Going around them/ignoring them is literally the advice you get from basically every literature I've read, and I've read a lot about this.
But you do have to try to work through the issue first, and you have to be willing to try again if they seem open to resolving the problem down the line. Never write someone off completely (for professional disagreements).
I've mostly benefited from hard realism approach and Actor theory (as applied by some: everyone has an agenda, to work with them: Align, make Peace, or Destroy).
The reasoning in the literature for avoiding this topic is sound. If you provide the "destroy" option to folks, they're usually going to go with that pretty quickly, and only nominally go for the other methods of resolving conflict.
I've had someone make that determination about me at a previous role, which then put me obviously in a "what do I do with this person?" position which itself led me to the "ignore/destroy" answer. If it hadn't been an option, would this person and I have had a more pleasant working environment?
This person would not respond to basic developer experience problems and could not get a release out the door without some manner of basic code merging problems.
Repeated direct and polite feedback would not move them an inch. It was like they knew they didn’t have to change and could keep their job.
The manager should have been able to identify this and handle it but they were distracted and not able to do it.
Eventually this hostage taker‘a failure to execute and complete sandbagging of any attempt to wrest control over deployments endangered a major new enterprise sale.
We went around this person, rebuilt what they had been responsible for and got back to work completing the product.
They were sidelined and let go eventually and the project is way better for it.