I am a little hesitant to accept the posters description of the person. "Refusing to cover for other teams" sounds a bit like "we expect to drop him in multipl

I am a little hesitant to accept the posters description of the person. "Refusing to cover for other teams" sounds a bit like "we expect to drop him in multiple areas of responsibility and work as well in both" as well as "I am the boss do what I say" instead of "I am the guy with the responsibility to get X Y and Z done help me get there" He sounds a bit like expecting to be a military officer with Yes sirs and the whole bit. Sure, the guy he's talking about also seems to go off on tangents, but the poster seems like someone who has a outdated management model and just wants to fire this guy rather than learning to lead people. But our industry has lots of people with interesting social skills, but can still function extremely well with leadership instead of C&C type orders from on high type relationships. I think 1:1s, giving the difficult guy actual responsibility, and providing more non-technical team building time for that guy and the guys on the other team will make him a useful contributor, if he isn't already. It really sounds like we're getting half the story here or the poster is just trying to get permission for firing the dude from the technical community.