Teams don’t naturally become collaborative just because they report into the same manager or sit under the same org chart. In many cases, teams slowly drift in the opposite direction. They become efficient on paper, productive in isolation, and quietly disconnected from one another.

Over the years, I’ve worked with teams at very different points on that spectrum. I’ve seen highly functional teams that already had trust, shared ownership, and a strong sense of togetherness. Those teams are easier to navigate because collaboration is already embedded in how they operate.

I’ve also built and inherited teams where people were capable and well intentioned, but historically siloed. Domains were clearly separated. Knowledge lived in pockets. People executed their own work well, but helping each other was not the default behavior.

This post is about what it takes to move a team from that second state to the first. Not through slogans or one-off events, but through intentional structural and behavioral decisions that make collaboration inevitable rather than optional.

---

Trust Is the First Prerequisite

Before anything else, there is one foundational requirement.

You have to earn trust and respect within the team.

Anything you ask a team to do only works if your words carry weight. That weight does not come from your title. It comes from credibility, consistency, and intent. Respect cannot be demanded. It has to be earned.

You can force compliance for a short period of time by leaning on authority, but that approach collapses quickly. If your goal is to build a team that is consistently successful and genuinely collaborative, it has to be a partnership. People need to believe that you are acting in the best interest of the team.

Many managers assume that trust flows upward, that the team needs to earn the manager’s trust. In reality, it is just as important that the manager earns the trust of the team first. Without that foundation, none of the strategies that follow will stick.

---

Why Silos Form Even on Good Teams

Most silos are not created because people are unwilling to help.

They form because of how work is designed.

Over time, engineers naturally gravitate toward areas they know well. Someone becomes the expert in a specific service or domain. That expertise is reinforced every time new work in that area flows directly to them. Slowly, ownership hardens.

At that point, silos exist even if everyone is acting in good faith.

If silos are created systemically, they must be solved systemically. You cannot fix a design problem with a motivational speech.

---

Rotate Ownership Before You Rotate Behavior

One of the most effective ways to break silos is to change how ownership works.

If the same people always own the same domains, collaboration will never feel natural. The fastest way to change that is to rotate responsibility intentionally, even when it feels uncomfortable.

This can mean rotating feature ownership across domains, broadening on-call responsibilities, or pairing less experienced engineers with domain experts so that learning happens during real delivery.

Yes, this slows things down in the short term.

But what you gain is shared context. Knowledge stops living in isolated pockets. The team becomes more resilient and less dependent on individuals. Over time, people stop thinking in terms of “my area” and start thinking in terms of “our system.”

---

Accepting the Short-Term Productivity Dip

It is important to acknowledge the tradeoff honestly.

When you start diversifying ownership, productivity often dips. Assigning work to someone unfamiliar with an area takes more time. Context has to be built. Reviews take longer. Questions increase.

There are moments when you cannot afford that slowdown. During critical deadlines or major commitments, stability matters.

What does not work is deferring diversification indefinitely because “now is not the right time.” If that becomes the pattern, silos never break, and the long-term cost compounds quietly.

As an engineering manager, part of the role is recognizing when the system can absorb short-term inefficiency in exchange for long-term resilience. Slower periods are opportunities to invest in shared ownership.

You are sacrificing some short-term gains intentionally for long-term strategic benefits. Knowing when and at what pace to do this is a leadership judgment call.

---

Reinforcing Collaboration Through Recognition

Changing behavior requires overcoming inertia.

When engineers step outside familiar patterns, that effort needs reinforcement. Collaboration should be explicitly recognized, especially early on.

Behavior that requires effort needs reinforcement.

When collaboration is acknowledged publicly, it signals what the team values. Over time, those signals shape habits. People repeat behaviors that are recognized and appreciated.

If collaboration goes unnoticed, there is little incentive to leave comfortable working patterns. Even well-intentioned engineers drift back to what feels efficient individually.

Rewarding collaboration is not about incentives alone. It is about reinforcing the behaviors you want to become the norm.

---

Pair Programming as a Confidence Bridge

Pair programming is a practical way to reduce hesitation around cross-domain work.

When someone is working in an unfamiliar area, pairing lowers psychological barriers. Learning feels safer. Progress feels shared. Questions feel easier to ask.

Used intentionally, pairing accelerates knowledge transfer and strengthens relationships. People solve problems together instead of operating in isolation.

---

Using Code Reviews to Break Silos

Code reviews can quietly reinforce silos if only a small group participates regularly.

Making reviews a shared responsibility encourages people to engage with areas outside their primary domain. Conversations emerge naturally, and familiarity builds over time.

In some teams, I have introduced optional review discussions early on to encourage dialogue. Over time, those structured sessions faded into organic, ad hoc conversations.

The goal was never process. It was connection.

---

Opening Up Design Discussions

Design discussions are another structural lever.

Including the broader team in architecture and solution conversations builds a shared mental model. People understand tradeoffs and constraints beyond their immediate tasks.

That shared understanding reduces friction later and encourages cross-domain contributions.

---

Why Team Bonding Alone Is Not Enough

Happy hours and team outings help people connect as humans, and that connection matters.

But without structural changes, those efforts rarely translate into how work actually happens.

If ownership remains isolated, people return to old patterns once the event ends. The bonding remains emotional, but collaboration remains theoretical.

When structural changes create real opportunities to work together, social bonding has somewhere to land. Collaboration becomes practiced, not just discussed.

Otherwise, it is like teaching someone a concept but never giving them a chance to apply it. Without repetition and reinforcement, it does not stick.

---

Leadership From Within, Not From Above

There is another subtle but critical element to building a culture where teams truly stick together.

You cannot lead from an ivory tower.

Being part of the team does not mean writing production code or inserting yourself into every technical decision. It does mean being visibly invested in the work and the people.

Engineers often carry responsibilities that are not glamorous. Writing documentation, preparing strategy or design documents, handling compliance tasks, or coordinating logistics. These tasks matter, but they are not always exciting.

There have been times when my team was stretched delivering features while additional administrative or compliance work remained. In those situations, I deliberately took some of that work myself. Not because it was impressive, but because it needed to get done and the team was already carrying enough.

That act communicates something powerful.

It shows that no work is beneath you. It shows that you are not delegating unpleasant tasks while distancing yourself from the burden. It shows that you are value-add wherever necessary.

Respect grows when people see that their leader is carrying weight alongside them.

---

You Are Not Designing Culture for Six People

If you are managing a team of six engineers, you are not designing a culture for six people.

You are designing a culture for seven.

Including yourself.

Managers often unconsciously position themselves outside the team. They try to shape culture as observers instead of participants.

In reality, you are part of the system.

You simply have a different set of responsibilities. Just as engineers at different levels operate with different scopes, a manager has a different scope. Different does not mean separate.

When you see yourself as part and parcel of the team, your mindset shifts. You stop thinking in terms of “their behavior” and start thinking in terms of “our standards.”

Teams sense whether their leader is inside the circle or standing above it. Cohesion strengthens when accountability is shared, even if responsibilities differ.

---

When Misalignment Goes Unaddressed

One of the hardest situations to navigate is consistent misalignment that goes unaddressed.

This is rarely about bad intent. Often, it is about different priorities.

I once worked with an engineer who was deeply committed to refactoring and cleaning every piece of code they touched. From a craftsmanship perspective, that instinct was admirable.

The team, however, had aligned on a balanced approach due to timelines and ROI constraints. Neither perspective was wrong. But when the difference was not discussed openly, confusion emerged about expectations.

The solution is alignment, not avoidance.

When misalignment is addressed directly, priorities become clear and cohesion strengthens. When it is ignored, trust erodes quietly.

---

Looking Back

Building a culture where teams truly stick together is not a quick journey. It takes time, often multiple quarters.

But when you reflect on where the team started and where it stands now, the transformation is deeply rewarding. Watching people stand up for each other, support each other, and operate as a unified system is something worth being proud of.

That kind of culture does not happen by accident.

It is built deliberately.

---

Final Thoughts

Collaboration is not a personality trait.

It is a system outcome.

Design the system thoughtfully. Reinforce the right behaviors. Participate fully in the culture you are shaping.

The rest follows.

If you’ve worked through similar team dynamics, I’d be interested to hear what helped you move the needle and what proved more difficult than expected.