooperation has become more difficult and what they believe has changed. Take their concerns seriously without assuming that the first account is the whole picture. Compare what you're hearing with how the work is actually organised.
Five questions can help keep the diagnosis focused:
What behaviour or working difficulty have we actually observed?
When did it begin and what changed around that time?
Is it widespread or concentrated in particular teams, tasks or relationships?
What are employees telling us and what evidence supports or challenges that account?
Could our decisions, demands or accepted ways of working be contributing?
Choose an action that addresses the cause
Once you've got a clearer picture, decide what needs to change and who should own it. When teams are working towards incompatible objectives, the managers need to resolve that conflict. If an employee has repeatedly raised a concern without a response, get back to them properly, even if the answer isn't the one they want. Where one person's conduct is affecting other team members, address that behaviour with them rather than putting the whole team through an exercise that doesn't deal with the problem.
Some situations will need an individual conversation, structured management support or a formal process. Allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination or serious misconduct shouldn't be treated as an informal team-effectiveness exercise; they need to be handled under the appropriate procedures and with advice where necessary. The important distinction is between investigating a team problem and making findings about an individual's conduct.
Choose actions the business can realistically follow through on and let the people affected know what's changing. Set a point to review whether it’s helped. Without that follow-up, asking for employees' views can reinforce the very frustration you're trying to resolve.
Disclaimer
This article provides general information and practical guidance for UK employers. It isn't legal advice and shouldn't replace advice on specific employment circumstances.
