Do We Still Need to Talk About Teamwork? A Fresh Perspective on Collaboration and Retrospectives

Teamwork has become a cornerstone principle in software development, yet many organizations struggle with its implementation. In a recent discussion between experts Aino Vonge Corry and Lisa Maria Schäfer, they explored a fundamental question: Is our obsession with teams sometimes counterproductive?

The Reflection Problem

One key insight emerged: many professionals were never trained to reflect on their actions. Instead, they learned to focus on future goals and external metrics. This absence of reflective practice creates a barrier to genuine improvement. Introducing reflection through retrospectives can help, but only if done thoughtfully. Rather than forcing team-wide discussions, starting with silent, individual reflection in a safe environment can normalize the practice. When team members realize others share similar struggles, the fear diminishes, and genuine conversation becomes possible.

Understanding Retrospective Resistance

Not everyone loves retrospectives — and that’s okay. Rather than dismissing skeptics, facilitators should investigate why. Some may have experienced traumatic retrospectives where they felt attacked. Others may view communication as unnecessary overhead, believing software development is purely about coding. However, the fundamental purpose of a team is to achieve shared goals where the collective becomes greater than individuals working alone.

For resistant team members, one-on-one conversations work better than force. Understanding their concerns and involving them in designing better retrospectives—within clear boundaries—can transform skeptics into contributors. A coding-focused retrospective, for instance, can organically lead to discussions about communication and collaboration.

The Introvert Challenge

For introverts and highly independent workers, constant ceremonies can be exhausting and counterproductive. The solution isn’t to eliminate meetings but to question their quality and necessity. A 15-minute check-in where people discuss what matters to them differs fundamentally from a soul-draining status update. Not every person needs to attend every ceremony, and not every group calling itself a team truly functions as one.

Redefining “Team”

Here lies a critical distinction: calling a group a team doesn’t make it one. True teams require shared goals, mutual interest in colleagues’ work, and the capacity to help each other. When people work on seven different projects while meeting together, they’re a group, not a team. This distinction matters because calling something a team creates expectations that often go unmet, leaving people feeling inadequate.

The power of helping each other in teams is underestimated. Research shows that helping others strengthens interpersonal bonds more than receiving help—people naturally like those they assist.

Conclusion

The future of teamwork requires nuance. Rather than forcing universal team structures and ceremonies, organizations should recognize diverse work styles and authentic team dynamics. Retrospectives should inspire rather than burden. Not everyone belongs in every meeting, and not every group deserves the title “team.” By respecting these distinctions and focusing on genuine shared goals and mutual support, we create environments where collaboration truly thrives—not because ceremonies demand it, but because people recognize its value.