According to the Expert

According to Barry G., this highly spirited corporate coach who’s missing only a pair of wings to bolt like a military jet around the room during his training sessions, shelling all with bombs of energy, jettisoning one memorable statement after another when the load gets too heavy, the theory is very clear on the subject: oneself cannot change. Your inner personality is a done deal by the time you reach eight months of age, and for the rest of eighty years (only for those lucky bastards, mind you!) you are carrying it with you like a backpack filled in with all you need to make it through the vicissitudes, as well as the feasts of life.
“Don’t even try to change!” declaims Barry in a strong statement, supported by an even stronger stance. “You are perfect the way you are, the best human being that God ever created!” Alleluia, you are tempted to say, raising your arms high up in the air, in a gesture of adoration, but you suddenly realize you’re in the big boardroom during a corporate training session. And then  Barry starts talking about what matters the most to him: the communication.  Barry has a point who he keeps re-emphasizing: if we are unchangeable, because our personality is like an imprint in a piece of stone, how can you negotiate two personalities that are deemed to collide? How can you bring to getting along two employees, colleagues in the same team, who dislike, disregard and even despise each other for a variety of reasons, among them the very fact that one of the them is a “feeler” (and yes, it’s true, this is more of a whiner, and there is nothing wrong with it) while the other is a “thinker” (or a "macho" in the street smarts’ jargon.)  Barry has the secret answer to this conundrum and he pulls it off his sleeve (mind you, adorned with golden cuffs!) with the same theatrical gesture an illusionist materializes the bunny from under his long coat's flap, right in a front of you: “You can not change yourself, but you can change the other!” Let’s take a deep mental breath and think for a minute at this logic that sounds a bit crooked: if you cannot change yourself, it means that you are un-changeable; then how can another person be able to change you? This is a tempting conclusion, if only were true.  Barry hasn't said anything about being un-changeable, has he? He just said that you cannot change you but this doesn’t preclude the other being able to change you. In other words, you can be subject to change, but the agent of change needs to come from outside.

And how can you make this work? Let’s imagine a fictional exchange between two thinkers, two macho geeks who strongly believe that every minute of the game they have all their basis covered, which means they have answers for everything. For the argument sake let’s call them Billy O and Johnny A. Their conversation is about a Microsoft component that could impact the performance if deployed on the Web Server.

Billy O: “My purpose was to find a way to re-direct specific pages to a secure connection, without the need to change the application code. And I found it: it's called URL Rewriter.”
Johnny A: “I don't think that's right, Billy! This component, once deployed in the Global Assembly cache area will impact all other web sites in terms of performance. The response time will get slower...”
Billy O: “No, it won't. This is a Microsoft component after all, they tested it. Plus deployment in Global assembly Cache does not impact performance.”
Johnny A: “Yes, it does. You should read more about it, Billy.”
Billy O: “No, it doesn't. I'm afraid you are the one behind with the reading, Johnny. I've done my part and this is a perfect component”
Etc.etc.

This conversation leads nowhere because both Billy and Johnny are thinkers, which means that they have solutions for everything. You can’t tell them what to do, because their brain already knows what to do. Telling them what to do is an insult. Two thinkers telling each other what to do is a case of war.
Then what’s to be done? One of them needs to know the theory. And the theory says that Billy O should start by saying:

Billy O: “ My purpose was to find a way to re-direct specific pages to a secure connection, without the need to change the application code. And I found it: it's called URL Rewriter.”
Johnny A: “ I don't think that's right, Billy! This component, once deployed in the Global Assembly cache area will impact all other web sites in terms of performance. The response time will get slower... ”
Billy O: “I thought initially exactly like you do, but then I read more about it in the forums, from people who raised similar concerns. And apparently it's safe”
Johnny A: “Really? I wouldn't bet too much on these forums..." 
Billy O: “ That's why I'd need to work with you to see if there are some implications on otehr sites that I may not be able to see at this point. ”
Johnny A: “That's not a bad approach. We can even involve a few testers to vet our assumptions...”
Billy O.: "Yeah, why not? Good idea!"
Etc, etc.

Of course, the real life would present us with a totally different  outcome than the clichés we used. But that outcome wouldn’t be that different from the spirit of the last conversation. The confrontational tone would vanish, a more tolerant air of collaboration, and mutual respect would start drifting through the room. I'd suggest you try it. I tried it many times, and many times it worked.