An opinion: I would say that they are what they are, and that people need to want to be helped. To me that would be someone to delegate work to that is clearly

An opinion: I would say that they are what they are, and that people need to want to be helped. To me that would be someone to delegate work to that is clearly within their competencies but which is not 'growth work' that would requisite [negative] feedback. The question then becomes whether or not they remain an asset under those limitations. If they are not an asset to the team/company, then I would be inclined to proceed down the 'improve or else' path, starting of course with informal but frank conversations / formal reviews about the specific shortcomings, with specific examples and specific ways similar situations should be handled in the future[0]. Otherwise it gets muddier, because there is conflicting interest between a 'happy' status quo where his/her growth is going to be kneecapped vs. potentially demoralizing them trying to force them to grow. Imo all you can really do there is be upfront at 1-on-1's and formal reviews. A final point is that this behavior is not likely lost on the rest of the team: regardless of how the 'offender' is handled it is important to not let things fester. I've been part of more than one group where morale was wrecked because management was too concerned with being 'nice' to move on from problematic persons. [0]Specifics are key here, not just for them but for you: if you can't distill down the desired corrections into actionables your subordinates aren't going to be able to either.