If we want a better original idea, we must generate our own before we screen others' suggestions.

This is what I find most magnetic about successful givers: they get to the top without cutting others down, finding ways of expanding the pie that benefit themselves and the people around them. Whereas success is zero-sum in a group of takers, in groups of givers, it may be true that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Negative relationships are unpleasant but predictable.

Procrastinate strategically... Procrastination may be the enemy of productivity but it can be a valuable resource for creativity.

Good guys are most likely to finish last, but also most likely to finish first.

The more I help out, the more successful I become. But I measure success in what it has done for the people around me. That is the real accolade.

Every time we interact with another person at work, we have a choice to make: do we try to claim as much value as we can, or contribute value without worrying about what we receive in return?

People tend to have one of three 'styles' of interaction. There are takers, who are always trying to serve themselves matchers, who are always trying to get equal benefit for themselves and others and givers, who are always trying to help people.

Being a giver is not good for a 100-yard dash, but it’s valuable in a marathon.

Enemies make better allies than frenemies.

Dissenting opinions are useful even when they're wrong. So instead of speaking to highly agreeable audiences, target suggestions to people with a history of originality.

When you're dealing with an ambivalent relationship, you're constantly on guard, grappling with questions of trust.

Focus attention and energy on making a difference in the lives of others, and success might follow as a by-product.

The most meaningful way to succeed is to help others succeed.

When you put off a task, you buy yourself time to engage in divergent thinking rather than foreclosing on one particular idea.