Every owner recognises the situation: the individuals are good, the team is not. The usual explanation is personality, which leads nowhere because personalities do not change. The useful explanation is nearly always structural.
A team made up entirely of people who need consensus before moving. Meetings are pleasant, agreement is total, and nothing is ever actually chosen. Adding another meeting makes it worse.
One works best with autonomy and reads any check-in as distrust. The other needs regular contact and reads its absence as being abandoned. Both are reasonable. Together, without knowing this, they will conclude the other one is difficult.
Usually the way that would work on themselves. It works on the third of the team who happen to be similar, and quietly demotivates the rest, who are then labelled as the weaker performers.
This is not an assessment done to a team behind its back. Each person takes I-Profile, each person is shown their own reading, and then the team looks at the map of itself together with a consultant in the room.
The moment that changes things is rarely a revelation about someone else. It is a person recognising their own pattern and realising the colleague they have been quietly annoyed with for a year was not doing it at them.
What comes out of the session is practical: who should own which decision, which pairs need a defined way of working, and what the manager needs to do differently for each person rather than for the team as a block.
Most of what looks like conflict turns out to be two people needing opposite conditions and neither one knowing it.
