Working Together statement mistakes (and how to fix them)
Working Together statements fail in predictable ways. The story is usually fine; the telling hides the behaviour. Here are the seven mistakes assessors see most often on this behaviour, and the fix for each one.
Mistake 1: the lone-hero story
Common mistake
The statement describes a group task, but everyone except you is a spectator. You planned, you built, you delivered — the 'team' just watched.
This is the most common failure. Statements must use 'I', but Working Together is scored on how you made a group work: who you involved, what you asked them, how their input changed things. The fix is to audit your draft and give other people real roles: consulted, challenged, co-designed, decided. If nobody else does anything, pick a different example or rewrite around the relationships that were actually there.
Mistake 2: hiding behind 'we'
Common mistake
'We decided, we built, we delivered' — the opposite problem. The collaboration is visible, but your personal contribution is not.
Assessors score you, not your team. The fix is a simple test: highlight every action verb in the draft and check it attaches to 'I'. Keep 'we' for outcomes you genuinely shared ('we raised £3,100') and use 'I' for every move that made it happen. Both mistakes fail: hero without a team, team without a hero.
Mistake 3: airbrushing out the conflict
Common mistake
The story has no disagreement at all: everyone agreed, everything went smoothly, and the assessor learns nothing about how you handle people.
Real collaboration involves friction, and the descriptors at most grades explicitly expect you to handle it. The fix: choose the version of the story with the argument in it — the rota clash, the pricing dispute — and show your moves: listening first, using data to make it fair, letting the group decide. A conflict handled constructively is the strongest Working Together evidence there is.
Mistake 4: claiming inclusion instead of showing it
Common mistake
Sentences like 'I value different perspectives' or 'I am a strong believer in inclusion' appear, but no view other than yours ever changes anything in the story.
Claims are unscoreable; evidence is scoreable. The fix is to find the moment a different perspective altered the plan and put that in: the sceptic whose objection improved the design, the quieter colleague you asked first. If no such moment exists in your example, either the example is wrong or you are not remembering it honestly.
Mistake 5: pitching at the wrong level
Common mistake
An SEO application built on a story about helping a colleague, or an AO application full of 'strategic partnerships'. The evidence misses the descriptor.
Assessors score against the grade's level, so scope matters more than polish. The fix: check the descriptor for your grade and ask who you had to work with and what authority you lacked. Junior grades need specific, everyday teamwork; senior grades need cross-boundary influence and something that outlasted the task. Reframe or re-choose before you rewrite.
Mistake 6: the collaboration ends when the task ends
Common mistake
The event succeeded and then nothing: no forum, no agreement, no relationship that continued. At SEO and above, this caps the score.
Senior descriptors look for collaboration that sticks. The fix is to include the legacy in your result: the monthly meeting that still runs, the shared system other teams adopted, the partners who called you first next time. If nothing lasted, ask yourself why — and whether a different example shows you building something more durable.
Mistake 7: a result with no number and no change
Common mistake
'The event was a great success and the team worked really well together.' Vague praise, no evidence, nothing an assessor can score.
End with something countable: parcels packed, percentage drop in errors, days saved, people involved, money raised. Then add the relational result — the partnership that continued, the complaint that stopped — because Working Together results are about people as well as tasks. Two sentences, one number minimum.
A final check before you submit
- Other people in the story do and decide things, not just watch
- Action verbs attach to 'I'; shared outcomes can keep 'we'
- At least one disagreement is shown and constructively resolved
- A different perspective visibly changes the plan somewhere
- The scope matches the grade descriptor you are applying for
- The result has a number and shows what lasted afterwards
Frequently asked questions
The lone-hero story. Applicants hear 'use I not we' and write statements where nobody else does anything. Assessors cannot score collaboration from a solo performance. Keep 'I' for your actions, but make sure the story shows you building, involving and crediting the people around you.
Describing difficulty is fine; describing colleagues as difficult people is not. 'The two teams had a history of mistrust' is useful context. 'My colleague was stubborn and rude' is blame language that scores against you. Show the situation, your constructive response and the repaired relationship.
Usually you can fix it. Most weak statements have a decent example underneath: they just hide the relationships, the conflict or the result. Rewrite around who you involved, what you disagreed about and what changed. Only re-choose the example if nothing in it shows real collaboration at your grade.
Apply the two-sentence test: one sentence with a number (time saved, errors cut, people reached, money raised) and one sentence on what lasted (the forum, the agreement, the relationship). If you cannot write either sentence, go back to the example and find what actually changed.
Next step
Get the free STAR template — the same structure used in every example on this site.
Download the template pack