How a humble ‘thank you’ can undermine your team

In contemporary organisations, recognition is almost universally regarded as a virtue. Expressions of gratitude are encouraged, not only as a marker of good manners, but as evidence of healthy workplace culture. Yet one of the least examined threats to genuine collaboration comes precisely from this most ordinary gesture. The simple act of saying thank you.

Consider a common scenario. A team delivers on a project, and one member, with the best of intentions, sends a message to the group: “Fantastic work, everyone. Thank you for your contributions. We nailed it.” At first glance, there seems little to question. Yet when examined through the lens of collaborative practice, this moment reveals a dynamic with potentially corrosive effects.

The problem is not gratitude itself, but the hierarchy it quietly introduces. In peer-led projects, where no individual has been formally designated as leader, the person who assumes the role of thanker implicitly steps into the role of evaluator. Recognition flows downward. The act of thanking establishes the thanker as the one authorised to judge, while others are positioned as recipients. What was intended as collegial recognition becomes, in effect, an unearned claim to status.

Research offers ample support for why this matters. Equity theory tells us that individuals are finely attuned to fairness. In teams of equals, standing should be distributed equally. When one member appropriates the role of recogniser, even unconsciously, the balance is disturbed. The social capital they accrue no longer matches their input. Quiet resentment and disengagement are predictable outcomes.

There are other risks. Amy Edmondson’s (Harvard Business School author of “The Fearless Organisation) work on psychological safety demonstrates that effective teams depend on environments where members feel free to speak openly, take risks, and admit errors. A self-appointed figure of authority, even one wrapped in appreciation, signals that contributions are now subject to an unofficial hierarchy. Members begin to self-censor, shaping their behaviour around the expectations of the “captain” rather than the needs of the project. Status competition can follow, with energy diverted away from collaboration and toward visibility and control.

None of this is to suggest that gratitude should be discouraged. Quite the opposite. Recognition remains a vital ingredient in any culture that values collaboration. The question is how to structure it so that it strengthens rather than undermines teamwork.

The solution lies in governance. Teams benefit from explicit agreements at the outset; a collaboration contract that establishes not only how decisions will be made and how communication will flow, but also how collective success will be acknowledged. Rotating facilitation roles can provide necessary structure without creating hierarchy, ensuring that procedural authority is shared. Even more important is the practice of peer-to-peer credit, where members recognise each other’s specific contributions, diffusing ownership across the group rather than concentrating it in a single voice.

These are modest adjustments. They cost little, but their impact on team performance and culture can be considerable. Collaboration, like any strategic practice, must be managed with care. Left to informal rituals, even gestures as benign as gratitude can become mechanisms of control. Managed consciously, however, recognition becomes what it ought to be: a shared resource that sustains equality, strengthens psychological safety, and reinforces the culture of collaboration that modern organisations cannot do without.