This is good advice, but it's dangerous for leaders who aren't themselves deep experts on their issues that divide their people. It hinges pretty strongly on a

This is good advice, but it's dangerous for leaders who aren't themselves deep experts on their issues that divide their people. It hinges pretty strongly on a boss being the most discerning person at the table. As all of the comments point out: For 'victims', 'nonbelievers' and 'knowitalls', read 'defenders of the unpopular', 'visionaries' and 'pragmatists.' How do you know which is which? Easy: the boss should be a technical expert, as well as the most demanding user of the product. Such a boss will know when technical decisions are being made rationally and when they are being made for political reasons -- and thus evaluate whether a complaint comes from someone who sees themselves as a victim, or someone who sees something beneficial getting axed. Such a boss will be able to recognize an earnest and appropriate expression of a compelling, competing vision, and differentiate it from a lack of buy-in. Why? Because he knows the technologies in question, and because he knows that "buy-in" always risks turning into a mindless "lock-in", and so it's useful to have contrarians on your team. But, hey -- I'm preaching to the choir on HN. And I'd say there is some evidence that leadership is increasingly technical and expert in companies that are winning. These kinds of decisions are always hard. For non-technical people, making decisions about technical people, I have a suspicion that they'd do as well throwing darts at a board for all but the most blatant cases of personality misfit. I've been in situations where the person who created the most value for his company was all three of those things: 'victim', 'non-believer' and 'knowitall'. All they cared about was the product, and it turns out that's the thing you want them to care about.