a valuable means of motivating high Advantage people to higher performance. Low Advantage onlookers think to themselves, Why would she be motivated by further concrete rewards? Doesn’t she have enough? Won’t she just leave the company and enjoy a comfortable retirement? The answer, in all likelihood, is no. Only a low Advantage person would think like that. Only a low Advantage person would ask, don’t I have enough now? For the high Advantage person, there is no enough, because enough is not what concrete rewards are about. To talk about having enough reward would be the same as the new Houston Texans football team talking about having enough points scored in the game. No matter how good you are as a high Advantage achiever, there’s always someone better. (The British have a peculiarly socialistic system for high Advantage rewards at the higher end of society that costs them nothing. If I lived in Britain, worked very hard, made lots of money for the tax man, and was very charming and likeable with some significant politicians, I might find that the Queen had awarded me a knighthood. As a result, I would be able to call myself Sir Roger Birkman. What other rewards accompany a knighthood, you may ask? The answer is: none. No money, no pensions, no lands. And yet many men (and women, who become Dames) use their high Advantage drive to gain this — singularly useless — honor.) Thirdly, high Advantage people see teams primarily as collections of individuals, so they can tend to allow team members individual leeway and even motivate the team by offering individual incentives. Low Advantage people prefer to treat the team as an entity, and sadly a great deal of time can be wasted in those team situations by deferring or omitting actions because “we don’t want to hurt Martha’s feelings” or “we want to present a united front.” I’m convinced that we’d spend far less time in meetings if they were chaired by high, rather than low, Advantage people. Fourthly, high Advantage people are always looking for the edge, and it’s this tendency of theirs that often benefits us all. The competitive edge frequently manifests itself in giving something for less. If you are as old as me, you’ll remember when owning a credit card was a mark of distinction. Not everyone could get one; you had to pay an annual fee for it; you had to pay enormously high interest rates on unpaid balances. A nice strategy — until everyone that deserved the distinction of a credit card owned one. And now came the high Advantage thinking. Suppose that — instead of being a mark of distinction – – a credit card were to be a commodity? And gradually, that is what happened, as various high Advantage thinkers in different credit card companies tried to outsmart one another. Down came the annual fees — to zero. Down came the interest rates. Up went the number of mail solicitations I receive. Now I can get frequent flier miles just by using my credit card. All the result of high Advantage thinking. If there are high Advantage thinkers in your company, they can do the same for you. Finally, there can be an unfortunate tendency to equate trust with low Advantage scorers, and therefore to believe that high Advantage people do not understand trust, or — even worse — cannot be trusted. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire American way of life is predicated on trust in a high Advantage, competitive environment — on the fact that, where the business deal is concerned, most people are able to trust most people most of the time and come out of the other end of the deal with mutual benefit. By far the majority of our financial, high Advantage exchanges are done on the basis of trust. (In Texas, a verbal handshake deal is still legally binding.) Our legal contracts are in fact drawn up to preclude distrust; very few of them end up being debated in a court of law. The benefit of having high Advantage scores in a trust situation is knowing pretty early in the game when the other person can’t be trusted. Low Advantage people are more readily taken advantage of. Nevertheless, it is generally true that, when it comes to trust, a low Advantage person will trust you until you show you can’t be trusted; while a high Advantage person will be wary about trusting you until you’ve shown you can be trusted. |
Difference in Advantage scores can lead to a great deal of discomfort when people work together. Low Advantage people tend to see high Advantage people as being aggressive, out for themselves, selfish, short-term thinkers, talking out of both sides of their mouths. And sometimes, unfortunately, that can be true. High Advantage people tend to see low Advantage people as over-idealistic, dreamers, willing to sacrifice profits for principles, focusing overmuch on the product or service rather than the people who buy the product or service. And sometimes, unfortunately, that can be true. But when both low and high Advantage scorers in your company can work together, they can cover all the bases. And the results can be very gratifying.
Trust me.