Algorithms tend to be myopic. They focus on the data at hand--which often pertains just to short-term outcomes. Algorithms are powerful predictive tools, but they can run amok when not applied properly. Consider what often happens with social media sites. Today many use algorithms to decide which ads and links to show users. But when these algorithms focus too narrowly on maximizing click-throughs, sites quickly become choked with low-quality content. While clicks rise, customer satisfaction plummets. The glitches, say the authors, are not in the algorithms but in the way we interact with them. Managers need to recognize their two major limitations: First, they're completely literal; algorithms do exactly what they're told and disregard every other consideration. While a human would have understood that the sites' designers wanted to maximize quality as measured by clicks, the algorithms maximized clicks at the expense of quality. Second, algorithms are black boxes. Though they can predict the future with great accuracy, they won't say what will cause an event or why. They'll tell you which magazine articles are likely to be shared on Twitter without explaining what motivates people to tweet about them, for instance. To avoid missteps, you need to be explicit about all your goals--hard and soft--when formulating your algorithms. You also must consider the long-term implications of the data the algorithms incorporate to make sure they're not focusing nearsightedly on short-term outcomes. And choose the right data inputs, being sure to gather a wide breadth of information from a diversity of sources.

HBR's annual ideas collection, compiled in cooperation with the World Economic Forum, offers 10 fresh solutions with the potential for a huge positive impact on business and the world. Teresa M. Amabile and Steven J. Kramer reveal what their research shows is the true key to employee motivation-and it's not what most managers focus on providing. Ronald Dixon proposes that the real performance breakthrough in health care will come when the medical community adopts the everyday communications technologies patients already use. Lawrence M. Candell asks why the U.S. has a Lincoln Laboratory to put public-spirited experts across the table from profit-motivated defense contractors, but no such entity to do the same in the financial sector. Eric Bonabeau, Alpheus Bingham, and Aaron Schacht urge players in the pharmaceutical industry to treat drugs as information assets; big pharma could orchestrate drug-development networks to promote innovation. Jack D. Hidary describes a market solution to achieve what no government handout can in the greening of existing buildings. Robert E. Litan and Lesa Mitchell advocate that universities' technology transfer offices loosen their monopolistic grip on their scientists' taxpayer-funded discoveries. Bill Jensen and Josh Klein urge frustrated professionals to "hack work" by adopting the mind-set and tool kit of the hacker to achieve the positive outcomes their employers want but make difficult to achieve. Sendhil Mullainathan notes that we have the tools to spot bubbles about to burst, but individual firms have little incentive to sound the alarm. Why not appoint a "bubbles committee"? Paul Romer proposes that "charter cities" be established to show the citizens of failed and languishing states the merits of market economies and to provide an option for change. Carne Ross questions why only nation-states are allowed to shape international affairs and reveals the need for independent diplomacy.