Can broken teams be repaired?
Can broken workplace teams be repaired?
In community and human service settings, teams are often working under sustained pressure including high workloads, complex client situations, and ongoing exposure to trauma.
In these environments, tension within teams is not unusual.
But when communication breaks down, relationships strain, and trust begins to erode, the question becomes:
Can a team that feels fractured actually find its way back?
In my experience, the answer is yes…. but not always in the ways we might expect.
What sits beneath team breakdown
When teams struggle, it is rarely just about a single incident or interaction.
More often, it reflects a combination of:
cumulative stress and emotional load
uneven or unclear expectations
pressure within the service environment
breakdowns in communication or trust
unresolved tensions over time
In trauma-exposed work, these dynamics are amplified. People are often carrying more than what is visible, and this shapes how interactions are experienced and interpreted.
What can appear as “difficult behaviour” is often connected to strain, context, and meaning-making.
What we often see when things start to go wrong
As tensions increase, workplaces tend to move toward more formal responses. These might include:
complaints or grievance processes
mediation between individuals
increased sick leave or withdrawal
informal division within the team
in some cases, staff leaving or teams breaking apart
These responses can be necessary, particularly where there are clear concerns about behaviour or safety.
However, they can also move too quickly past understanding what is actually happening within the team.
When this occurs, complex relational dynamics can become reduced to a question of who is right and who is wrong.
A different way of understanding rupture
In practice, team rupture is rarely just about what happened.
It is also about:
how each person has understood and interpreted events
what those events mean to them
how their experience has been shaped by stress, values, and context
It is not uncommon for people to hold very different accounts of the same interaction -
and for both to feel genuine and valid.
Repair does not come from proving a version of events.
It comes from creating space to understand how those different experiences have formed.
This requires a shift.. from certainty to curiosity.
What supports repair in teams
Repair is not a single conversation or intervention. It is a process that requires care, clarity, and leadership.
In practice, this often involves:
Acknowledging what has occurred
Naming that there has been strain or tension, rather than allowing it to sit unspoken.
Making space for different perspectives
Supporting people to describe their experience without immediately challenging or correcting it.
Understanding the broader context
Considering workload, role clarity, team dynamics, and the impact of trauma exposure.
Maintaining accountability
Being clear about expectations for behaviour and professional conduct, while avoiding blame or shaming.
Re-establishing shared ways of working
Focusing on how the team moves forward — not just what has happened.
Leadership capability matters
Repair is not primarily about applying the right process.
It is about how leaders show up in the process.
This includes the capacity to:
remain steady in the face of tension
tolerate differing perspectives without rushing to resolution
ask thoughtful questions rather than making quick judgements
address concerns clearly while maintaining respect
hold both the individual and the team in mind
These are not simple skills. They require practice, reflection, and support.
The role of the team
It is also important to recognise that teams themselves play a role in repair.
Healthy teams:
do not isolate one person as “the problem”
are able to reflect on how patterns have developed
take some shared responsibility for how the team functions
This does not remove individual accountability but it does shift the focus from blame to understanding.
When formal processes are needed
There are times when concerns must move into formal pathways - particularly where there are issues of:
bullying or harassment
discrimination
safety risks
serious conduct concerns
In these situations, procedural fairness is essential.
Importantly, how these processes are carried out matters.
When people understand what is happening, have an opportunity to respond, and are treated with respect, the process is far less likely to cause further harm.
So, can teams be repaired?
Yes - but repair is not quick, and it is not purely procedural.
It requires:
a willingness to slow down
openness to multiple perspectives
clarity about expectations
leadership that balances accountability with care
and a shared commitment to working differently
At its core, repair becomes possible when the focus shifts from:
“What happened and who is responsible?”
to
“What has been experienced here, and how do we move forward?”
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Open University Press.
Fox, M. (2018). Supervision in the human services: Making a real difference. Allen & Unwin.
Martin, J., & Henderson, J. (2010). Managing and leading in social work. Routledge.
Reynolds, V. (2011). Resisting burnout with justice-doing. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, (4), 27–45.
Safe Work Australia. (2022). Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work.