As far as HBS articles go, I thought this one was pretty good.
If you've ever tried to push a new idea onto a group of disinterested people, you'll know that you'll generally get apathy or pushback, no matter how much you extol the virtues of the idea. Giving people ownership of an idea actually works (at least in my experience) in engaging them and getting them thinking about the idea. Though the caveat is that the final result may not necessarily resemble your original idea.
I'd be interested in hearing what made you consider this article nonsense.
I've found when communicating with people, that the precise wording you use is a really important factor in the response you get - kind of like programming actually! Which is why I found the suggestion of particular phrases to try out interesting:
"Why won't this work for you?"
"That's a good point. So how can you change it to make it work?"
"I'd be interested in hearing what made you consider this article nonsense." And what would you do to change it?
(I couldn't resist.)
The article was a reminder that team building is the underlying success of projects. Bringing people together and getting them to have a stake in the project is at least 60% of the success of a project. (The 60% is derived from a study written up in either CACM or IEEE's Computer that successful projects had the common characteristic of weighting people at 60, process at 20, and technology at 20. If anyone remembers which periodical and when it was published I'd love to reread it.)
If you've ever tried to push a new idea onto a group of disinterested people, you'll know that you'll generally get apathy or pushback, no matter how much you extol the virtues of the idea. Giving people ownership of an idea actually works (at least in my experience) in engaging them and getting them thinking about the idea. Though the caveat is that the final result may not necessarily resemble your original idea.