Assuming the original post was accurate, then it is clear the first officer concerned is typical of a breed known as Smart-Arse. The term does not need further amplification to those who have been unfortunate enough to be crewed with one - be it captain or first officer.
Putting his type to one side for a moment, the airline concerned needs to have a long hard look at it's recruiting policy. These people can be easily picked during a searching interview. Yet he may have been successful in all the aptitude tests thrown at him but it is the face to face interview that will generally alert an intelligent interview panel to his genetic flaws.
The next traffic light is at induction into the airline, where few airlines that I am aware of anyway, sit new pilots down and explain to them the facts of life on the flight deck. This is a vital lecture and the company lecturer must hammer home the importance of basic good manners. The flight deck is not a democracy. Neither is the bridge of an aircraft carrier or a passenger liner.
Example (and this really happened). On climb there is CB ahead and captain asks the F/O to ask ATC approval to divert 30 miles west of track for weather avoidance. The airline concerned encourages a flat cockpit gradient on the basis that we are all mates together. The F/O pointedly disagrees with the captain's assessment of required diversion miles and says "30 miles is too much - how about 15 miles?"
As the captain, how would the reader handle that sort of reply from the F/O? Would you haggle with the F/O and come to a agreement? - would you demand he do as requested? Would you think it over and decide to agree with the F/O in order to avoid a confrontation?
Would you feel a bit wimpish and say lamely - Oh alright - ask them for 15 miles? After all, the F/O is equal to you in the airline culture.
In fact, the captain demanded the F/O to ask for 30 miles off track. The F/O then called up ATC and asked for 20 miles diversion - with a sly wink to the captain and saying "go you halves?"
Several minutes later, ATC tell the crew to advise when they can regain track. Without referring to the captain the F/O replied "We are clear of weather now - we can go direct ABC from present position." The captain astonished, points out to the F/O there are more radar returns ahead on the next radar scale. "Oops" says the F/O = "I didn't see them."
It is small exchanges on the flight deck like that which are poisonous. The captain can either come down hard on the F/O - or he can grit his teeth and blame it on Gen Y or X or whatever, too much TV as a child and so on.
There are probably hundreds of these examples in any one airline - and it needs to be cut off at the roots during the induction phase of new pilots into an airline.
There is nothing worse when a subordinate deliberately brings up CRM encouraged assertiveness as an excuse for deplorable bad manners on the flight deck or at flight planning stage.
Worse still, if reports to management by either crew member are shelved as too hard on the basis of boys will be boys, and things can be settled over a friendly pint at the pub after work.
And don't be fooled - these instances happen in military cockpits as well as civilian cockpits. Too may readers here have seen movies where the hard military commander dominates the flight deck. They are make belief actors in these movies and play along with old myths from the John Wayne war time movies.
Forgive the ramble - but flat cockpit gradients are just as potentially dangerous as the steep ones. Airlines must prevent these from coming major flight safety issues by setting the record straight during induction.