"Talk therapy" (in one of the other comments): yeah, I think so, maybe. But I don't know if "have you discussed the underlying issue with a trained therapist?" is in order in a professional relationship. I /do/ believe that if the person is otherwise reasonable there likely is an underlying issue, and that they're unwilling/unable to articulate it. It's dangerous to try talk therapy yourself and goes off the rails in entirely unexpected ways. Plus, I'm not being paid for this, and as an employee I am at least arguably putting my employer at risk (not that that would dissuade me if I thought it would work, because results); as noted it encourages people to share things at work that I do not want to know about; you will get projection and your role as therapist will confound your professional relationship.
I'm sorry, does this sound like I lack empathy? Because I do not. That's exactly what I'm afraid of.
A long time ago when I was management, my manager sent me to a Fred Pryor seminar about building and motivating teams. I dunno what your experience with Fred Pryor seminars is, they're usually pretty pedestrian but the facilitators often have amazing experience and know it too. I can't remember much of it, but the instructor went on a 15 minute tear about what he called "don't wanna" which I will never forget. This is exactly it. The upshot is that when for whatever entirely "rational" reasons a team member has decided to oppose something, they will use your resources to do it. Have you considered asking management "person X seems to be spending a lot of effort opposing Plan 0.9, do you think we should review or move forward?"
(Something obvious about spotting internally consistent psychopaths was pointed out to me while working in construction, but I won't repeat it here because I don't want to piss them off.)
It's insane that we think that technology choices are rational, or that "rational" is the same for different team members, especially when for example "management doesn't think we should focus on security" always comes up as a post facto rationalization: I've never seen it stated as a nonfunctional requirement when I took the job, in fact almost invariably people blow smoke about it during the courting process.
I recommended talk therapy to the person who was worried that their (perceived) lack of social skills would make them appear combative / argumentative, as a way to get tutored/coached in those social skills, in a safe setting. I do not recommend telling a combative coworker "have you tried therapy?".
"Talk therapy" (in one of the other comments): yeah, I think so, maybe. But I don't know if "have you discussed the underlying issue with a trained therapist?" is in order in a professional relationship. I /do/ believe that if the person is otherwise reasonable there likely is an underlying issue, and that they're unwilling/unable to articulate it. It's dangerous to try talk therapy yourself and goes off the rails in entirely unexpected ways. Plus, I'm not being paid for this, and as an employee I am at least arguably putting my employer at risk (not that that would dissuade me if I thought it would work, because results); as noted it encourages people to share things at work that I do not want to know about; you will get projection and your role as therapist will confound your professional relationship.
I'm sorry, does this sound like I lack empathy? Because I do not. That's exactly what I'm afraid of.
A long time ago when I was management, my manager sent me to a Fred Pryor seminar about building and motivating teams. I dunno what your experience with Fred Pryor seminars is, they're usually pretty pedestrian but the facilitators often have amazing experience and know it too. I can't remember much of it, but the instructor went on a 15 minute tear about what he called "don't wanna" which I will never forget. This is exactly it. The upshot is that when for whatever entirely "rational" reasons a team member has decided to oppose something, they will use your resources to do it. Have you considered asking management "person X seems to be spending a lot of effort opposing Plan 0.9, do you think we should review or move forward?"
(Something obvious about spotting internally consistent psychopaths was pointed out to me while working in construction, but I won't repeat it here because I don't want to piss them off.)
It's insane that we think that technology choices are rational, or that "rational" is the same for different team members, especially when for example "management doesn't think we should focus on security" always comes up as a post facto rationalization: I've never seen it stated as a nonfunctional requirement when I took the job, in fact almost invariably people blow smoke about it during the courting process.