WorkPuzzle

Convincing Candidates It’s the Right Time to Begin a Real Estate Career

I just returned from a trip to the East Coast where I had the opportunity to spend some time with the owners and executive teams of several of our clients.  While my mission was to give presentations on the best practices of both new and experienced agent recruiting, I think I brought back more information than I provided...as is often the case.   

One of the common themes I heard as I listened to the recruiting challenges and obstacles that hiring managers face is that an increasing number of candidates are facing financial challenges with regard to starting careers as real estate agents.   

On the surface, it appears that the problem lies in the fact that candidates are just short of cash... However, as I started to question this premise, I quickly learned that the problem is more complex.  The real issue has to do with perception.  

From the candidate’s perspective, the risk-to-reward ratio in the real estate industry has risen to an unacceptable level. 

Let me explain.  When the real estate industry was growing aggressively in years past, the perception was that a significant amount of money could be made by venturing into this career field.  While the risk (start-up cost, lost opportunity of doing something else, potential of failing as an agent, etc.) was just as substantial back then as it is now, the chance of a potential payoff was much higher. 

So, the perception of declining rewards is the real problem.  Financial backing has a way of surfacing when a person believes a considerable reward can be reasonably attained.  This is why there is more than $1 trillion in education loan debt in the United States.    

So, how do you convince a skeptical public that opportunity still exists in the real estate industry? 

One way to do it is through the use of data.  To show how this can be done, I’d like to introduce you to Tom Prall.  Tom is the owner of Carpenter Realtors, a very successful 30-office real estate company in Indianapolis. 

If you walked into Tom’s office, you’d see stacks of research on his desk that he skillfully uses to guide his company.  If you went to one of his sales meetings, you’d be handed paperwork that meticulously describes, from a data perspective, the business reality of what is going on around you.  And, if you’re engaging Tom in a conversation, you best have some data to back up your assertions—otherwise it gets a little uncomfortable.  

In a recent email exchange, I told Tom that some candidates are losing hope in the career potential that real estate has to offer.  Shortly thereafter, I got a phone call that started… "Ben, I don’t think you’re looking at this correctly…"

During the course of our phone conversation, Tom laid out a case that now is the time for young candidates to embark on a real estate career.  The case was built on an analysis that included the total number of transactions, total number of agents, and per agent productivity averages for the Indianapolis market.   

The analysis also included trending from a peak in the market in 1979 that closely resembled the peak in the market in 2006.  He also tracked what happened during the subsequent six years in both cases. 

Something interesting emerged in Tom's analysis:  There is a tipping point when the per agent productivity averages start to grow by more than 10% year over year.  In the Indianapolis market, there are indicators that strongly suggest this tipping point will be crossed in 2012, thus making it a advantageous time to begin working as a new real estate agent.  The “economic wind” will likely be at a candidate’s back for the first time in six years! 

I believe Tom has figured out something very important:  

If you’re going to be successful at hiring under today’s market conditions, you need to be able to make a compelling case that the “reward” in the risk-to-reward ratio is both real and significant. 

If you’re accustomed to using anecdotal evidence, dated testimonials, or even cute stories about agent hires of the past, you may find yourself coming up short when it comes time to convince the best and brightest to join your team.  Like Tom has illustrated, be ready to have a serious, data-driven, business discussion about the financial prospects of becoming a real estate agent. 

By doing this, you’ll be better prepared to defuse the objections candidates have about start-up costs and initial risks.  If the reward part of the equation is compelling, candidates will again become motivated to find the money to get started.

Here's some homework for you.  Create one of two presentation items (a graph, a chart, an illustration, etc.) that demonstrate that now is the right time to become a real estate agent.  Print these items out and be ready to use them during your next interview. 

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

MEASURING ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING INFLUENCE—PART 2

Have you ever heard of Kred and Klout?  No, they are not your long lost Norwegian relatives.  They are new online social networking sites that are attempting to measure a person’s online influence.

Both for these companies (and a few others as well) have created scoring systems that attempt to put a value on the combined online influence a person has on various online social networks.  The Klout scores work on a scale of 1 to 100, while the Kred scores range from 1 to 1,000.  In both cases, the higher the score, the more influence the person has established online. 

As I mentioned in our last discussion, marketers are very interested in finding and working with people who have a lot of online influence.  If you can get a highly influential person to support your product online, good things can happen...this has been the case for some time.

The idea of a hiring manager researching a person’s online activities is not a new or uncommon idea either.  Dr. John Sullivan makes this point in a recent ERE article:

“It is now quite common to find, assess, and do reference checks on candidates using Google searches, LinkedIn, and Facebook profiles, and the assessment of work samples that can be found online.  In fact, a Microsoft-sponsored survey conducted by Cross-Tab found that 79% of HR and recruiting professionals responded that they currently use online reputation information as part of their hiring process.”

What is new is an attempt to measure this online influence in a way that one person can be easily, quickly, and fairly compared to another person.  The jury is still out on whether such a comparison can truly be fair, but we’ll leave that for the HR technicians to debate.

What I do think is worth noting is a potential connection between an individual who has a high Klout or Kred score, and the skills and capabilities that can be very useful in the real world.  Dr. Sullivan catalogues some of these talents:

1. Communications – they have shown that they are effective and frequent communicators
2. Relationship building — they are successful at attracting and building relationships with others
3. Influencing – they have the ability to influence others and to get others to read and spread their messages
4. Reputation — their reputation, credibility, recommendations, and ability to produce “Liked” content means that they will be listened to
5. Reach – their extensive contacts, friends, followers, and subscribers means that any messages they send will reach thousands
6. Branding – individuals with high social media scores have demonstrated they know how to build a personal brand and that knowledge may be transferable to product branding
7. Crowdsource solutions — their extensive network means that they will be able to quickly “crowdsource” answers to problems that they encounter
8. Writing ability — individuals who have a long blog history have demonstrated both their writing style and ability
9. Knowledge of technology — they have demonstrated that they are on the leading edge of social media technology
10. Adaptable – they are capable of continually adapting to the rapidly changing social media environment (if they have maintained their scores over a period of time)

Are these the skills that you’d like in the next agent you hire?  I can’t say that I’ve seen a more complete list of the characteristics that would make someone successful as a real estate agent!  If an online social networking score reliably benchmarked these skills, then you may have just stumbled onto the Holy Grail of real estate recruiting!

Like most things that sound too good to be true, there are a few caveats worth noting.  First, these measurement systems are in their infancy.  Ask around the office and see how many people have a Klout score.  Probably none.  Now ask how many have Facebook pages.  Probably most.  Facebook became a lot more interesting and useful once everyone was using it.  

The same is true for a Klout score.  Until a majority of candidates standardize on a common scoring system, use the system, and are willing to reveal it during the recruiting process, the concept will have limited value.

Secondly, these scores can be manipulated.  By nature, each provider will have weaknesses in their approach to capturing and evaluating the data.  And, just as search engine optimization techniques are used to manipulate web page rankings, these weaknesses will be exploited by some candidates in an effort to increase their scores.

For now, have some fun with this concept.  Go to one of the sites, register, and find out how influential you are in the world of online social networking.  Then, keep your eyes on this concept... If it grows, it may become very useful.

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Measuring Online Social Networking Influence

As many of you know, the Tidemark team is a little nutty when it comes to the concept of measuring things. It is our belief that if something can’t be measured (in the business world), it doesn’t have much value. Without metrics, it is not possible to reliably optimize any business process and consistently make improvements.

This is one of the reasons I’ve personally struggled with making a connection between social networking activities and recruitment sourcing. And yet this is the most common question we get from our clients: "When are you going to figure out how to source more candidates via social networking?" I wish I had an easy answer to that question, but there are still some complexities that cloud the issue.

Traditionally, candidate sourcing is a marketing activity that depends upon gaining access to a large number of people who are “congregating” online for a common purpose—i.e. improving their employment prospects.

Because candidates typically gather in common online locations (a job board, a career information site, a professional society, etc.), there are “media pipes” that allow marketers to get their recruitment messages to these individuals. Getting the right message to the right group at just the right time is the challenge of recruitment sourcing. To be successful in this environment, we’ve learned to tweak content…measure…tweak delivery…measure…tweak timing…measure, etc.

While this process is challenging, the constant in this equation is that people tend to congregate online around a topic of interest to the group. In the online social networking arena, different rules apply. In this framework, people congregate online around relationships. And these relationships are often very eclectic.

For example, what does my grandmother have in common with my college roommate? Probably not much, other than the fact that they both know me. You can probably see why crafting a marketing message that would be of interest to both individuals would be near impossible. In addition, how could someone measure something so disconnected and random?

I’m still not sure there is a great answer to that question, but there are some really smart folks in several start-up companies who are beginning to ask these questions. And, in the process of trying to find solutions, they are identifying and tracking metrics that may help harness the marketing potential of the social networking medium.

The metric that these companies are trying to track is “influence.” By influence they mean--the propensity that a large number of people listen to what a certain person has to say. Or, in some cases, it doesn’t have to be a large number of people. It can be a small number of people who very passionately listen (and in essence follow the direction of) to an influential individual (if you happen to remember the Hale-Bopp Comet cult in late ‘90s, you have the idea).

Of course, the first variety of influence has been going on in pop-culture for a long time. When Oprah tells her audience that she is enjoying some book by an obscure author, the sales of that book explode. When Tom Cruise orders a beer with a shot of Patron tequila in the movie Vanilla Sky, not only does this mixed drink become popular, but also Patron soon starts to outsell other tequila brands in the United State by an 8 to 1 margin.

Obviously, most normal people do not have this kind of influence. But with online social networks, even "normal people" do have some influence. In fact, it turns out that some normal people (i.e. non celebrities) have a lot of influence...so much influence that they are starting to attract the attention of marketers.

In my next post, I’ll tell you about the companies who are doing the pioneer work in this area. Also, we’ll discuss how people who have a lot of influence in the world of online social networking may be some of your best hires.

Until then, put some thought into this question: Of the agents in your office and/or those in your professional network, who do you believe has the most influence?

Once you have this person in your mind, ask yourself: Has this person influenced any of the decisions you’ve made about products you’ve purchased, activities in which you've participated, or other ways you’ve spent your time and resources? If so, how did they do it?

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Employment Trend: 2 out of 3 New Jobs Go to Men

I came across an article earlier this week in USA Today that really has me thinking.  Here is the basis of the data that was being reported:

“Men are claiming more than two-thirds of the private-sector jobs created as the economy recovers, reversing a long-running trend that came within a whisker of giving the USA its first-ever majority-female workforce.

In a wrinkle that puzzles economists, one important driver of the trend is that hundreds of thousands of men are showing up in retailing, once considered a source of jobs for women.

Nearly 1.28 million men gained jobs in the 12 months that ended in November, compared with 600,000 women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  Although men have returned to work in greater numbers in goods-producing jobs and service-related businesses, they're not returning to still-stagnant construction industries.

Instead, retailers have added 216,900 men — about five times as many as have been added by traditionally male financial services companies — vs. about 9,000 women.  Also, manufacturers have added more than 250,000 men and cut 33,000 women.”

What do you make of this?  Honestly, it seems to have a lot of people puzzled.  The Bureau of Labor Statics (BLS) has no idea why this is happening (“We haven’t studied why jobs are skewing male”), and the plethora of consultants who weighed in on the topic have not come to consensus on the cause either.  The online commentary regarding this article is fairly interesting, if you care to dig into it further.

Maybe someone will figure this out in the weeks ahead.  For now, I would like to focus on one issue that was clear in the research:  Men are beginning to take jobs in fields that were traditionally dominated by women.  While the retail sector was primarily highlighted in this article, this is also happening in “service-related businesses” as well. 

For the real estate industry, I believe this trend could have a positive impact.  Why?  Because many real estate companies continue to be plagued by the “part-time” mentality that limits the people who consider working as a realtor.

Of course, this mentality has its roots in what the real estate pioneers often called “housewife hiring” back in the ‘60s and ‘70s.  While that stereotype has faded over the years, it left a legacy that being a real estate agent was often best suited for those (males or females) who were in a relationship where the other partner could provide a steady income and medical benefits.

If the real estate industry is going to leave behind the part-time agent legacy and become a career field that predominantly employs full-time workers, this employment trend may push things along more quickly.

In essence, the more people (male or female) are looking for employment outside the traditional gender-based paradigms, the more people will consider non-traditional employment.  This means more eyes on the real estate industry...the largest non-traditional employment sector in the economy.

In the world of recruitment sourcing, we call this “churn.”  And employment churn (regardless of the reason it’s happening) is a good thing for a candidate base that has been experiencing some stagnation over the last few years.

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

A New Year’s Resolution You Might Not Want to Hear

Did you get a new gadget for Christmas this year?  As we made our rounds to the year-end parties and get-togethers, it seems many people were again excited about their new technology devices.  Even my most technology-challenged business partner (I’m not referring to Dr. Dave) finally got an iPhone for Christmas (although he hasn’t taken it out of the box yet)!

New toys usually lead to more digital consumption--or at least a commitment to make use of the new technology.  Before you jump in with both feet and start texting your kids at the dinner table, I thought I’d pass on a new year's resolution that the CEO of a prominent technology venture capital firm recently made: 

“Focus on the live conversations at hand rather than parallel conversations on the screens.”

This resolution was made by Tony Tjan, the CEO, Managing Partner, and Founder of the venture capital firm Cue Ball. 

Tjan made this resolution because he’s noticed a rising and unproductive trend toward people trying to perform digital conflict resolution.  The de facto path for issue resolution seems to be increasingly via email. 

More accurately, email has become a convenient mechanism for issue-avoidance.  It is easier, quicker, less stressful, and less confrontational to have critical or challenging issues sent over email versus a live one-on-one with a counterpart.

If you have responsibility for coaching those on your team, or managing a pipeline of candidates as a hiring manger, this tendency can be particularly problematic.  Why?  Because you’re giving up one of your most useful and effective tools—the live conversation.  

Tjan goes on to describe how email and texts are inferior to live conversations:

1. It is hard to get the EQ (emotional intelligence) right in email.  The biggest drawback and danger with email is that the tone and context are easy to misread.  In a live conversation, how one says something, with modulations and intonations, is as important as what they are saying.  With email, it is hard to get the feelings behind the words.

2. Email and text often promote reactive responses, as opposed to progress and action to move forward.  Going back to the zero latency expectation in digital communications... it is hard for people to pause and think about what they should say.  One of my colleagues suggests not reacting to any incendiary message until you have at least had a night to sleep on it, and always trying to take the higher ground over email. 

3. Email prolongs debate.  Because of the two reasons above, I have seen too many debates continue well beyond the point of usefulness.  Worse, I have experienced situations which start relatively benignly over email, only to escalate because intentions and interests are easily misunderstood online.  When I ask people if they have called or asked to meet the counterpart to try and reach a resolution, there is usually a pause, then a sad answer of "no."

While you may be excited about your new device, and everyone is encouraging you to become more digital in your communication, do something counterintuitive:  pick up the phone and increase the number of live conversations you have this year.  

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Challenges that Real Estate Managers Face: WorkPuzzle Manager Survey Results—Part 3

Recruiting and retaining talented agents is the most challenging part of the real estate manager’s job.  How do I know that?  The data in the WorkPuzzle survey was most clear on this topic.

There was large consensus that the top priority, as communicated by owners and managing executives, for the first-level manager in real estate companies across the county, is recruiting.  The second priority is retention.

However, when managers were asked what job function they perform best, only 9% said recruiting.  In addition, when managers were asked what part of the job they hear the most complaints about…75% said recruiting.

Let that sink in a little bit...

In essence, what managing executives want the most, first-level managers are the worst at delivering.

This prompts two important questions:  Why is this happening? ...and... How can this gap be reconciled?  I’ll address both issues.

1.  Why do real estate managers hate recruiting?  Quite simply—it is difficult work and the results come very slow.  As discussed in previous WorkPuzzle blogs, both the demographics and the economics of real estate recruiting make it increasingly difficult.

For experienced agent recruiting, the bottom 60% of the typical real estate company is either nonproductive or marginally productive.  The top 20% are very difficult to dislodge because they are well-respected and making money.  This leaves 20% of experienced agents who are eligible to be recruited.  Due to short supply, the competition for these agents is very intense.  If you are lucky enough to recruit some of these folks, they are typically acquired at low margins (ie. unfavorable splits).

For “new to real estate" recruiting, the risk-to-reward ratio that used to consistently attract new talent into the industry is no longer a compelling draw.  As house values have plummeted and transaction volumes have waned, an increasing number of candidates can do the math.  Starting a real estate career has significant risks and the payoff is not what is used to be.

2.  How can real estate managers be successful at recruiting in spite of the obstacles?  Quite honestly—there is no simple answer!  This is what we spend much of our time in WorkPuzzle discussing because it’s a complex problem.  So, here’s a plug to read past discussions and become an email subscriber if you haven’t already done so.  With that said, here are some patterns that I’ve noticed among companies and individual managers who recruit more successfully than others.

Compartmentalization.  This piece of advice is for managing executives who have the latitude to adjust workflows.  If a manager’s job description requires many different roles (ex. recruiting, training, coaching, building office culture, etc.), the role that has the least amount of short-term feedback will naturally get pushed to the bottom of a person’s priorities.  It takes an extremely disciplined person to overcome the inertia of human nature.

If the recruiting function (or parts of the recruiting function) is broken out as a separate role and a limited number of individuals are solely responsible for the execution of this role, the job gets done more reliably.  Why?  Because there are no easy, “sugary” tasks for the manager to fall back on.  The new reality is the difficult job at hand—making the recruiting process work.  Also, there are some managers who have more natural talent for recruiting.  Letting them focus that talent without distraction is a win-win.

Focus at the task level.  If your organization is not willing or able to compartmentalize the recruiting function, you may have to continue to work inside an environment with competing priorities.

If this is your reality, I would encourage you to stop looking at the recruiting part of your job from a transactional perspective.  Because many managers used to be agents, there is a tendency to look at the recruiting process like a home sale.  Did the transaction close or not?  Do I have the listing or not?  Is financing approved or not?  Is this candidate going to work in my office or not?

While there is certainly a time to “ask for the order” in a recruiting discussion, the normal, day-to-day pace of the recruiting process (as a whole) moves slowly and meanders.

Managers who recruit successfully have a large number of candidates in their pipelines (so that no one candidate makes or breaks them), and they focus on completing the tasks of recruiting rather than focusing on the end result.  The transaction focus shifts from, is the person hired (end result) to, is the next task in the recruiting process for this candidate complete?

I hope you’ve enjoyed gaining some perspective on how your peers view the challenges of being a real estate manager.  It’s a tough job and many of you could use the encouragement.  

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Challenges that Real Estate Managers Face: WorkPuzzle Manager Survey Results—Part 2

Hopefully you've had an opportunity to read and digest the summary of the data from the WorkPuzzle survey that was conducted in September.

While you’ve probably drawn some conclusions on your own, I thought it might be helpful to share some additional insight. This insight comes from the internal discussions we’ve had on the Tidemark team, as well as individual discussions with many managers, executives, and owners since the survey was commissioned.

Let me start the discussion by acknowledging that in most real estate companies, the first-level manager position (often called a branch manager or sales manager) is a very difficult assignment. Because there are so many “hats” to wear in this position, we rarely see individuals who perform at a high level in every role.

In many non-real estate organizations, a person in such a diverse role would typically be supported by others on a team who shore up the manager’s weaknesses. But, the profit margins in most real estate companies are too thin to support this arrangement. The branch manager is left holding the bag…or for that matter, several bags.

So, what’s to be done? I would suggest making the most of the realities that exist in both your company and your professional life. Here are some thoughts based on the data that we collected:

1. Setting clear and realistic performance objectives. A significant portion of real estate managers do not have clear performance objectives, and even a larger portion do not believe those objectives are realistic. This is a problem that needs to be solved. If you find yourself in this situation, here’s some advice: Don’t wait for your boss to solve it—solve it yourself. Develop your own set of performance objectives and present it to your managing executive. This is commonly called “managing your manager,” and it is lacking in the real estate industry. As you develop the objectives, make sure you focus on roles and outcomes that not only address legitimate business needs, but also play to your strengths. I know this may feel a little scary at first. But, to your surprise, you’ll find that most executives appreciate this type of exchange. You may not get everything you envision, but you will most likely exit the process with some clear performance objectives—exactly what you need as a foundation for success.
2. Re-Thinking accountability. Everyone seems to hate accountability. Most managers dislike being under it, and most bosses really hate to administer it. Why? Because it usually requires a lot of attention to detail (by both parties) and causes us to notice and address failures frequently. As the survey results suggest, it’s much easier to just assume that everything is OK and focus on the more non-confrontational and mundane tasks of our roles. But, accountability produces results—results that both you and your company need to be successful. If your managing executive is not willing or able to keep you accountable, keep yourself accountable. Set measurable short-term goals and keep track of how successfully you’re able to check off items you complete. Also, share these goals with your peers (other managers in your company), and ask them to keep you accountable to the things you’ve set out to accomplish. As the fitness industry figured out long ago, peer accountability is one the best ways to lose weight and stay in shape. While it is not practiced as much in the business world, it may be something you find effective—especially if your manager is not willing or able to perform this function.

In the next WorkPuzzle, we’ll discuss what the survey revealed about the state of recruiting in most real estate companies. Why is it that what owners and executives want most, managers have the most difficult time accomplishing?

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Challenges that Real Estate Managers Face: WorkPuzzle Manager Survey Results—Part 1

As some of you might recall, we asked each of you to participate in a real estate manager survey back in September. The purpose of the survey was to help us (and, in turn, you) better understand the challenges of the real estate manager role.

This was an unusual survey in that a group of our readers actually helped design many of the questions. In designing the survey in this manner, we hoped to focus on the issues that were of the highest interest and concern to the group.

The anxieties that seemed to rise to the top in this process centered on the appropriateness of the many “hats” a first-level manager is required to wear in today’s real estate company.

More specifically...What are the hats that managers typically wear? How does a manager balance these different roles? and, How is success measured and accountability maintained?

In the end, there were ten questions selected for the survey. These questions are listed on the left side of the chart below. On the right side of the chart, we’ve summarized the data that was collected in the responses.

This is not intended to be a vision test. To view a more readable version of the chart, click on it and a new window will open and display a much larger version (if you’re an email reader, clicking on the chart will take you to WorkPuzzle where you can click the chart again and get the larger version).



Take a few minutes to digest this information. Is there anything that surprises you? Do you see any inconsistencies in the responses that you feel are significant? Do you notice similarities between what you’re experiencing in your company and what your peers in other companies are reporting? Do you see problems that seem to characterize the manager position? If so, what are they, and why are they systemic?

Next week, I’ll provide some thoughts on the survey and make some suggestions regarding how you can use this data to make changes and improve your performance. In the meantime, record (click the comment link in web version) or email your comments (reply to your WorkPuzzle email) to me. I’d love to hear your thoughts, and it will also help me focus on the issues that you find most interesting.

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

The 10 Dumbest Things (Real Estate) Recruiters Do

Electronic Recruiting Exchange (ERE) and Dr. John Sullivan recently surveyed hundreds of corporate recruiters in the ERE network, on Twitter, and at the recent SMA symposium in Seattle on this humorous, self-debasing topic. The recruiters were given a list of 30 "dumbest things recruiters do" from which to choose. Here were the top ten...

10. Poor Recruiting Presentation (graphics, website presentation, etc.). Potential applicants assume that the company puts its best foot forward when it comes to recruiting. So when they compare your dull presentation with your competitor’s more compelling presentation, they will simply apply elsewhere.

9. Not taking advantage of referrals. The best-practice firms approach 50% referral hires (the percentage of all external hires who come from referrals). Failing to fully use referrals means that you will miss out on a large number of high-quality pre-screened, and pre-sold candidates.

8. Not learning about your competitors. Obviously, if you can’t speak “their language” and you don’t understand their problems, it will be more difficult to communicate with, to sell, and to build relationships with candidates.

7. Treating all candidates the same. Higher-level agents require a different level of service, knowledge, and relationship-building. So, using the same process that you use for lower-level candidates will result in fewer returned calls, a higher candidate dropout rate, and lower-quality hires.

6. Not striking while the iron's hot. When a crisis occurs in the lives of your best prospects, the best candidates are gone quickly. A drawn-out process or slow decision-making means losing the best.

5. Assuming interviews are accurate. Interviews are traditionally weak predictors, but poorly executed interviews dramatically increase the chances of making a major hiring error. Poorly designed interviews may also turn off top candidates.

4. Lack of focus on revenue. Focusing on candidates who will have minimal revenue impact will reduce business (P&L) results. Think like a businessperson--focus on the candidates who will produce the most company dollar for your company.

3. Not identifying "ideal agent" criteria. If you don't know what you're looking for, it is difficult to recognize it when it when it becomes available. Many hiring managers just pay attention to the candidates who are easiest to engage.

2. Not tailoring your recruiting marketing and candidate-selling approaches to the decision criteria of top candidates. Because the most talented agents have choices, they will simply wait until an opportunity comes along that precisely fits their requirements and expectations.

and the #1 dumb thing that recruiters do...

1. Not managing the candidate experience. The candidate experience is the perception of the sum of interactions with an organization throughout the hiring process. It includes every communication, the design of the process, the fairness of process elements, the quality of information exchanged, and the honesty with which questions and concerns are addressed. Providing a poor candidate experience can have many negative consequences, including an increased candidate dropout rate, negative word-of-mouth, and decreased loyalty to the overall brand.

While this survey was focused on corporate recruiters, it is amazing how many of these issues directly apply to the real estate recruiting process, particularly the #1 dumb thing that recruiters do... As we've highlighted in recent WorkPuzzle posts, poor follow-up after the interview is the most common symptom of poor recruiting results.

I guess it could be said that recruiting is...recruiting, no matter what industry you find yourself working. And the principles that produce results-- managing perceptions, knowing what you're looking for, maintaining focus on desired outcomes, and treating people with respect-- are surprisingly similar.

Make sure you're not one of the hiring managers who makes the mistake of believing these pitfalls don't apply to you. You may find yourself contributing to a list of the ten dumbest things that real estate recruiters and hiring managers do...

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Coaching High Potential Agents: When Encouragement Backfires

On occasion, I come across some research or insight that is so counter-intuitive, it makes me question the progress I've made in my quest to understand people. Earlier this week, I had one of those moments.

It came when I read an article written by Dr. John Sullivan, a well-known thought leader in the world of Human Resource consulting and a professor at San Francisco State University. This article deals with the topic of succession planning in large organizations.

While this is not normally a topic that would interest the typical real estate manager who manages a single office, the insight came in how Dr. Sullivan suggests that business leaders communicate with the "high-potential" members (he affectionately calls these individuals "HiPos") of their organizations.

The conventional wisdom is that these HiPos should be identified early and given a bunch of encouragement when their above-average performance starts to emerge. I've often heard comments like this when I've spoken with real estate managers:

"Let me introduce you to Roger...he's closed more transactions in his first six months on our team than any agent we've ever had!"

or

"If I just had more new agents like Jill our office wouldn't be in a slump. She runs circles around most of the people who have been here for years."

or

"Why can't more of our agents be like Jason? He comes in here and operates like a true professional. And look at the results! We need more people like him."

Of course, all these comments come from a hiring/selection perspective because my conversations with managers typically focus on this topic. But, they reveal an attitude that is very prevalent among real estate companies: When someone comes along that quickly performs at a high level, the tendency is to first marvel at such a thing and then hold that person up as an example.

At this point, Dr. Sullivan suggests that we may be shooting ourselves (and our organizations) in the foot. When a person starts to figure out they are a HiPo, all types of strange behavior tends to ensue. Here is an abbreviated list of the potential impacts on the individual and the team:

1. The probability of losing this person to a competitor increases. If you tell employees that they are high-potentials, it is highly likely the news will spread both inside and outside the organization.
2. Increased frustration and turnover if early success and perceived opportunites don't materialize. Acknowledgement leads to expectations, and unfortunately opportunities do not always materialize as planned.
3. Employees may not take development efforts seriously. If the HiPo is aware of their status, they may not see the value in actively self-improving. In addition, they may not take full advantage of any improvement and development opportunities offered.
4. Reduced effort after “making it.” Following acknowledgement, the HiPo may expect things to happen automatically, going into coast mode as they assume their future is set.
5. Ego issues. Notifying HiPos lets them know they are valuable, but may also create an ego boost that results in a change in behavior (i.e. arrogance, sense of entitlement, etc.)
6. Frustration among those not designated. As managers identify HiPos (directly or through subtle comments like the examples above) other agents may react unfavorably. If the informal designation process is viewed by other agents as biased or not fair, these factors could lead to reduced productivity and increased turnover.
7. There may be sabotage. A HiPo could face subtle or direct attacks from individuals who feel that they don’t deserve the designation. Once identified, others within a competitive organization may work to slow them down or even sabotage them out of bitterness.

[Dr. Sullivan identifies another nine risks if you care to read more on this topic]

As this list of concerns and issues illustrates, successfully dealing with those under your care and nurturing is rarely straight-forward and easy to understand...and, the HiPos are an especially challenging lot.

The lesson here is to treat everyone on your team with respect and provide as much thoughtful insight and encouragement as possible. Try to discern what every person needs and customize your assistance to each indivual. And finally, understand the risks of elevating one person (especially if the individual is a new HiPo) over the others on the team. Encouragement and praise is necessary and good, but make sure it is not administered in a way that creates divisions.

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.