Highly Effective Teams: Reflective Relationality and Organisational Richness
Late last month ACEL released its new publication, The Teamwork Toolkit: Designing Teams that Matter. After the success of the Bold Teacher Toolkit, this publication promised much—and it did not disappoint. Teams are central to our organisational contexts, and it is always valuable to examine them through different lenses. The reflections below were, in part, stimulated by reading and interrogating this resource.
Most schools can point to teams that are working. They meet, share information, move through agendas, and complete their work. Yet there is often a very real, and frequently unexplored, difference between teams that are effective and those that are highly effective. In time-poor, and at times pressured and intense environments, we often simply get on with things and function as best we can. However, when we pause to consider this distinction, one essential ingredient of highly effective teams emerges: the deeply relational reality that underpins schools as organisations.
Highly effective teams feel different. They sound different. They are more focused, more honest, and more willing to engage deeply in their core purpose. There is more joy, less patch defence, less politics, and a stronger sense of shared direction. These teams improve practice. They hold one another to account in ways that are robust, demanding, and respectful. They are reflections of the dominant organisational leadership culture and do not exist by accident or in isolation. The role of the Principal and Senior Leadership Team is critical in setting expectations and behavioural standards. Where this leadership is dysfunctional, organisational atrophy is the inevitable outcome.
So how can we better understand relational leadership? In schools, it is often associated with being approachable, supportive, and insightful—highly attuned to the work of building positive culture. To this, we must add forthright honesty. At the core must also sit a strong sense of collegiality. Genuine collegial goodwill is vital, but it must be underpinned by a deep and abiding culture of trust. Many teams that could have been highly productive and functional have instead been undermined by mistrust, indiscretion, and gossip. Trust must be sufficient to allow individuals to say, “I’m not sure that’s working,” “we need to rethink this,” or simply, “is this right?” without triggering defensiveness. Defensiveness is the corrosive rust of team effectiveness. In cultures where disagreement and robust discussion are not encouraged, teams may remain polite—but they are rarely impactful. Politeness may feel safe, but it is often the death knell of team effectiveness.
Teams are most effective when they focus on genuinely interdependent work—work that cannot be done alone. In schools, much of this work is inherently complex, spanning student learning, wellbeing, co-curricular programs, compliance, and the evolving demands of child protection. Competing agendas are inevitable and real. Saying yes to a small number of priorities means saying no—or not yet—to others. There will be winners and losers, as well as opportunity costs. Resources are finite. At its core, what is at stake is relational. It requires trust, clarity, and the discipline to hold the line, alongside faith in the integrity of underlying processes. Recognising that circumstances shift—that there are swings and roundabouts—is essential if there is to be concord.
When teams are clear about their role and genuinely own it, the nature of their interaction shifts. Meetings move beyond updates and become spaces for thinking. People arrive prepared not just to report, but to contribute. Questions evolve from “What’s happening?” to “What are we learning?” and “What do we need to do differently?” These are more demanding conversations. They require openness about what is not working, a willingness to test ideas, and a readiness to be challenged. This is where relational leadership truly matters—because this kind of work introduces vulnerability. The willingness to be vulnerable is essential, but it carries personal risk. Vulnerability and trust are organisational twins. Without trust, teams retreat; with trust, they become proactive, positive, and forward-looking.
Reflective practice is also central to the development of highly effective teams. Such teams are just as attentive to how they work as to what they achieve. They deliberately make time to step back and ask, “Are we actually getting better at this?” This requires relational maturity. Teams must be able to identify what is not working—whether unclear purpose, uneven contribution, or ineffective structures—without it becoming personal. Here, professional learning and coaching (in their broadest sense) are essential—not as add-ons, but as embedded disciplines within organisations and their teams. Attention to process, meaningful feedback, and reflection-driven adjustment are what enable sustained improvement over time.
So, is it possible to build highly effective teams in schools, given their complexity and competing demands? Yes—but not by doing more. Rather, it requires doing less, more deliberately. It calls for leaders to prioritise deeply rather than broadly, to build professional trust rather than settle for organisational comfort, and to create genuine agency through thoughtful delegation. It demands the design of teams around work that truly matters. It requires the capacity to take calculated risks and the courage to think counter-culturally—both hallmarks of highly effective teams.
Most importantly, it requires a belief that teacher expertise—when trusted, connected, and focused—is the most powerful driver of improvement. When that belief is realised, teams become something to behold.
I hope you find The Teamwork Toolkit: Designing Teams that Matter as timely and valuable as I did.