“We have been working together for years.” It sounds like a reassuring observation. Yet, the duration of a collaboration says surprisingly little about how well people really know each other.
In many organizations, people have been working together towards the same goals for years. They know exactly who is responsible for what, are familiar with each other's schedules, and know who responds quickly and who prefers to think things through first. At the same time, they know remarkably little about what drives colleagues, where their true strengths lie, what concerns they have, or what assumptions influence their choices.
This often becomes apparent when a team comes under pressure. A reorganization, new strategy, conflict, or period of high workload can bring existing perceptions and assumptions to the surface. Long-term collaboration and deep understanding thus prove to be two distinct dimensions of team development.
How can a team work together for years without really knowing each other?
In daily practice, conversations focus on deadlines, results, planning, processes, and operational issues. These conversations form an important foundation for collaboration. At the same time, they primarily provide insight into what colleagues do and how they work. The question of why someone does something often receives less attention.
Over time, this creates an image based primarily on visible behavior. The quiet colleague is seen as reserved, the critical colleague as difficult, and the manager who asks many questions as controlling. A deeper conversation can subsequently reveal the considerations, experiences, or responsibilities underlying that behavior.
Moreover, people easily fill in missing information with assumptions. Psychologists call this the fundamental attribution error: the tendency to explain behavior primarily in terms of a person's personality, while circumstances often play a significant role. As a result, perceptions and misunderstandings can remain part of the collaboration for a long time.
Why does this problem often only become visible during change?
As long as the work proceeds predictably, a team can function for years based on familiar habits and implicit agreements. As soon as responsibilities shift or new circumstances arise, differences in working methods and preferences become more apparent.
A team that has worked successfully for years may suddenly face new dynamics as a result. Some seek structure, others space. Some want to act quickly, others take time for analysis first.
When team members have an insufficient understanding of each other's motivations and perspectives, these differences are easily interpreted as resistance, lack of commitment, or unwillingness. Often, people view the same issue from different angles.
That is precisely why friction during change processes often revolves around more than just the content. Different perspectives and interpretations significantly determine how team members perceive each other's intentions and behavior.
Do team members know where the knowledge and expertise within the team resides?
Many organizations assume that expertise becomes visible automatically. This frequently turns out to be disappointing.
For years, researchers have described the importance of so-called “transactive memory systems”: a shared understanding of who possesses which knowledge, experience, and expertise within a team. Teams function better when people not only know a lot but also know who to turn to for specific knowledge. As a result, a collective memory emerges in strong teams. People do not need to know everything themselves. They do know which colleague can help with a customer inquiry, a technical problem, or a complex decision. Experienced professionals, in particular, often possess valuable expertise that has become second nature to them and is therefore rarely shared explicitly.
In many teams, a large part of that knowledge remains hidden. Experienced professionals, in particular, possess expertise that has become so self-evident to them that they forget to make it explicit. As a result, colleagues have only a limited view of what someone truly contributes.
You see this especially in organizations where roles are strongly defined. People know each other's role descriptions perfectly. Their true qualities often remain under the radar.
How is space created to share knowledge, ideas, and perspectives with one another?
Teams share more knowledge and perspectives when people feel their contributions are welcome and when conversations go beyond mere positions. This requires psychological safety: the conviction that you can ask questions, express doubts, and discuss mistakes without damaging your position within the team.
Moreover, a team discussion gains more depth when, in addition to what someone thinks, it also explores why they think that way. Underlying a clearly stated viewpoint often lie assumptions, experiences, and beliefs that reveal a great deal about how someone views a situation.
By observing and discussing behavior, team members gain insight into each other's way of thinking and acting. This creates a team where people share their expertise more easily, better understand each other's perspectives, and can connect the existing knowledge more consciously.
What are the benefits when colleagues really get to know each other better?
The strongest teams have a clear picture of each other's knowledge, experience, motivations, preferences, and pitfalls. As a result, they can adapt faster, learn better, and collaborate more effectively when circumstances change.
As a team, would you like to explore which assumptions, patterns, and dynamics influence your collaboration? In his training sessions, Vincent Boscaljon helps teams uncover what lies beneath the surface. This is often where the insights emerge that lead to better collaboration, increased trust, and sustainable development. Contact us for an introduction or discover which training aligns with your specific needs.
