Here's an excerpt from Jeffrey Gitomer's 'Little Black Book of Connections'.

When I read it, I thought of our Values - Courage and Confidence coupled with our discussion of the importance of Connections.

***

Per Jeffrey Gitomer...

"Courage is a self-inflicted quality that gains momentum every time you try it. Think about learning to swim. At first you're scared, then you jump in the pool, then you flail your arms, then eventually you begin to swim. And by the end of the day, or by then end of the week, you're diving off the diving board, head first into a pool of self-confidence. It's the same when you learn to ride a bike.

Transfer those lessons (learning to swim or ride a bike) into your world of making connections. And begin to build your own momentum by stroking and pedalling your way to the first one, and then the next, and then the next."

***


Jeffrey Gitomer presents things in a straightforward, common-sense way. 
Courage » Confidence » Connections

...with Courage defined as a self-inflicted quality.

I like that analogy or metaphor or whatever it is...

Self-inflicting Courage.

That is an excellent way to think about the way one builds the character attribute known as Courage. In fact, I think we could argue it is the only way to build the attribute, Courage.

I've called Courage 'the great enabler' because it enables other major character attributes such as Confidence...(particularly, Confidence). And, I've talked about the fact one can (rather easily) build self-Confidence...the mechanisms for building self-Confidence have been presented by many, with one of the best presented by Napoleon Hill 70 years ago.

Some have said, 'Confidence drives Courage', which is the opposite of the way I see it. I agree that's not flawed logic because it makes sense that Courage will tend to grow as self-Confidence grows. However, even if the logic works most/all the time the cause-effect thinking does not. 

Courage can exist in the absence of Confidence.

I'd argue Courage has its base in instinct while Confidence has its base in logical thought. Courage is a fight-or-flight phenomenon while self-Confidence is a thing of ongoing process. Courage is of the heart, confidence is of the  brain.

Borrowing from Jeffrey Gitomer...we can self-inflict the quality of Courage.

We can also self-inflict the quality of self-Confidence, but, I don't think many of us would describe the process that way. If we do like the analogy/metaphor of self-inflicting self-Confidence then we must accept it is a methodical process of 'a thousand cuts'. 

Regardless, 'self-inflicting the quality of Courage'...what a great way to help us understand what it takes if one wants to maximize the success embedded in our Values: Courage, Confidence, Conviction, & Creativity.  

Courage is our company’s Key Value.

In summary, we have chosen Courage for our Key Value because:

1. Courage enables Self-Knowledge and

2. When it is backed by Courage, Self-Knowledge can be the foundation of most, if not all, other major values, traits, qualities, and attributes that contribute to character.

If our personal value systems are like dominoes then Courage must be the first domino of desirable character. When it comes to personal character, no other domino can take the place of Courage.

Dominoes fall in sequence…

 Courage

Self-Knowledge

Self-Confidence

That domino sequence was simplified…in practice, it would be a more complicated sequence:

 Courage

Self-Knowledge

Self-Education

Self-Confidence

Here I mean ‘Self-Education’ in its broadest sense. It includes other dominoes like introspection and [if we want it to] autosuggestion [self-talk]. The main point is, when Courage is present Self-Confidence can grow. If we remove Courage then Self-Confidence cannot grow. Courage enables Self-Confidence. With dedication, Self-Confidence can be self-taught. Coaches can help us understand the dominoes but they cannot give them to us. We have to create our own dominoes and we have to use them regularly.

The process of developing Self-Confidence only works if it is backed by Courage.

***

Self-Confidence is a ‘great enabler’.

Courage is the ‘great enabler’. 

***

We may have different views about the routes the dominoes of personal character take.

But, we should agree Courage enables some very-positive things…

Action

Decisiveness

Enthusiasm

Faith

Hope

Inspiration

Leadership*

Optimism

Persistence

Self-Confidence

Self-Knowledge

*** 

Considering all these dominoes linked to Courage, it is easy to see...

Courage enables positive Change  

***

Footnote:  In his 1937 classic, ‘Think and Grow Rich’, Napoleon Hill selected ‘Unwavering Courage” as the #1 attribute of Leadership. 

In one of my dictionaries, a Gage Canadian Dictionary, the word 'innovation' is defined as:

1. A change made in the established way of doing things
2. The making of changes; act of bringing in new things or new ways of doing things: He is strongly opposed to innovation of any kind.

At the front cover of his book 'Innovation', Tom Gorman uses the following Peter Drucker quote:

"Innovation is the specific instrument...that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth."

At Chapter 1, Gorman uses the title, 'Innovation = Problem Solving'. And, in a caption that appears to be a dictionary excerpt, Gorman provides the following definition:

in • no • va • tion

1. A new product, service, process, or approach to a problem
2. A new way of thinking about something
3. The act of innovating, as in "Innovation occurs in every culture"

I know from recent experience, the discussion of innovation can very quickly get deeply philosophical. Here are some questions, which capture some of the differences in the ways people think about innovation:

• Must innovation, by definition, be a physical/tangible thing? 
• Must innovation, by definition, be linked to change?
• Should innovation, by definition, be linked to problem solving?
• What's the difference between creativity and innovation?

Perhaps, creativity describes new things that can be enjoyed for their own sake rather than for any change they may bring about? If that is the case then change may be an important facet of the definition of innovation but of little or no importance when considering a definition of creativity?

In other words - perhaps we should acknowledge utility is less tangible for creativity and more tangible for innovation?

Perhaps, for creativity utility can be so nebulous it should not even be a facet of definition?

Are creativity and innovation mutually exclusive? Or, is one a subset of the other? If so then which one is the broader thing...which is closer to concept?

***

Business and Innovation:

Overall, I'm wondering if one of the largest rifts between our thoughts about innovation is around technology. Must a business innovation contain some aspect of technology or can a business innovation exist independent of technology?

For business purposes, would it make sense to define innovation as 'a thing or action that solves a business problem'?

Maybe we should state innovation - a thing or action - must have the effect of creating a change...or, should we be more specific and state innovation must create a change of commercial value?

The 'change' part of that sort of definition is consistent with my Gage Canadian Dictionary. And change is simple and it is a broad enough thing (say, a concept) so it should not generate any confusion or controversy. However, the 'adding commercial value' part isn't so simple...it is a qualification but it is a subjective one. My Gage Canadian Dictionary does not express the nature of change it expresses in its definition of innovation. While we may want to assume Gage Canadian Dictionary intends the change to be positive rather than negative or of value rather than valueless, that isn't stated in my Gage Canadian Dictionary. In fact, the sample italicized in my dictionary definition - "He is strongly opposed to innovation of any kind" - provides a clear message that some people are opposed to innovation...presumably, that's the case because those people do not see innovation as either positive or value-adding. Or, perhaps the opposition is simply a resistance to change.

For business, could we start by considering the following type of definition:

          Business Innovation (def'n):

          A thing done or provided to add value by solving a customer's problem or satisfying a customer's need.

Embedded in this definition are:

1. A business innovation must be tangible...a thought or an idea isn't enough to be considered a business innovation. Only when that thought or idea is converted into physical reality - a product, a service of action, etc - can it be considered an innovation. 
2. An innovation in business begins with a customer need or problem...all business innovations should be traced to a specific, identified customer need or problem. 
3. An innovation in business will cause and be a change. That change will be measured in terms of value added from the customer's perspective...as a specific, identified customer need is satisfied or as a specific, identified customer problem is solved. 
4. So, to qualify as a business innovation the thing must be customer-centric. 
5. A business innovation need not be tied to technology. Technological innovations in business would be a subset of business innovations. 
6. Potential questions about 'direct' and 'indirect' value, as seen from the customer's perspective, questions about the ability to discover with precision customer's needs, and questions about the ability to measure the value added from the customer's perspective, etc. (Such is the essence and challenge of Marketing).

***

If we can agree on a definition of Innovation then we will have a solid footing upon which we can build as we answer other important questions, such as:

• how do we want to define the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship?
• how do we want to nurture and promote business-innovation processes in our workplaces?
• how do we place ourselves in our customers' shoes and with precision understand their needs and problems then deliver measurable value through innovation?