Working Together: Why “I’m a Team Player” Is Not Enough

“Working Together” is one of the Civil Service behaviours that appears straightforward at first.

Many applicants assume it means being friendly, cooperative, and helpful. As a result, examples often begin with phrases such as, “I work well as part of a team.”

Those statements may be true, but they are rarely enough. In Civil Service applications, Working Together is about building effective relationships, collaborating across boundaries, respecting different perspectives, and contributing to outcomes that could not have been achieved alone.

The misunderstanding behind the behaviour

A common mistake is treating Working Together as a personality trait.

Applicants describe themselves as approachable, supportive, reliable, or positive. These are useful qualities, but assessors are looking for evidence of what the candidate did when collaboration mattered.

Who did they work with? Were there competing priorities or disagreements? Did they need to build trust? How did their contribution improve the outcome?

Without this detail, an example can feel generic. Strong responses show the candidate actively helping a group achieve a shared result.

What strong candidates demonstrate

A strong Working Together example usually involves more than routine cooperation. It might show how a candidate solved a problem with another team, supported a colleague, resolved tension, or brought people together around a shared objective.

A weaker answer might say: “I worked with colleagues from different departments to complete the project.”

A stronger answer would explain how the candidate recognised different priorities, created a shared understanding of the goal, clarified responsibilities, and ensured everyone had the information needed to contribute.

The first version says teamwork happened. The second shows how the candidate made teamwork effective.

Collaboration is not the same as agreement

Many applicants assume Working Together means describing a situation where everyone got along. But some of the strongest examples involve disagreement.

Collaboration often means navigating different views, working styles, pressures, and priorities. This might involve teams interpreting a process differently, colleagues disagreeing over deadlines, or stakeholders having different expectations.

What matters is how the candidate responded. Did they listen, acknowledge concerns, find common ground, and refocus people on the shared outcome?

The importance of inclusion

Working Together also has a strong inclusion element. The Civil Service is looking for people who work respectfully with others, value different perspectives, and create an environment where people feel able to contribute.

A stronger example might show how the applicant encouraged quieter colleagues to share their views, adapted their approach for someone new to the team, or ensured decisions reflected different experiences.

Inclusion is not optional. A team is stronger when people are not only present, but genuinely heard.

Avoiding the “we” problem

Teamwork examples naturally involve other people, but the assessor still needs to understand the candidate’s personal contribution.

If an answer says, “We agreed a plan, contacted stakeholders, and delivered the project,” it may be unclear what the applicant did.

A better response balances team context with individual action. For example: “I suggested dividing the work according to each person’s expertise, created a tracker to show progress, and helped a colleague reprioritise their tasks.” This demonstrates teamwork while making the candidate’s role clear.

What this behaviour is really testing

Ultimately, Working Together is testing whether a candidate can build trust, collaborate with people who have different perspectives, support others, and contribute to a respectful and inclusive culture without losing sight of delivery.

For applicants, the key is to move beyond saying they are a team player. The Civil Service is not asking whether you like working with people. It is asking whether you can collaborate in a way that improves outcomes.

Strong examples show that the candidate did not simply participate in a team. They helped the team succeed.