Our team decided a year ago to have a group event and volunteer our time and energy giving back to communities. We picked a GoodWill Center. Candy arranged the time and volunteer effort with the center, and at the last minute I decided to include my five year old daughter in this wonderful exercise of giving. She’s just in kindergarten, and well shucks, what better education than to include her in a day to giving back to those in need?

Annie and I drove the hour from Portland Maine to the GoodWill center and presented ourselves, along with the clothes and toys we had gathered that morning to donate. We were greeted by a floor supervisor who led us to the assigned task of the day. In the warehouse he brought batches of newly donated goods which we were to sort into bins to later be placed on the floor and sold to needing families. Annie thought it was awesome! digging through interesting clothes and sorting them into bins for the WoodWill center to sell.

While we set up shop and prepared to attack the task, the supervisor person re-emerged and declared that we could not stay because Annie was in violation of their safety regulations. It wasn’t a kind dismissal, but delivered more in the tone of “well rules-are-rules” sort of way.

Well, I understand following policy but still asked to talk to the manager who decided this. This was the same decider who was still hiding in her office. Annie and I walked to the closed office of the GoodWill site manager to politely inquire. My intention was just to build rapport and understand her concern. Well, immediately it was clear she was adamant – five year olds cannot be on the “sorting floor”. Ok, I get that but we’re just throwing clothes into big boxes and Annie would love it. She would, in fact, be awesome at it. We were never asked to sign any type of release and obviously I’m there as her parent responsible for her behavior and actions.

Nope, not a chance. Perhaps we could distribute the sorted clothes on the floor in the showroom? Nope, not in the policy. My daughter started to cry, and I knew there was no negotiating. It would only make things more difficult for her. We left, had a nice lunch and I tried to get Annie to forget about the unyeilding people at GoodWill.

Here’s the thing – consistently the best places to work communicate clearly that they trust their people. W.L. Gore, Umpqua Bank, NetApp, and many others have, for example, have adopted travel policies of “do the right thing.” GoodWill has a chance to communicate clearly to their people in the field that they have an opportunity to “do the right thing” as well. Or at the very least be human when delivering sad news.

Now ask yourself, “Do my colleagues share my same high level of integrity?” A far fewer number of people would agree that their colleagues and peers possess our own elevated level of integrity.

Why? Because we confuse our intention with our action. We can get intoxicated on how fabulous we are and confuse that with the actual impact we are making in the world. It’s the same reason 80% of executives believe their company creates a superior product in the marketplace, while only 8% of their own customers would agree. Or why 86% of MBA students believe they are better looking than their classmates. Or why almost all of us think we are better drivers than everyone else.

To overcome our own awesomeness, and to lead from a place of credibility, try these two tricks

First, Lead by Doing: If you ask the five people on your team, each individually, how much they each contributed to the last project, the total will be well over 100%. Because we all overestimate our own value. Get over yourself. You aren’t above doing the dishes, cleaning the sink, or taking out the trash. True, others around you have become better at managing projects, or generating marketing copy, or advising on the user experience…but by walking a mile in someone’s shoes you’ll learn quite a bit about the effort and value of everyone’s contribution.

Now, Only Do What Only You Can Do: Now that you know the reality of what it’s like to get the monthly newsletter out, or write 500 words of PR copy, you understand it isn’t a cakewalk. In a conversation with Lisa Vos of Melbourne Business School, she explained that the next key to developing oneself if to find our most compelling signal in the noise and to accentuate it. That is, in order to develop distinct value, we need to emphasis and develop that which only we can do with distinction.

My son’s ski coach is a former U.S. Ski Team moguls champ. When I mention his name to people on the mountain, they say to me incredulously, “Have you seen him ski!!?” Yes, he rocks. And few sports have had the amazing amount of fast ingenuity and innovation that moguls and freestyle skiing has.

Here’s that I mean. Jonny Moseley won Olympic Gold in 1998 in Nagano Japan in moguls skiing. Fast and fluid and best in the world, but basically incrementally improving on what everyone already knew. He didn’t do anything remarkably different. He just executed the best on known skills and tricks – what my son calls “day-glo 80′s tricks”. For example, here is Travis Cabral a year afterward, winning a U.S. Championship in 1999 doing much the same tricks that had been repeated over the past few decades.

Then Jonny Moseley invents the “Dinner Roll” – an off-axis double rotation trick, the likes the world had never seen. He created the trick for the 1999 X-Games, perfected it, and then performed it in Olympic competition in 2002 in Salt Lake City. The judges didn’t like it, and scored it the same as more simple tricks, because they didn’t know what else to do with it. And because he spent more time in the air executing this trick, he was slower on the course. He got fourth in the 2002 Olympics, but the crowd went completely nuts. In the eyes of the world, he crushed. Here it is in slow motion (with a hilarious commentator):

Jonny Moseley’s “Dinner Roll” is now known, among those who speak the language, as a “Cork 7″ – short for “corkscrew 720″ and it’s a fairly basic trick these days for anyone in competition. Here’s a 12 year old doing one (fast-forward to 1:35).

Over the past ten years since Moseley smashed that border, there has been a whole new dimension of tricks and an explosion of ingenuity. Here’s Mikael Kingsbury winning the World Championship last month, March 2013.

Here’s the thing about Moseley’s irreverent ingenuity. He knew, going into the 2002 Olympics, that he wasn’t going to win with the Dinner Roll. The judges, his coaches, his teammates all reminded him he would gain nothing in points for his somewhat smart-ass trick. And he did it anyway. And because he did it anyway, he cleared the way for invention in the sport. Within six months of presenting the Dinner Roll in 2002 Olympic competition, the rules were changed to allow, and reward, inverted and off-axis rotation in the air.

Sure he would have liked to win. But pushing the boundaries of the sport was more important. Jonny Moseley said of the 2002 Olympics:

“There’s no question I was making a point; I was making a statement. I had hoped to be able to both make a statement and win, but in the end I probably sacrificed a gold for a statement. I hate to sound like I did everything for the good of the sport. I just personally couldn’t swallow the idea of going up there and doing what every single other person was doing. It wasn’t worth abandoning innovation and abandoning what is possible.”

Gerry Thomas, a sales executive at Swanson, had been flying around the country and had just seen what Pan American airlines was doing with compartmentalized in-flight food offerings.  He and the executive team at Swanson coupled this notion with Clarence Birdseye’s new flash freezing technique, and then added the catchy product label “TV Dinner” that fit beautifully with the cultural explosion of television.  Their great market opportunity was the eight million moms who were joining the workforce after WWII, who were also enjoying an abundance of electrical home appliances like ovens, refrigerators, freezers, and of course televisions.

Turkey Glut Crisis + New Technology + Market Inflection = Bonanza of Realized Value

Swanson thought they might sell five thousand units the first year.  They sold ten million at .98 cents each.  Big hit, and now you understand how the intersection of technology, inspiration, marketing and resources made it happen.  But does that formula work again today?  Here’s the difference now:

Resources are scare, not abundant: From water to textiles to lumber, the availability and premium placed on the natural resources we use to create the consumer products and comestibles are in high demand and, in the case of fossil fuels and water particularly, are increasingly precious.

Talent is global, not local: Historically if you had a local workforce that was obedient, diligent, and brought expertise and skill to bear executing on top-driven strategies, you had competitive advantage.  The future is most certainly now in terms of the ability to connect need with a globally-dispersed labor force -  highly talented, motivated, and comparatively cheap by U.S. standards.  And all connected by the cost of the internet, $0.

Innovation is democratized, not top-driven: No longer can firms rely on the the wisdom of a handful of insightful strategists at the top of a pyramid, when meanwhile companies like Rabobank or Best Buy are doing a better job of catering to customer need by creating mechanisms to actively listen to, and incorporate the interests of customers, and know-how of line personnel.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

This kind of collaborative bluster is akin to throwing a Hail Mary in the waning seconds. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

I was reminded of a valuable trick from Seth Kahan the other day on how to build predictable innovation. More often, it’s in the small tweaks of what you already know, not the big grandiose changes – that generates consistent wins by building incremental value.

Indeed, Seth does have lessons on how to identify big-picture shifting market inflection points and how to capitalize on them. But the kind of value building that leads to reliable market leadership is about parsing out the pieces of our value chain, examining each, and tweaking steadily toward constant excellence.

I once had a conversation with Patagonia founder and CEO Yvon Chouinard who told me he has yet to find a business or product problem that cannot be solved by increasing value. Patagonia is the company that has built a legacy of consistent product integrity and innovation.

Kahan’s advice is to look at all the parts that contribute to the whole – the supplier, the transport, the assembly, the quality assurance, the delivery, point of sale, customer service, etc… and peel away the layers of each part of the process. In doing so, you’ll find something to improve. Always. Don’t think big. Think small. Innovation will follow.

As Grant writes in his book, researchers working with executives asked them to solicit business advice not only from those close and respected colleagues, but also from former colleagues with whom they had no contact with for at least three years. Once the executives begrudgingly agreed to contact two former colleagues (their dormant ties) and ask a few questions of advice, they discovered it was the dormant ties who offered the most valuable and insightful bits of advice and information, not those closest to them.

This morning I was listening to Ken Coleman‘s podcast in which Tim Sanders was describing his “morning devotional.”  Each morning, before checking email – the electronic debt machine – he pauses to reflect and give thanks to people who have been greatly helpful to him recently. Then he reaches out to two people in his life to help. Maybe it’s an introduction, or a recommendation, or an insight he can offer in their work. Whatever it is, Tim tries to make it relevant and valuable, and never with any expectation of return. He calls this exercise Give and Forget.

Here’s the mash-up idea. Resusitate a dormant tie from your past and instead of asking for a favor, give something: an idea, a recommendation, an introduction, a compliment…and then let go. The point of this exercise is not to trade value with someone from your past, or mine your network. The point is to add value to the community. I’m making a habit of it.

Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must first set yourself on fire.
—Reggie Leach

This idea was a kick in the pants. Lately I feel like I’ve been inundated with admonitions to listen carefully, deeply, mindfully…Pick your guru and each will say, start with listening.

• Stephen Covey: “Pass the torch and listen.”
• Susan Scott: “Waiting to talk is not listening.”
• Keith Ferrazzi: “When you ask someone’s opinion, your next job is to listen and give a damn.”
• Marshall Goldsmith: “Let go of ‘yes, but…’ – stop adding too much value and listen.”
• Warren Bennis: “Ask a probing question and then listen.”
• David Whyte: “The conversation IS the relationship.”

We had a conversation last week with Jennifer Kahnweiler, an expert on developing introverted people into powerful (and quiet) leaders. She has a segment in her book in which she addresses the downside of always listening. As she points out, when you are engaged in deep listening, by definition, you aren’t sharing information and knowledge, and you aren’t doing anything. When, of course, it’s the doing that translates into shared value and innovation.

Certainly in a state engaged listening, you are developing a heightened sense of situational understanding and honing your emotional fluency. Yet, if you are constantly operating in a listening mode – mindful or not, Jennifer points out a few pitfalls in her new book, Quiet Influence:

Loss of credibility: If you are constantly listening and not contributing, your colleagues and peers might begin to believe you have nothing to offer or contribute to the discussion.

Conflict avoidance: While engaged in mindful listening, you’ll certainly develop a stronger emotional fluency of your collaborators and can begin to sense divergent ideas, or conflicting mindsets on the team. If you don’t speak up to point these out, you’re losing a valuable opportunity to resolve potential conflicts.

Unproductive conversations: Collaboration needs to be reciprocal. When you fail to contribute based on what you’ve learned while listening, the conversation stalls and becomes unproductive.

Unheard ideas: And of course, you’re going to miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. However ridiculous your idea may be, your collaborator – and the world – will never know your ideas if you don’t speak up.

Take a chance. Ask a question, express an opinion, build a prototype. Fail forward.

In 1987 the leader of the band, Bono, was threatened with death if U2 played their song “Pride,” a tribute to Reverend Martin Luther King, at a concert in Arizona. Bono recalled that, as he entered the third verse—“Early morning, April 4; a shot rings out in the Memphis sky”—he closed his eyes, not knowing what would happen. He described what followed:

Some people want to kill us. Some people are taken very seriously by the FBI. They tell the singer that he shouldn’t play the gig because tonight his life is at risk, and he must not go on stage. And the singer laughs. Of course we’re playing the gig. Of course we go onstage, and I’m singing “Pride (In the Name of Love)”—the third verse—and I close my eyes. And you know, I’m excited about meeting my maker, but maybe not tonight. I don’t really want to meet my maker tonight. I close my eyes and when I look up I see Adam Clayton standing in front of me, holding his bass as only Adam Clayton can hold his bass. There are people in this room who’d tell you they’d take a bullet for you, but Adam Clayton would have taken a bullet for me. I guess that’s what it’s like to be in a truly great rock and roll band.

I came across this book, The Top Five Regrets of the Dying, recently. In it Bronnie Ware, a palliative care nurse, recounts spending the final three to six weeks with dying patients and shares what they have to say about living. The following is straight from her website:

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
“This was the most common regret of all. When people realize that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honored even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made. Health brings a freedom very few realize, until they no longer have it.”

2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.
“This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship. Women also spoke of this regret, but as most were from an older generation, many of the female patients had not been breadwinners. All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence.”

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.
“Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. As a result, they settled for a mediocre existence and never became who they were truly capable of becoming. Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result.”

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.
“Often they would not truly realise the full benefits of old friends until their dying weeks and it was not always possible to track them down. Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying.”

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.
“This is a surprisingly common one. Many did not realize until the end that happiness is a choice. They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called ‘comfort’ of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content, when deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again.”

Last week I sat in and listened to an interview as she spoke with my collague Taavo about what it means to be a leader. She kept returning to a few key phrases throughout the conversation. One expression she repeated consistently was “Ban the heirarchy.”

That expression kept jumping into my mind as I read through a study on the relationship between giving heirarchical labels to individuals and its negative impact on their ability to solve complex puzzles. No one I talk to seems to disagree with the fact that as we live in a world of stupefying change, the ability to digest complicated information and then transform it into meaningful ideas or innovation is critically valuable. And yet, we often persist in such debilitating labels.

In the study called Names Can Hurt You, a group of researchers from the World Bank went to rural India and conducted a series of problem-solving tests with 6th and 7th grade students from both the highest and lowest castes. Before the test began, each student was privately interviewed and asked their name, caste, father’s name, grandfather’s name and village. Then they were divided into three groups. Each group was first asked to solve mazes on their own. And then the researchers created a competitive tournament game in which the students were incentivized to perform better. The best performers gained peer recognition and cash.

The first group, known as Caste Concealed, consisted of 3 high caste students (H) and 3 low caste students (L). Because the students were selected from multiple villages, and because none of their personal information was shared with other students, a child might reasonably assume the others are unaware of their caste. As expected, in this group all 6 students performed comparably well on the puzzles, and responded positively to the social and monetary incentives introduced in the competitive tournament game.

The second group, know as Caste Revealed, again consisted of 3H and 3L students. However, at the beginning of the session the researchers read aloud each child’s background information, revealing their identity and caste. In this group all students did not improve or respond to incentives in the tournament portion of the test.

The third group, Caste Segregated, consisted of 6H and 6L students, and again all identities were revealed prior to starting the session. In this group, not only did the students remain unresponsive to competitive incentives, it had a negative impact on the lower caste students. Once their identity was revealed in a larger group they performed even worse when incentivized to do better.

Huh! Imagine that: in team-based problem-solving environments, when certain members of the group are labeled as inferior, they perform worse on complex problems.

Avoid labels, speak in terms of “we.” And in the language of world-class innovative – and non-heirarchical – company W.L. Gore, “No one may commit another.” That is to say, you may invite or challenge people to take on tasks and accountability but you may not commit another person to doing something. In their culture, people have influence based on the compelling power of their ideas and leadership ability to get things done, not based on their title.