Skip to Content
section-header

Influencers Invited Sales Blog

The Winning Edge Theory

Achieving Exponential Rewards for Being Just a Little Bit Better

Today we are bombarded with “transformation” propaganda from experts and gurus who promise to share their life-changing secrets. Let’s face it, the idea that one can have a big “AHA MOMENT” and then instantly transform their status in life is a sexy idea. Perhaps the desire to transform or experience a major breakthrough is inspired by the fact that some people are achieving way more success than others. And this widening gap has people bothered doesn’t it? I submit to you that the results you desire may not require you to “transform” or to “become” something else, rather, the results you want might just require you to get a little bit better at what you do…

I call it THE WINNING EDGE THEORY which states that in a mega-competitive environment there is a disproportionate benefit for being just a little bit better….especially if you are already performing at a high level.

My former employer, Tony Robbins, would explain that performance and rewards are not equally distributed. For example, if you do a “good” job you will most likely NOT receive good rewards. And if you are “better than average” you probably are not getting better than average rewards. In fact, the distribution of rewards and wealth are heavily weighted in favor of the best of the best. One might think that this game is unfairly rigged, but ALL of us contribute to this dynamic as consumers every day. We can spend our time and money listenning to local garage bands, but we don’t. We listen to top hits via radio and media over and over again and then wait for our favorite performer to appear at the local arena. Today, we don’t risk disappointment. We want the best, and as a result THE BEST GET ALL THE REWARDS.

But here’s the good news! “THE BEST” are not as far away as they seem. And what if that were true?

Let’s take a look at a crude but insightful example that I assembled for you…let’s compare 2 NBA basketball players, Steph Curry and Alonzo Ball with regard to their three point shooting ability. Let’s look at the relationship between their performance and their rewards. Essentially, Steph Curry makes 4 shots out of every 10 attempts (43%) while Alonzo makes about 3 shots out of every 10 attempts (32%). It would stand to reason that because Curry has a 10% better shooting ratio that he might score 10% more in total points. BUT let’s see how it unfolds…the Lakers only provided Alonzo with 228 three point attempts last season for which he made 75 shots and awarded his teammates for a total of 225 points. Because of Curry’s slight increase in efficiency (+10%) the Warriors encouraged him to shoot more often…Curry took 823 three point attempts last season for which he made 354 shots and awarded his teammates with a total of 1,062 points from the three-point line.

Steph Curry Annual Salary = 34 Million in 2019.

Alonzo Ball Annual Salary = 7 Million in 2019.

As you can see there is a disproportionate benefit for being just a little bit better. Let me ask you a question…does the same dynamic exist in your field? I bet it does. What if you were 10% better? Would it be worth it? How would the opportunities begin to build momentum if you were a little bit better? Top sales producers not only make a higher percentage of their shots, but they also get to take more shots. In fact, the marketplace will go to great lengths to insure that the best of the best can get as many at bats as possible.

What if you didn’t have to re-invent yourself? What if you just needed to make one more shot out of every 10?

About the author