September 11, 2025

Where were you on 9/11/2001 ?
I am betting that before you started this article, you pondered this thought today.

I remember it vividly. I was a high school administrator, meeting with my administrative assistant to plan our day. Our school psychologist stormed into the office, flushed and shaken, saying there had been an accident. A plane had crashed into the Twin Towers in New York. The next instant, the phone rang. It was the Principal’s administrative assistant calling all administrators to an emergency meeting and telling us that the Deans had already locked down the building. In that moment, life had changed; our lives had changed forever that day, and from then on, the days were tense and uncertain. This was no accident; it was a coordinated Islamic terror group al-Qaeda’s attack on the United States, resulting in 2,977 deaths in New York, Starkville, and the Pentagon. In conversations, it was amazing how many people knew someone at ground zero. I couldn’t help thinking, this is my generation’s Pearl Harbor. In the months and years that followed, there were many reports regarding the mistakes, lapses, and outright errors that contributed to this horrendous tragedy.

Article content
Organizational psychologist and author Adam Grant, in his book Hidden Potential, provides a poignant story and crucial insight into an underlying, significant element that contributed to 9/11. Grant was an undergraduate student at Harvard at this time and had achieved a dream in his schedule. He recounts how he finally got into a class with. Dr. J. Richard Hackman. Hackman is considered the father of modern team research, who shaped our understanding of teamwork’s critical importance. Grant writes that two days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a distraught Hackman began his class with a confession: “he had failed the country .” Hackman had been working with the U.S. government on a research project about collaboration among intelligence agencies. His findings confirmed that the intelligence community was highly siloed, with agencies failing to share critical information with each other and rarely collaborating. Despite seeing the problem, Hackman felt he had failed to get his message across with sufficient urgency and clarity. Hackman believed that if he had communicated his findings more effectively, the intelligence failures that preceded 9/11 might have been avoided. Hackman studied U.S. intelligence agency teams before 9/11 and reflected that a lack of true collaboration, where warnings were not heard or acted upon, contributed to systemic failure. Hackman’s insight was that even well-staffed and trained teams falter without trust, role clarity, and open sharing beyond their silos.

The other sad note is that in Fall 1941, U.S. intelligence and military intelligence, especially at Pearl Harbor, had forecasted the possibility of a Japanese attack and had been ignored. Increased wire telegraph traffic between the Japanese embassy and Tokyo, as well as other warnings, were ignored. Complacency and a lack of collaboration among teams were also key factors. These examples reinforce that building collective capacity is not optional in any high-stakes environment; cooperation and teamwork are crucial. They are not collaboration or teamwork; it is a both-and requirement for sustained, effective leadership using collective capacity.

Article content

This remains as true today as it was on September 11, 2001, and December 7, 1941; collective capacity in collaboration and teamwork is weak in many organizations. In a blog by Collabgenius AI The High Cost of Underperformance – Calculating the Price Tag of Team Ineffectiveness, the authors write that underperforming teams can hinder progress, impede decision-making, and create a toxic work environment. The financial consequences of underperforming teams can be substantial. According to a study by Harvard Business Review, poor team performance costs businesses an estimated $15.5 million per year on average. This includes lost revenue, increased operational costs, and missed opportunities. Organizations with underperforming teams experience lower profitability, decreased market share, and increased employee turnover, all of which directly impact the bottom line.” According to Gallup, disengaged teams globally cost organizations $8.8 trillion annually. Dysfunctional teams erode morale, delay crucial decisions, and damage organizational reputation.

Leading in context today demands more than individual brilliance; it calls for collaboration and teamwork to build actual collective capacity. These practices enable organizations, schools, and nonprofits to reach goals that would be out of reach for any one person or department. Effective collaboration and teamwork serve as the primary engines of collective capacity.

This Thursday’s Leadership Insight is the second article in a series on leading in the context of building collective capacity. Collective capacity, collaboration, and teamwork will be described. The differences and similarities of collaboration and teamwork are discussed, and the elements of effective collaboration and teamwork will be shared. Finally, five leadership practices will be shared to help leaders build collaboration and teamwork, thereby developing a collective capacity for sustainable and adaptable success in any organization.

Collective capacity is the ability of a group to pool its skills, knowledge, and perspectives to achieve shared goals, surpassing what any individual could accomplish alone. Unlike top-down leadership, collective capacity is rooted in distributed servant leadership, empowering people with the most relevant expertise to lead at the right moment and ensuring everyone contributes, learns, and feels accountable for the results. This approach generates resilience, adaptability, and innovation, especially amid complexity and rapid change.

Teamwork and Collaboration

Teamwork is a process where leadership forms groups of people who work interdependently, relying on shared responsibility, aligned roles, and mutual support to achieve a common objective. Teamwork thrives on trust, safety, unified and focused effort, clear roles, and structured coordination.

Collaboration is a process that brings together diverse perspectives and expertise, encouraging free exchange of ideas and adaptive problem-solving. Collaboration draws on varied skills and fluid roles, embracing creativity and innovation, and flourishes when people learn, can disagree, and grow together.

Differences and Similarities

Teamwork often relies on predefined roles and shared responsibilities, while collaboration emphasizes diverse, flexible contributions and creative dialogue. Teamwork is about pulling in the same direction; collaboration is about combining different strengths to find new solutions.

There is a shared commitment to a process where the most important product is a ‘We’ product, not a ‘Me’ product.

There is a commitment to a process where the most important product is a We product, not a Me product.

The foundation of both teamwork and collaboration is underpinned by shared purpose, values, direction, trust, open communication, and recognition that group effort achieves more than solo work or solo acknowledgement .” There is a commitment to a process where the most important product is a We product, not a Me product

Seven Elements That Fuel Strong Teamwork and Collaboration ar

Leaders who are secure in their own leadership to build people up and get things done choose to build collective capacity by being open, humble, curious learners and leaders

Clear goals and roles for direction and accountability.

Open communication that enables honest feedback and idea-sharing.

Trust and psychological safety so members can speak up, take risks, and admit mistakes.

Diversity of perspectives and skillsets to approach problems holistically.

Mutual respect and a foundation for healthy conflict resolution.

Ongoing learning and feedback are integrated into the team’s operations.

John Maxwell’s 6 C’s of teamwork presentation at the August 2025 International Maxwell Conference, along with Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions, provides five practices a leader can choose to apply to develop strong collaboration and teamwork in any organization.

1. Build Trust (Connection): Foster vulnerability-based trust so that team members feel safe being honest and asking for help.
2. Embrace Healthy Conflict (Communication/Courage): Encourage open debate and constructive dissent, engaging differences productively.
3. Establish Commitment and Common Purpose (Clarity): Create clarity on goals and ensure everyone is aligned and invested.
4. Drive Accountability (Consistency/Commitment): Set clear expectations and empower team members to hold one another accountable without fear of blame.
5. Focus on Results (Contribution/Results): Align each person’s contribution to measurable outcomes, celebrate progress, and course-correct as a group.

Great leaders continually model these practices, shaping cultures where teamwork and collaboration become sustainable habits and systems of success.

In today’s context, intentional collaboration and teamwork are no longer “nice to have” or either-or. Team work and collaboration are connected, intertwined parts of the bedrock for building the kind of collective capacity that leads not only to higher performance, but to real resilience and breakthrough achievement benefiting all in the organization.

The Leadership questions for you are.

What practices can you implement to enhance collaboration and teamwork, thereby building collective capacity within your organization?

What is the state of collaboration and teamwork within your organization?