Jose Nazario once mentioned to me the concept of a "poor man's MBA", or what a technologist should read in order to understand the business world. I have little motivation, time, or energy to go for a real MBA (one terminal degree is enough), but I do need to absorb as many of the soft skills as possible if I want to, well, not suck as an employee.
With that goal in mind, I read The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable to get an idea of how executive teams interact and how decisions are made and indecision occurs, Crossing the Chasm to understand the mentality of marketing folks inside tech companies, and The Innovator's Dilemma to get some pointers on how to push new technologies or innovations through an organization.
For all three books, the language and style that is used is as important as the concepts discussed. I have found that people tend to ascribe you to different schools of thought based solely upon how you frame a discussion, and will often times not accept lines of arguments if you don't frame them in their native belief system. By recasting a discussion in terms they would understand, your argument may be more easily accepted.
A trivial example of this is the use of the term "non-optimal". I tend to use it frequently as a result of my formal training in algorithm optimization. I am very careful to use "unprofitable", or "a poor investment of resources" when I am talking to different business stakeholders about engineering decisions rather than "non-optimal", as the use of the latter communicates that you are thinking with a technicians brain, which traditionally doesn't appreciate the customer motivators, versus that of a business person, who may believe that engineers are short-sighted and don't see "the big picture".
Anyone who has straddled both the technicians and non-technicians world can attest to these issues, so there is no point of going much further on the topic. I should have some other super-awesome-cool content later this week, though.