The Collaboration Illusion: Why Working Together Isn’t Always Working

This is the reality leaders recognise, and I’ve heard it from principals more times than I can count:

“We call it teamwork, but I’m doing it all alone.”

On paper, collaboration looks abundant—leadership teams, project groups, working parties. In practice, it often means one or two people carrying the load while others nod politely, agree in principle, and quietly hope things will move without them.

This isn’t laziness or malice—it’s design. When collaboration isn’t scaffolded, it becomes a meeting with snacks, not a lever for progress.

Collaboration isn’t broken—it’s just badly designed.

The good news? Design is within our control.

Why Goodwill Isn’t Enough

Collaboration fails least where it’s most deliberate. Research is clear: distributed leadership only works when roles and accountability are explicit (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2020; Spillane, 2006). Hargreaves and O’Connor (2018) describe this as collaborative professionalism—relying on intentional routines, not hope.

International studies add to this: without role clarity, short cycles, and shared follow-through, collaboration often dissolves into duplication or disengagement (OECD, 2019; UNESCO, 2017).

Research spotlight

• Distributed leadership improves outcomes only when structures and follow-through exist (Leithwood et al., 2020).
• Unstructured “teamwork” leads to initiative fatigue and quiet disengagement (OECD, 2019; UNESCO, 2017).

You’ll know you’re moving beyond goodwill when staff describe collaboration as energising, not exhausting—because effort is visible, roles are clear, and progress shows up between meetings.

The Barrier Underneath: Shackled Authority

This belongs squarely under Shackled Authority. Leaders are responsible for outcomes, but don’t hold the levers that make responsibility truly shared. Meetings are distributed; accountability isn’t. That’s where goodwill goes to die.

Trust becomes the hinge. Without psychological safety, people stay quiet or do the bare minimum (Edmondson, 1999; Bryk & Schneider, 2002). As I argued in The Trust Dilemma, collaboration collapses when trust is absent. People won’t step forward if they fear criticism or wasted effort. And The Invisible Wall of Compliance shows how over-bureaucratic rules choke contribution—compliance on paper, disengagement in practice.

Distributed meetings aren’t the same as distributed leadership.

Signal of progress: You’ll see this barrier shift when actions are shared equitably and completed without repeated chasing; when more staff volunteer because stepping forward feels safe and worthwhile.

Two Anchors That Make Collaboration Real

The pathway blends Systems Thinking (the skeleton) with Authentic Relationships (the heartbeat). Systems provide clarity—who does what, by when, and how progress will be seen. Relationships provide confidence that stepping forward won’t be punished or wasted. Without both, collaboration remains an illusion. With both, it becomes a cultural multiplier.

Goodwill doesn’t scale. Systems and trust do.

Signal of progress: Agendas tighten, contributions become visible, and follow-through happens between meetings, not pushed into the next agenda.

The Playbook: Five Practical Shifts

1. Define roles with surgical clarity

Most collaboration fails not because people disagree, but because no one knows who’s supposed to act. Repairing this is simple but powerful: create a skeleton for the work. Start every project with a one-page role map naming the outcome, milestones, and owner. Read it aloud, invite edits, then publish it somewhere accessible.

When roles are visible, wheels turn without constant prompting. Research shows role clarity reduces rework and improves task completion (Leithwood, Sun, & Pollock, 2019; OECD, 2019).

What to measure: Within 2–4 weeks, you’ll notice fewer “I thought someone else had that” conversations and more progress logged outside meetings.

2. Build visible accountability loops

Untracked tasks drift. Visible work ships. Create a shared action log (even a simple spreadsheet) that records each decision, the owner, and the date. Start every meeting with a three-minute scan of what moved and what’s blocked.

This isn’t bureaucracy—it’s oxygen. Transparent tracking increases follow-through and compresses timelines (Hattie, 2021; Robinson, Hohepa, & Lloyd, 2009).

Signal of progress: You spend less time chasing, and staff start updating actions without prompting. If your tracker feels like paperwork theatre, revisit The Invisible Wall of Compliance—the system must stay lightweight, not suffocating.

3. Shorten the feedback cycles

Termly “big reveals” are too slow. Move to weekly or fortnightly check-ins with three prompts: what moved, what’s blocking, what’s next. Capture decisions live, update the action log, and close with one visible improvement for the week.

OECD (2019) and Timperley (2011) show short cycles lift engagement and enable adaptive teaching and leadership. The energy shifts quickly: issues surface in days, not months, and small course corrections become routine.

Collaboration dies in silence; feedback keeps it alive.

Measure: You’ll know it’s working when meetings shrink, projects gain momentum, and barriers surface before they turn into crises.

4. Recognise contributions where people can see them

In pressured schools, effort is invisible unless the result is spectacular. Flip that. Publicly name contributions in staff briefings, internal channels, or even the Friday email. Link each recognition to its impact: “Jasmine’s rubric reduced moderation time by 30 minutes.”

Recognition fuels motivation and willingness to contribute (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Over time, more staff step up because effort is seen, not assumed.

Measure: You’ll hear more people volunteering and notice contributions spreading across the team. Recognition becomes a signal of what the culture values.

5. Tie collaboration to purpose—not just tasks

If collaboration feels like another list, people will tick boxes. If it feels like the work of your school’s values, they’ll invest. Start meetings with one sentence linking the project to vision: “This is about calmer transitions so students start learning sooner.”

Fullan (2011) emphasises that coherence—alignment of vision, capacity, and action—is the engine of reform. Purpose makes collaboration sustainable.

Collaboration without purpose is just collective busyness.

Signal: Staff begin articulating how their work connects to vision. If trust feels fragile, pair this with the moves in The Trust Dilemma to rebuild psychological safety.

Keeping Momentum Without Overload

Real collaboration doesn’t depend on heroic bursts—it runs on rhythm. Short cycles, visible progress, and role rotation. Even simple practices like rotating facilitation build shared ownership. When power travels, trust follows.

Signal: Meetings shorten, actions move between sessions, and new volunteers emerge—not because they’re coerced, but because contribution feels safe and meaningful.

Collaboration isn’t about dividing work; it’s about multiplying impact.

Turning the illusion into reality

Collaboration isn’t an illusion—the illusion is that it thrives on goodwill alone. With scaffolding and trust, the same people in the same building can produce very different results.

If trust is thin, start with The Trust Dilemma. If systems feel like red tape, revisit The Invisible Wall of Compliance. Then return here and connect the dots.

That’s how collaboration moves from illusion to culture.

References

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.

Crockett, L. (2025). The invisible wall of compliance. Culture of Excellence. https://blog.cultureofexcellence.net/the-invisible-wall-of-compliance

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin.

Hattie, J. (2021). Visible learning (updated ed.). Routledge.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.

Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (2019). How school leaders contribute to student success: The four paths framework. Springer.

OECD. (2019). Future of education and skills 2030: Learning compass. OECD Publishing.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Ministry of Education, New Zealand.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Timperley, H. (2011). Realising the power of professional learning. McGraw-Hill.

UNESCO. (2017). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action. UNESCO.