We live in an age of polarization. Many of us may be asking ourselves how, when people disagree with or discount us, we can persuade them to rethink their positions. The author, an organizational psychologist, has spent time with a number of people who succeeded in motivating the notoriously self-confident Steve Jobs to change his mind and has analyzed the science behind their techniques. Some leaders are so sure of themselves that they reject good opinions and ideas from others and refuse to abandon their own bad ones. But, he writes, "it is possible to get even the most overconfident, stubborn, narcissistic, and disagreeable people to open their minds." He offers some approaches that can help you encourage a know-it-all to recognize when there's something to be learned, a stubborn colleague to make a U-turn, a narcissist to show humility, and a disagreeable boss to agree with you.

Performance reviews are awkward and biased. They stick people in boxes and leave them waiting far too long for feedback. It's no wonder that by the end of 2015, at least 30 of the Fortune 500 companies had ditched them altogether. But even when companies get rid of performance evaluations, ratings still exist--employees just can't see them. Ratings are done subjectively, behind the scenes, and without input from the people being evaluated. Employees' contributions to the organization over time need to be assessed in some way. Decisions about pay and promotions have to be made. In the absence of formal evaluations, those decisions are made in a black box. Facebook has chosen to hang on to evaluations despite their costs to help ensure fairness, transparency, and talent development. When the company analyzed its performance management system a few years ago, it conducted focus groups and a follow-up survey with more than 300 people. The feedback was clear: 87% of people wanted to keep performance ratings. They wanted to know where they stood. Evaluations were put into place for good reasons; getting rid of them might be an overreaction to poor execution. Leaders at Facebook think it's more constructive to mitigate the risks by building a culture that recognizes and rewards growth.

Fresh, innovative thinking is essential for business growth, and most people--not just a few gifted "visionaries"--are capable of it. So says the Wharton School's Adam Grant, whose research shows that you can develop this skill in your organization by creating a culture of nonconformity. Start by giving employees license to let their imaginations run wild: A large quantity of diverse ideas will ultimately yield the highest-quality ones. To help people dream up a multitude of new products, strategies, or solutions, encourage them to adopt the mindset of a competitor, for example, and have them generate ideas privately (group brainstorming tends to conform to the majority's taste). Once lots of ideas are in, get feedback on which one to pursue from the right people: other innovators with a track record of spotting winners. You might even stage a contest to find the best ideas, and have peer judges and other subject-matter experts vet the submissions and suggest improvements. Sustaining a culture of originality is as important as building it. So focus, too, on balancing cultural cohesion (which can improve decision making) with creative dissent (which prevents a strong culture from becoming a cult). Long-term, it's the combination of the two that brings great ideas to the table.

Collaboration is taking over the workplace. According to data collected by the authors over the past two decades, the time spent by managers and employees in collaborative activities has ballooned by 50% or more. There is much to applaud about these developments-but when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. At many companies, people spend around 80% of their time in meetings or answering colleagues' requests, leaving little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. What's more, research the authors have done across more than 300 organizations shows that the apportionment of collaborative work is often extremely lopsided. In most cases, 20% to 35% of value-added collaborations come from only 3% to 5% of employees. The avalanche of demands for input or advice, access to resources, or sometimes just presence in a meeting causes performance to suffer. Employees take assignments home, and soon burnout and turnover become real risks. Leaders must start to manage collaboration more effectively in two ways: (1) by mapping the supply and demand in their organizations and redistributing the work more evenly among employees, and (2) by incentivizing people to collaborate more efficiently.

Employees make decisions every day about whether to contribute to others--and their willingness to help is crucial to group and organizational effectiveness. But in a competitive, often zero-sum, world of work, generosity can be a dangerous path. How can leaders foster it without cutting into productivity, undermining fairness, and allowing employees to become doormats? The key, explains Wharton's Adam Grant, is to help givers reach a more nuanced understanding of what generosity is and is not. They'll be better positioned for sustainable giving when they can distinguish generosity from three attributes that often travel with it: timidity, availability, and empathy. Givers can overcome timidity, Grant says, by learning to act as agents--using "relational accounts" to advocate for others while negotiating for themselves. They can set boundaries on when, how, and whom to help. And they can strive to be perspective takers, not just empathizers, gathering knowledge about others that can lead to more-productive allocations of time that will benefit the organization as a whole.

A growing body of research shows that end users-customers, clients, patients, and others who benefit from a company's offerings-can be important allies for leaders. By serving as tangible proof of the consequences and purpose of employees' efforts, end users motivate people to work harder, smarter, and more effectively. In his research, the author invited a scholarship recipient to spend five minutes visiting with university fundraising callers, who generally had no contact with the beneficiaries of their efforts. One month later, callers showed, on average, 142% increases in weekly time spent on the phone and 171% increases in money raised. Leaders are not lone heroes who must rally their employees to do great things. They need partners who can enhance the meaning employees derive from their jobs. End users can inspire workers by demonstrating the impact of their efforts, showing appreciation for their work, and eliciting employees' empathy for them. To outsource inspiration effectively, leaders must identify end users (both past and present), collect their stories, introduce them to employees across the organization, and recognize workers' impact on customers' lives.

Although extroverted leaders have important strengths, in certain situations an introvert may make the better boss. This research suggests that the extrovert's tendency to take over discussions may stifle the ideas of his or her subordinates; whereas introverted leaders tend to listen more carefully and show greater receptivity to suggestions, making them more effective leaders of proactive teams.

This case explores the benefits and challenges of creating and sustaining an organizational culture that emphasizes fun and playfulness by telling the story of an inspiring organization that has cultivated such a culture: the Michigan chapter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation (MAW). The case provides background information on the organization and describes the initiatives and activities that create a playful culture at MAW. It also highlights the benefits and challenges of playfulness for employees, external partners, donors, and wish families, as well as describes how leaders and employees create a culture of "serious play" that maintains the benefits while minimizing the costs of playfulness.