This article is part of our Team Communication Insights Centre.
Explore more Building Stronger Teams →

Every team contains differences.

• People think differently.
• They communicate differently.
• They make decisions differently.
• They respond differently to pressure, uncertainty, deadlines and change.

Those differences can make a team stronger.

They can also make working together incredibly frustrating.

The problem isn’t necessarily the differences themselves.

It is what happens when we start interpreting those differences as problems with the other person.

• Someone who wants to move quickly becomes impatient.
• Someone asking for more information becomes obstructive.
• Someone who challenges an idea becomes difficult.
• Someone trying to maintain harmony becomes indecisive.

The behaviour hasn’t necessarily changed.

Our interpretation of it has.

Understanding that distinction can help teams turn behavioural differences from a source of friction into something genuinely useful.

Imagine two colleagues discussing an important decision.

One wants to make a decision and move forward.

The other wants more information.

The first person thinks:

“We’re wasting time.”

The second thinks:

“We’re rushing into this without thinking it through.”

Both may have completely legitimate concerns.

One is paying attention to pace.

The other is paying attention to risk.

But once each person starts attaching motives to the other’s behaviour, the conversation changes.

The issue is no longer simply:

How quickly should we make this decision?

It becomes:

Why are you always so difficult to work with?

This is how useful differences can become interpersonal conflict.

Teams need different perspectives.

A group in which everybody naturally approaches problems in exactly the same way may feel comfortable, but it can also create significant blind spots.

Teams benefit from people who:

• push for action
• generate possibilities
• consider relationships
• question assumptions
• examine evidence
• challenge decisions
• listen carefully
• notice risks
• maintain momentum
• consider the wider impact

The difficulty is that the behaviour we find most frustrating can sometimes be the behaviour the team most needs.

The person asking another question may prevent a costly mistake.

The colleague pushing for a decision may stop endless analysis.

The person questioning how people will respond may identify an implementation problem.

The colleague suggesting another possibility may uncover a better solution.

The challenge is learning to recognise the potential contribution behind the behaviour.

We naturally have preferences about how work should be done.

We may prefer meetings to be concise.

Or collaborative.

Or structured.

Or informal.

We might like decisions to happen quickly or prefer time to consider them.

None of this is particularly problematic until preference becomes judgement.

“I prefer to think things through.”

quietly becomes:

“People who make quick decisions are careless.”

Or:

“I like getting to the point.”

becomes:

“People who want to discuss everything are wasting time.”

The judgement often tells us as much about our own preferences as it does about the other person’s behaviour.

A useful question is:

“Am I responding to something genuinely unhelpful, or simply to somebody doing this differently from me?”

That moment of curiosity can prevent a surprising amount of unnecessary friction.

Most of us understand our own intentions.

Other people experience our behaviour.

Those aren’t always the same thing.

Someone intends to:

provide challenge

but their colleague experiences:

criticism.

Someone intends to:

create clarity

but others experience:

control.

Someone intends to:

support the team

but colleagues experience:

avoidance of a difficult decision.

Someone intends to:

bring enthusiasm

but somebody else experiences:

lack of focus.

Neither perspective has to be dismissed.

A person’s positive intention doesn’t automatically remove the impact of their behaviour.

Equally, somebody experiencing the behaviour negatively doesn’t necessarily mean that harm was intended.

Strong teams become capable of holding both perspectives at the same time:

“I understand what you intended. Let me explain what I experienced.”

That is a much more productive starting point than deciding who was right.

Conflict escalates remarkably quickly when we become certain about somebody else’s motives.

“They don’t respect me.”

“They’re deliberately blocking this.”

“They don’t care what anyone else thinks.”

“They always need to be in control.”

Once we have created that explanation, we start collecting evidence to support it.

Future behaviour is interpreted through the same story.

Curiosity creates another possibility.

Instead of:

“Why are you being so negative?”

try:

“What concerns you most about this?”

Instead of:

“Why are you trying to rush this?”

ask:

“What’s making the pace important to you?”

Instead of:

“Why won’t you support the decision?”

ask:

“What would you need to feel comfortable supporting it?”

The difference is subtle.

But one approach confirms our assumption.

The other tests it.

Behavioural models can be particularly useful here.

Frameworks such as Insights Discovery, DISC, C-me, Lumina Spark and other approaches can give teams a language for recognising behavioural differences.

Colour-based models make some of these differences particularly easy to discuss.

A team may recognise behaviours associated with:

pace and challenge

possibility and enthusiasm

support and consideration

analysis and detail

That can help people understand why colleagues sometimes approach the same situation very differently.

But behavioural language should create curiosity, not labels.

“He’s Red.”

“She’s Blue.”

“That’s just the Greens again.”

doesn’t really help.

The useful question isn’t:

“What colour are they?”

It is:

“What might this person be bringing to the situation that I’m overlooking?”

That keeps the focus on behaviour rather than putting people into boxes.

One of the most useful exercises a team can undertake is to explore the relationship between strengths and frustrations.

Think about somebody whose behaviour occasionally frustrates you.

What do they do?

Perhaps they:

• challenge everything
• ask lots of questions
• talk through their thinking
• avoid rushing decisions
• focus heavily on detail
• constantly introduce new ideas

Now ask:

When might that same behaviour be useful?

The person who challenges everything may spot weak assumptions.

The person asking questions may uncover missing information.

The person talking aloud may generate ideas others hadn’t considered.

The cautious decision-maker may prevent unnecessary risk.

The detail-focused colleague may notice an important error.

The idea generator may see an opportunity nobody else noticed.

The behaviour hasn’t changed.

The context has.

This doesn’t mean every frustrating behaviour should simply be accepted.

It means understanding the potential strength gives us a better starting point for discussing when the behaviour helps and when it gets in the way.

Some teams mistake harmony for effectiveness.

If nobody argues, everything must be fine.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes people aren’t disagreeing because they don’t believe disagreement is welcome.

They stay quiet during the meeting and express their concerns afterwards.

The apparent harmony comes at the expense of useful information.

Strong teams don’t eliminate disagreement.

They become better at disagreeing without damaging relationships.

That means creating room for questions such as:

“What are we missing?”

“Who sees this differently?”

“What’s the strongest argument against this decision?”

“What haven’t we considered?”

These questions deliberately invite difference into the conversation.

The goal isn’t agreement at every stage.

It is making sure useful disagreement happens before the decision rather than afterwards.

Behavioural differences often become more noticeable when pressure increases.

Deadlines shorten.

Workloads increase.

Something goes wrong.

People may rely more heavily on familiar behaviours.

Someone becomes more direct.

Someone retreats into detail.

Someone talks more.

Someone avoids confrontation.

The behaviour that normally contributes positively can become overused.

Decisiveness becomes impatience.

Analysis becomes paralysis.

Support becomes avoidance.

Enthusiasm becomes distraction.

This is why understanding behavioural preferences can be particularly useful before the team reaches a crisis.

People can begin recognising:

“This is what I tend to do when pressure increases.”

And colleagues can discuss:

“This is what we need from one another when that happens.”

That turns behavioural awareness into something practical.

Not every conflict should be avoided.

Sometimes conflict is telling the team something important.

There may be:

• unclear responsibilities
• competing priorities
• missing information
• different expectations
• unresolved decisions
• pressure elsewhere in the organisation
• incompatible assumptions about how work should happen

If we focus exclusively on the personalities involved, we may miss the problem underneath.

Instead of asking:

“How do we stop these two people clashing?”

it can be useful to ask:

“What is this disagreement telling us about how the team is working?”

The conflict may be the symptom rather than the underlying problem.

The purpose of understanding behavioural differences isn’t simply to explain why people behave as they do.

It is to create greater choice.

If I know I naturally push towards action, I can recognise when somebody else needs more information.

If I know I naturally seek consensus, I can recognise when a difficult challenge needs to be voiced.

If I naturally focus on detail, I can recognise when the team needs to move forward despite some uncertainty.

If I naturally generate possibilities, I can recognise when another idea isn’t what the team currently needs.

That is behavioural flexibility.

It doesn’t require somebody to become a different person.

It means becoming capable of asking:

“What does this situation need from me?”

rather than simply:

“What would I naturally do?”

The strongest teams aren’t necessarily those with the fewest differences.

They may have considerable differences.

What changes is their ability to talk about them.

They can say:

“We’re approaching this differently.”

without that meaning:

“One of us must be wrong.”

They can explore intention and impact.

They can challenge assumptions.

They can recognise when a strength is being overused.

And they can ask colleagues what they need rather than assuming they already know.

Behavioural differences will always exist.

The opportunity is to make them useful.

At your next team meeting, ask:

Which differences within this team make us stronger — and which differences do we sometimes find difficult to work with?

Then become curious about the overlap.

You may discover that some of the behaviours people find most frustrating are closely connected to strengths the team would not want to lose.

The objective isn’t to remove the difference.

It’s to learn how to use it better.

Return to the Team Communication insights Centre

There is an alternative way to change what happens after a profile workshop.  Organisations, large and small across the world are already reaping the savings and the improvements.  Find out more by clicking the button below.

This is where practical activities become valuable.

Not because people need another profile. But because they need opportunities to talk.

When teams discuss communication regularly:

• Awareness becomes understanding.
• Understanding becomes feedback.
• Feedback becomes action.
• Action becomes improvement.

That is where meaningful change begins.

The most successful team development activities are rarely those that provide the most information.

They are the activities that generate the most meaningful discussion.

• When people exchange observations.
• Share perspectives.
• Challenge assumptions.
• Recognise strengths.
• Acknowledge blind spots.

The conversation becomes more valuable than the model.

The framework simply provides a structure. The workshop facilitator provides the space.

Take a look at our free guide: 7 Questions That Improve Team Communication and learn how to improve team communication without another profile.

If your team has recently completed a profile workshop, the next step is not another profile.

The next step is conversation.

Because communication does not improve when people complete a profile.

Communication improves when people start talking differently to one another.