Change (Part 2)

Eric Hoffer said, “In times of change, learners will inherit the earth, while the learned will find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”

I previously wrote about something called “the relevancy curve.” It’s from a book by David Marcum and Steven Smith, titled egonomics.

They describe how anytime we’re new to something there is a learning curve. And you’re never as relevant or valuable at the start as you are 6 weeks or six months into the process. This is accepted. But it is also expected that we will make our way up the curve. The higher we get on the curve, the more we know, the more confident we become, the more valuable we are.

But there’s a point where we can get too comfortable. If we allow ourselves to get to the point where we think there’s little left to learn, we’re less open. When this happens, new ideas have a harder time getting in and flawed ideas have a tough time escaping, and we slide down the other side of the relevancy curve. The more closed we are to growing and learning, the faster the descent. If we’re not careful, many of us end our careers back where we began—at the bottom of the curve.

As things change in the world and on our jobs, much of our knowledge loses its original relevance. If we are to increase our knowledge and relevance, the first step of leadership literacy is learning.

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Alvin Toffler

One of the greatest challenges of leaders in today’s rapidly changing work environment is creating a culture that embraces change and values personal growth.

What are the tools that leaders need in order to facilitate this culture. For me personally it takes a vision, constant communication of that vision and last but not least, rewarding the behaviors I want repeated. All too often we underestimate the importance of recognition in driving the behaviors we desire.

In fact, in far too many companies their strategic recognition program is nonexistent or woefully lacking.

How important is it to correlate recognition with performance?

Research in education has shown that it takes a 4 to 1 praise to criticism ratio to maintain ideal student on-task behavior. To change student behavior, it takes a significantly higher ratio, about 8 to 1.

Wow. That’s a powerful statistic and very powerful information if used strategically.

Are you trying to drive change and innovation? Are your leaders praising more often than they are criticizing? Do you have your recognition program strategically tied into your mission?

Or are you just giving away stuff?