Your ability to get on well with others, and work effectively as a part of a team is a component of your _actual performance_. It’s probably the most important component. The only real mistake here seems like this guy should have been fired instead.
Not all work is being performed by cooperating teams.
A lot of high-value work is carried out by individuals.
Some of those are not cooperative.
You don't need to be cooperative to be of high value.
It just helps in a lot of cases, and it's nice for others either way.
> This isn’t true at all.
Yes, it is true, because if the opposite were true, all work is being carried out by groups.
I have personal testimony, which is all you need when making a “not all” claim. :-)
But that is not what I’m saying; I’m saying you can be a disagreeable person on average, but because you work on a team of you, you only need to get along with your boss, who will leave you alone most of the time.
You filled in gaps in GP's post with a lot of assumptions. I read it as someone that can work effectively in a team. But also had conflicts with coworkers. If those were those healthy conflicts or unhealthy conflicts wasn't even discussed. That your first conclusion is to fire based on the absence of info is absurd. You jumped onto bandwagon of others opinions and acted recklessly. Maybe you should be fired instead?
Good management can de-escalate the situation and exploit his personality to work the system better. Not a lot of management Chess going on here, just people valuing feelings over making money. Not paying the guy the fair market worth for the work he did, isn't going to make him any more nice to work with.