A Working Together statement should make two things clear at the same time: what the group needed to achieve and what you personally did to help people work together more effectively.
That balance matters. Too much “I” can make the answer sound individualistic; too much “we” leaves the assessor unable to score your contribution.
For the broader behaviour explanation, use the Working Together Civil Service guide.
Choosing an example that gives you something to score
Choose a situation where cooperation required effort. A disagreement, dependency, handoff problem, resource pressure or colleague needing support will usually give you more evidence than a project where the team worked perfectly from the start.
You should be able to explain what the other people needed, not only what you needed from them. That helps the example sound like genuine collaboration rather than stakeholder management with a softer label.
At senior grades, consider examples involving peers, partner organisations or teams outside your direct control.
Use B-STAR underneath the writing
Use B-STAR: Belief, Situation, Task, Action, Result to organise the evidence before you write. Once the evidence is in place, the statement should still sound like one coherent story.
Belief
Do not over-write the Belief. A concise, credible opening might be:
I believe good teamwork depends on people understanding the shared outcome, being able to raise problems early and knowing that different perspectives will genuinely affect the way we work.
Situation
Describe the relationship or dependency problem clearly, then get to what you personally did about it.
Task
Make clear what part of the shared problem you took responsibility for resolving.
Action
Use Action to show how you built understanding, shared information, invited different views, handled disagreement, offered or asked for support and created a workable agreement between people.
Result
A useful Result shows both the shared delivery and the relationship becoming more effective: fewer handoff problems, better ownership, quicker resolution or a partnership that continued beyond the immediate issue.
Full Working Together 250 word statement example
I believe good teamwork depends on people understanding the shared outcome, being able to raise problems early and knowing that different perspectives will genuinely affect the way we work.
As an EO, I noticed cases were repeatedly being returned between my team and a specialist unit. Both teams believed the other was causing delays, and the growing frustration was starting to affect communication.
I volunteered to help agree a clearer handoff.
I reviewed recent returned cases with a colleague from the specialist team and found that our written guidance could reasonably be interpreted in two different ways. I arranged a short session with frontline staff from both teams rather than asking managers to settle it without the people using the process.
I suggested a checklist for routine cases, but a specialist colleague showed that one item would reject legitimate exceptions. I changed the proposal and we agreed a separate exception route instead. We also created a shared channel for questions during the first month and agreed that recurring issues would be reviewed together rather than sent back with a generic rejection.
The number of cases bouncing repeatedly between the teams reduced, and colleagues reported problems earlier instead of allowing them to become disputes. The handoff rule and shared channel remained in use after the initial review period.
Example word count: 217. There is spare capacity under 250 words, which is fine. Do not add background simply because space remains.
B-STAR breakdown
| B-STAR part | What the example shows |
|---|---|
| Belief | Frames teamwork around shared outcomes, early challenge and genuine use of different perspectives. |
| Situation | Two teams are frustrated by repeated returns and ambiguous guidance. |
| Task | Help agree a clearer way of handing work between them. |
| Action | Reviews evidence jointly, involves frontline staff, changes an initial proposal after specialist feedback and creates a shared problem-solving route. |
| Result | Repeated bouncing reduces and the teams keep the new handoff and communication arrangements. |
Why this statement works
The candidate does not pick a side. Reviewing cases with the specialist team reveals that the process itself is ambiguous.
The frontline session is purposeful because the people who use the handoff help shape it. This is stronger than a generic claim that “stakeholders were consulted”.
Changing the checklist after specialist feedback is particularly useful evidence. It shows the candidate was not using collaboration simply to secure agreement to a pre-written answer.
The result includes a better working relationship as well as the operational improvement.
Want to compare more complete statements?
The grade-specific statement packs cover all nine behaviours with worked examples at your level. They show the difference between simple cooperation and stronger evidence of challenge, compromise, inclusion and shared ownership.
What changes by grade?
AA/AO
Build supportive relationships, share information, ask for and offer help and treat different backgrounds and viewpoints with respect.
EO
Build cooperation within and beyond the team, share information and resources, support colleagues and contribute to an inclusive working environment.
HEO/SEO
Create joined-up working across groups, build professional relationships, develop common purpose, support wellbeing and actively seek different perspectives.
G6/7
Maintain networks that move shared objectives forward, challenge assumptions while knowing when to compromise, support people and create an environment where challenge is safe.
Keep your own contribution visible
Use “we” when describing the collective outcome, but use “I” where you personally made a decision, arranged something, challenged a view or offered support.
The assessor should never have to guess which actions belonged to you.
Show what you learned from somebody else
One good way to demonstrate genuine collaboration is to include a point where another person’s knowledge changed your approach.
That does not weaken your answer. It shows that you used the relationship intelligently.
Make the shared purpose concrete
“We all wanted the project to succeed” is too vague. Explain what the common outcome actually was and why different teams cared about it.
Balance “we” and “I” carefully
Use “we” for the shared outcome and collective activity. Use “I” when you made a decision, brought people together, changed an approach or provided support.
If every sentence uses “I”, the example may sound as though nobody else contributed. If every sentence uses “we”, the assessor cannot score you. The balance should reflect what actually happened.
Conflict does not need to become drama
A useful disagreement can be about process, priorities, evidence or ownership. You do not need a hostile relationship to show that you can work through difference.
Keep the account professional. Explain the competing positions, how you created enough understanding to move forward and what agreement was reached.
Common problems in 250-word statements
Too much “we”. The assessor understands the team achievement but cannot identify your own contribution.
Everyone already agrees. A smooth team project can leave very little evidence of relationship-building, challenge or compromise.
Collaboration as persuasion. Working Together is not simply getting other teams to adopt your idea.
Ignoring different needs. Strong cooperation recognises that colleagues, partners and users may have legitimate constraints of their own.
No shared outcome. The answer describes good relationships but never shows what they enabled people to achieve together.
A final check before you submit
Do one final read for ownership. It should be clear what the group achieved and equally clear what you personally did to make the cooperation work.
Use quantities where they are real and relevant. The shared outcome does not become stronger because you invent a tidy percentage.
Build the rest of your application evidence
The grade-specific statement packs cover all nine behaviours with worked examples at your level. They show the difference between simple cooperation and stronger evidence of challenge, compromise, inclusion and shared ownership.
Preparing for interview instead? Go to Working Together Civil Service interview questions and answers.
