Different working paces: how can colleagues deliver together?

Fast and slow often address different risks

Some people begin as soon as an assignment arrives; others want to clarify the requirements first. The first person may worry about missing the deadline, while the second worries about producing something that does not meet expectations. Describing colleagues only as ‘too hasty’ or ‘dragging their feet’ can leave the conversation stuck in mutual blame.

Return to the task at hand: its deadline, quality requirements, completeness of information, and whether mistakes can be corrected later. Speed is not the only standard. What matters is whether the team knows where to move quickly and where it is worth pausing to check.

Look at the process before judging the person

Break a task into understanding requirements, proposing a direction, executing, reviewing, and delivering. A colleague who seems ‘too slow’ may be stuck with unclear requirements. Someone who thinks you are ‘too fast’ may see you already working without explaining which parts are still drafts.

Ask each person to describe what actually happened in a recent collaboration: who delivered what, when, what information was missing, and where work had to be redone. These details reveal problems more clearly than personality labels. Archetype descriptions can help you express preferences, but they cannot replace an examination of the workflow.

Example scenario: prototyping and clarification can happen together

Zhe wants to build an initial website quickly, while Yi-jun wants every page confirmed first. They initially argue every day over who is holding up progress. Eventually they divide the work into two tracks: Zhe builds an adaptable layout using confirmed homepage content, while Yi-jun organizes requirements for the inner pages that are still undecided.

They agree to review only the information structure on Wednesday and leave visual details until Friday. Zhe stops seeing every question as resistance, and Yi-jun knows that the first version is not a final decision. Their differences remain, but they now have shared checkpoints.

Establish four collaboration agreements

• Define the deliverable: explain in one sentence what will be delivered, and provide an example people can refer to.
• Label drafts clearly: distinguish a direction for discussion, a version ready to try, and a finished deliverable.
• Set review times: arrange a small number of regular checkpoints so questions do not interrupt work every time they arise.
• Agree on changes: when requirements grow, revisit scope, timing, or resources together rather than quietly leaving the added burden with the person doing the work.

Express needs instead of rushing or defending

‘Can you be faster?’ does not say what is most urgent. Try: ‘I need to send the direction to the client at three. Could you give me two options first? We can add the details tomorrow.’ Someone who needs time to check can say: ‘I am still missing the usage context. Once I have it, I need an hour to organize it. I will send you the confirmed parts first.’

Make expectations specific enough to act on, while leaving room to negotiate. If the other person cannot meet them, ask which step is blocked before deciding whether to reduce the deliverable or seek help. A clear answer is more useful than guessing whether someone cares.

A common pitfall: making cooperation a one-sided concession

If the same person always works overtime to close the gap, apparent harmony may still build resentment. Agreements need to work for both people and acknowledge the costs each carries. Avoid using ‘That is just their archetype’ to end a review; behavior that needs to change still needs to be named clearly.

When reviewing collaboration, resist turning every small detail into another rule. Start by adjusting the step that most often creates rework, then see whether it improves things. Too many rules can also make a straightforward task slower.

After delivery, review one success and one sticking point

Set aside ten minutes after delivery. Ask each person to name one practice that helped and one step they would like to change next time. Keep the discussion on processes and behavior rather than turning it into an overall judgment of people. In the next collaboration, retain the useful agreements and adjust one sticking point. Gradually, the team can build its own way of working together.