Totally agree. However, I will say anecdotally as a people manager that great additions to a team tend to bring new ideas and perspectives while simultaneously

Totally agree. However, I will say anecdotally as a people manager that great additions to a team tend to bring new ideas and perspectives while simultaneously having something (values, perspectives, etc.) that anchors them to the existing group. If somebody deviates too far from the existing team it tends to cross a threshold from productive disruption to toxic conflict. I kind of think of this in the context of material properties and teams having their own stiffness and strength. The higher the strength, the harder it is for imposed forces (i.e. challenging new perspectives and personalities) to cause team failure. The higher the stiffness, the more resistant to changing form under imposed forces. I assume high strength is universally preferred, but stiffness is a little more complicated; a high stiffness team ensures consistency but is difficult to alter and improve upon, whereas low stiffness enhances your ability to reshape and broaden team culture but also leaves it more sensitive to changes.