The article points out the damage that being an Alice can cause - some people (most people, really) are affected by the way others treat them, so when you are r

The article points out the damage that being an Alice can cause - some people (most people, really) are affected by the way others treat them, so when you are right, and someone else is wrong (and you are certain of that ;) ) you can add a bonus to your technical contributions by mentoring that person. Winning an argument is hard and doesn't fix underlying problems with competency, but mentoring someone will build up good will. Instead of feeling like they have lost or been proven inferior, the "opponent" in this case will correctly believe they have grown technically. The way to do that is all in phrasing, tone of voice, and general respectful treatment. If, like me, this is not something that comes naturally to you, it might be worth searching google for a few little tricks that will help you to resolve disagreements. The Socratic method - using questions instead of statements - can be effective. It has also helped in my experience to describe similar situations in which the course of action you support has proven itself. When speaking with managers who make a bad suggestion, it is helpful to explain that the course of action they are proposing was considered, and why it was rejected. That will reassure them that you are on top of the situation, and (in the case of a good manager) show that you are able to do your work without your assistance. Of course if your manager's ego is tied to his/her suggestions, which is common, you're probably SOL. The most effective way I have seen a team deal with that is to implement the bad suggestions as quickly and flexibly as possible in order to minimise the damage to the schedule, the project, and so on.