We Collaborate (Level 1)
Key Takeaways
- We collaborate means working with colleagues, the wider force, other organisations, and the public: know stakeholders, build partnerships, share skills and information, reduce silo working, and make partners feel valued.
- Level 1 behaviours include learning who stakeholders are, building rapport for shared goals, working flexibly across teams and backgrounds, helping colleagues willingly, and learning from diverse groups to improve work.
- On the SJT, rate higher actions that consult relevant parties and solve problems jointly; rate lower go-it-alone responses when partnership is needed, or options that exclude people who should be involved.
- Collaboration is assessed with all six competencies on the SJT and appears on the BSQ; it complements ownership rather than replacing personal responsibility.
- Good collaboration values partners’ contributions and reduces silos without creating endless delay or empty meetings.
Definition: We Collaborate
In CVF 2024, We collaborate means working effectively with colleagues, force-wide partners, other organisations, and the public. It includes knowing who the stakeholders are, building partnerships, sharing skills and information, reducing silo working, and making partners feel valued.
Collaboration is not endless consensus, and it is not abandoning your own responsibilities. It is the skill of getting better outcomes because the right people are involved, informed, and respected — especially when problems cross team or organisational boundaries.
| Element | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Work across boundaries | You do not treat “my desk only” as the whole job when others are needed |
| Know stakeholders | You learn who is affected and who can help — teams, agencies, community |
| Build partnerships | You invest in rapport and trust for shared goals, not only one-off transactions |
| Share skills and information | You pass on what others need to succeed (within confidentiality and process) |
| Reduce silos | You challenge “not our problem” thinking when joint working is required |
| Partners feel valued | You listen, credit contributions, and treat other roles as legitimate |
Why This Competency Matters in Policing
Modern policing demands routinely cross boundaries: neighbourhood teams, response, investigations, safeguarding partners, health, local authorities, voluntary groups, and communities themselves. Without collaboration:
- information stays trapped in silos
- vulnerable people fall between agencies
- colleagues duplicate work or block each other
- public trust erodes when organisations appear disjointed
With collaboration, you build the networks and trust needed to solve problems that no single person can finish alone. On the national sift, you will see scenarios about team friction, missing stakeholders, refusal to share, or go-it-alone pride.
Level 1 (Practitioner) Example Behaviours
- Learn about stakeholders in other teams, organisations, and the community.
- Get to know others and build rapport to achieve shared goals.
- Work flexibly across levels, teams, and backgrounds.
- Work cooperatively and willingly help colleagues.
- Actively engage and learn from a diverse group to improve your work.
What each behaviour looks like
| Level 1 behaviour | Everyday / sift-style example |
|---|---|
| Learn stakeholders | Finds out which team or partner owns the next step before acting in isolation |
| Build rapport for shared goals | Invests in a respectful working relationship so later joint tasks go smoothly |
| Work flexibly across levels/teams/backgrounds | Adapts to different working styles; does not only cooperate with people like you |
| Cooperative help | Offers practical help to a colleague under pressure; shares a useful process tip |
| Learn from diverse groups | Invites different perspectives before finalising an approach; values challenge that improves the outcome |
Related themes that often travel with these examples:
- Share skills and information appropriately
- Reduce silo working when a joint approach is needed
- Make partners feel valued (credit, courtesy, inclusion)
SJT Recognition Patterns
Signals that usually rate higher (effective)
- Consulting relevant parties before a decision that affects them
- Joint problem-solving rather than unilateral fixes that create new problems elsewhere
- Sharing useful information and skills so others can succeed
- Willing help for colleagues under load
- Including people who bring legitimate knowledge, even if they are quieter or from another team
- Building rapport that supports a shared goal (not networking for status alone)
- Flexible working across roles, ranks (within professional boundaries), and backgrounds
- Valuing partners — thanking, listening, and treating their constraints as real
- Reducing silos by connecting the right people instead of guarding territory
Signals that usually rate lower (counterproductive)
- Go-it-alone when partnership is clearly needed
- Excluding colleagues, partners, or community voices who should be involved
- Withholding information or skills that others reasonably need (outside genuine confidentiality limits)
- Silo defence — “not my team, not my problem” when public outcomes suffer
- Dismissing other organisations or roles as inferior or irrelevant
- Helping only favourites and ignoring everyone else
- Token consultation after the real decision is already locked for ego reasons
- Dominance that shuts down diverse input and weakens the solution
Balance: collaboration is not delay theatre
Weak options can look collaborative but still be ineffective:
- consulting everyone about everything until nothing is delivered
- holding meetings with no purpose while urgent risk grows
- “agreeing with everyone” so no clear decision exists
- outsourcing your own owned tasks under the label of teamwork
Strong options are usually proportionate: involve the relevant people, share what is needed, solve together, and still deliver. Collaboration and We take ownership work together — you own your part and connect with others for the whole outcome.
How This Competency Appears on the BSQ
BSQ-style statements often sound like:
- I make an effort to understand who the key stakeholders are beyond my immediate team.
- I build good working relationships to achieve shared goals.
- I willingly help colleagues when they need support.
- I work well with people from different backgrounds and roles.
- I share information and skills that help others succeed.
- I prefer joint solutions over protecting my own territory.
Prepare with real examples of teamwork, cross-group projects, volunteering, or study collaboration. Credible collaboration is consistent inclusion and practical cooperation, not claiming you never work alone on anything.
Mini Scenarios (Recognition Practice)
Scenario A — Missing stakeholder
You can finish a task faster alone, but another team holds key information and will inherit the outcome.
| Action idea | Collaboration read |
|---|---|
| Finish alone and leave the other team to discover problems later | Low — silo / go-it-alone |
| Consult them, share what you know, and agree a joined-up approach | High |
| Demand they do everything while you disengage | Low — not cooperative partnership |
| Share gossip about that team instead of useful task information | Low |
Scenario B — Colleague under pressure
A teammate is overloaded. You have capacity for a limited, appropriate help.
| Action idea | Collaboration read |
|---|---|
| Refuse any help because performance rankings feel competitive | Low |
| Willingly help in a practical way and keep communication clear | High |
| Take every task permanently so they never recover ownership | Mixed/low long-term — over-rescue |
| Help only if they publicly praise you first | Low — partners not valued |
Scenario C — Diverse input
Two colleagues from different backgrounds propose different approaches. Yours is closest to person A’s idea.
| Action idea | Collaboration read |
|---|---|
| Shut down person B without listening because A thinks like you | Low — excludes diverse learning |
| Actively engage both views, learn what improves the work, then decide with a clear rationale | High |
| Avoid deciding by agreeing with both contradictory plans forever | Low — false collaboration |
| Mock person B’s idea in front of others | Low |
Scenario D — External partner
Another organisation contacts you about a shared community issue. A colleague says partners “just slow us down.”
| Action idea | Collaboration read |
|---|---|
| Ignore the partner to protect speed at all costs | Low — silo thinking |
| Learn their role, build rapport around the shared goal, and work cooperatively while keeping delivery realistic | High |
| Agree to everything without clarifying constraints, then fail to deliver | Low — empty partnership |
| Treat the partner as inferior and withhold useful information | Low — partners not valued |
Link to the National Sift
| Assessment | How “We collaborate” appears |
|---|---|
| SJT | Assessed with all six competencies at Level 1. Effective actions often consult relevant parties, share appropriately, and solve jointly; weak actions go it alone or exclude needed people. |
| BSQ | Statements probe teamwork, willingness to help, stakeholder awareness, flexibility across difference, and partnership mindset. |
As with the other competencies in this chapter, you are not asked to label “We collaborate” on the screen. You rate (SJT) or self-describe (BSQ) in ways that show you understand professional joint working.
How the three competencies in this chapter fit together
| Competency | Core sift question |
|---|---|
| We are emotionally aware | How do I handle people and pressure with understanding and self-management? |
| We take ownership | Do I deliver, decide with rationale, update, and stay accountable? |
| We collaborate | Do I involve the right people, share, and build valued partnerships? |
Strong SJT actions often show more than one at once: for example, updating a partner (ownership + collaboration) in a calm, tailored way (emotional awareness).
Common Traps
- Treating collaboration as optional niceness. In boundary-crossing problems it is core effectiveness.
- Confusing collaboration with never deciding. Joint input still needs a clear, owned outcome.
- Helping only people you like. Level 1 asks for cooperative work across backgrounds and teams.
- Information hoarding as power. Withholding useful, shareable information fuels silos.
- Go-it-alone hero stories. Speed today can create bigger failures tomorrow when partners were needed.
Mental Checklist for SJT Items
When an option involves teams, partners, or shared outcomes, ask:
- Who are the relevant stakeholders, and are they appropriately involved?
- Is this joint problem-solving or unnecessary go-it-alone?
- Am I sharing skills/information others need (within proper limits)?
- Do partners and colleagues feel valued, not dismissed?
- Am I reducing silos without creating pointless delay?
- Does this still leave clear ownership of next steps?
Mostly yes → often a stronger effectiveness rating under We collaborate.
Which definition best matches the CVF competency We collaborate?
An SJT scenario needs input from another team that will inherit the outcome. Which action best shows Level 1 collaboration?
Which behaviour is a clear Level 1 example of We collaborate?
How should candidates think about We collaborate on the national sift relative to the other competencies?