WorkPuzzle

The 20 Million Candidates You're Missing

Starting in 1960, the U.S. Census Bureau began tracking a statistic called Household Formations.  If you're a real estate owner or manager who has the responsibility for replacing an aging workforce over the next five to ten years, it might be a metric you want to start noticing.

In a recent article in Business Week, economists reported a little bump in consumer spending they attribute to the fact that more adult children are moving out of their parents homes and starting households on their own.  This is not the only source of new household formations, but it traditionally accounts for the major trending in this statistic (divorce stats affect this metric as well).  If kids are getting out of college and obtaining well-paying jobs, they strike out on their own and set up households.  

In the last few years, the opposite has been true.  Business Week reports:

"About 20 million adult children in the U.S. live with their parents, and most are eager to move, says Peter Francese, a demographic analyst for advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather.  'Most guys who live at home beyond some young age walk around with a great big 'L' [for "loser"] on their forehead,' Francese says.  'As more young people feel they will be able to keep a job, bingo, they're gone.'

Next year, nearly 1 million new households will be created, UBS Securities (UBS) predicts, up from the 357,000 in the year ending March 2010, the lowest number for a 12-month period on record since the Census Bureau started tracking household starts in 1960.  U.S. household formation in the three years ending March 2010 was roughly 40 percent of the long-term average, or about 500,000 annually, according to Census data."

The article goes on to spout optimism about how this economic indicator is starting to fuel consumer spending; the average person spends $1,900 on consumer goods setting up their household.  Will this change spur economic growth?  I'm not sure--it may be best to just let the prognosticators debate that issue.  I'm more interested in the 19 million adult children who are stuck living with their parents because they can't find a job.  Let's take a closer look at this data.

As the graph to the left illustrates, the number of new households is quite low.  The IHS Global Insight researchers have estimated this trend will dramatically change in the next couple years.  Let's suppose this does happen (which I doubt it will).  If nine million new households are formed over the next five years, this only reduces the backlog to 11 million adult children living with their parents.

My calculation above also assumes that there will be no new people graduating from college and moving back in with their parents.  While it may be difficult to draw a line on where a college grad crosses from "underemployment" (they have a low paying job that does not match their degree) to "employment" (they have a job that pays enough for them to move out of their parents' house), I've tried to do my best to come up with an accurate number.  Here are two (1, 2) of several articles I've read on this topic.  

I think there will be about 700,000 new college grads entering into this unemployment/underemployment state each year, for the next few years.  Taking into account those who do not have degrees who also will be finding themselves in this state, the number of new adult children who move back in with their parents will be much higher.  By the way, the average person who is considered "underemployed" makes $400/week.

So, it's probably safe to say that the backlog of adult children who are living with their parents will not diminish quickly.  It is quite likely that this number will remain significantly above 10 million people for some time.

Here's a question for you:  Do you believe this large group of candidates could help solve the significant recruiting challenges that will face the real estate industry in the next five years?

You may comment confidentially by replying to workpuzzle@hiringcenter.net.  If you want to share your response with others, use the comment link on www.workpuzzle.com.

In my next post, I'll discuss reader comments and provide some comments of my own. 

---

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.

Experienced Agent Recruiting: Turning a Failure Into a Success, Part 3

Hopefully, you’ve had the opportunity to read the previous WorkPuzzle posts (1, 2) on the prospect of recruiting your competitors’ failures.  Engaging individuals who have recently failed with the hopes of turning them into successes within your company, is a risk that should be considered carefully.

If you decide to go down this path, it is critical that you learn everything possible about the nature of failure.  More specifically, if you are able to distinguish a good failure (someone who will use a recent failure as a learning experience and springboard to their next success) from a bad failure (someone whose recent failure is the start or continuation of a professional tailspin), you can lower your risk of making a bad investment.  There are still no guarantees, but it is helpful to get on the right side of the odds and make sure the data is stacked in your favor.

One data point you’ll want to pay particular attention to is the character trait of resilience.  In a recent article published in Harvard Business Review, Dr. Martin Seligman, the proverbial father of positive psychology, makes the following declaration: 

“Thirty years of scientific research has put the answers to [the questions of why people fail] within our reach.  We have learned not only how to distinguish those who will grow after failure from those who will collapse, but also how to build the skills of the people in the latter category.”

The article goes on to describe the details of a multi-million dollar research project being conducted for the United States Army on the topic of teaching people resilience.  While the verdict is still out on whether the trait of resilience can be successfully taught (he overstates the reality of the situation in his statement above), the “distinguishing who will grow after failure” part of the research is quite definitive.  Those who possess the trait of resilience, sooner or later, turn their failures into successes. 

But, how do you tell if someone is resilient if this is his/her first professional failure?  Or, if you’re in a casual conversation with someone who you could possibly recruit, how do get the person to reveal enough of their work history to detect a pattern of resilience?  In both cases, you probably can’t collect enough information to make a determination.

Thankfully, Dr. Seligman and his researchers are going to help us out.  One trait that seems to be strongly connected to resilience is optimism.  In simple terms, optimistic people tend to be resilient.  Here’s what the research revealed:

“We developed questionnaires and analyzed the content of verbatim speech and writing to assess 'explanatory style' as optimistic or pessimistic.  We discovered that people who don’t give up have a habit of interpreting setbacks as temporary, local, and changeable. (‘It’s going away quickly; it’s just this one situation, and I can do something about it.’)”

Now, optimism is something that you can detect in a casual conversation.  Since optimism and resilience are closely linked, this is the path to not only pursuing the right types of candidates, but also opening the doors in conversation that will help you learn about a person’s propensity to display resilience.

If you start a conversation with someone who is failing in his/her current role as a real estate agent and that person displays a lot of pessimism during the discussion, you probably want to back off right away and focus your efforts on someone else.

However, if a similar scenario results in you finding someone who displays a lot of optimism during an initial discussion, it might be natural to say something like this: “Wow, you seem to be a very optimistic person in spite of some really challenging things going on in your life right now.  Did you learn to be that way from some of your past experiences, or do you think that just comes naturally?”   

This type of open-ended question will naturally lead to someone sharing their past experiences.  Once you get this conversation going, look for the track record of overcoming difficult circumstances.  These are the good failures you potentially want on your team.

---

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.

Experienced Agent Recruiting: Turning a Failure Into a Success Part 2

Last week, I began a discussion regarding the emphasis that many real estate companies place on experienced agent recruiting.  There is a natural frustration that always surrounds this topic due to the underlying demographics that characterize the issue.  
 
In short, companies currently compete for a very small pool of viable experienced agent candidates (i.e. those agents who are productive, but haven't yet crossed over into the realm of being high performers).  I believe this “productive but not prima donna” group makes up about 20% of the recruiting market of experienced agents. 
 
I made the suggestion that opening up the recruiting aperture to consider agents who are low performers in other companies, may be worth considering.  In a typical real estate company, this category of agents account for 40% to 60% of the agent population.  This amounts to a lot of candidates, who are more accessible than their more commonly pursued counterparts.
 
Before you jump into this new utopia of experienced agent recruiting with both feet, here is a disclaimer:  

Hiring failures is a risky proposition.  

In many cases, engaging these low-performing agents can quickly turn into a waste of time.  Or worse yet, the potential is there to waste resources and drag down your own productive agents if these folks fail in your company.  So, tread down this path with care and a healthy dose of cynicism.  If you believe you can save every poor performer that your competitor has created, you’re in for a big disappointment.
 
But, you may be able to save a small percentage...and a small percentage of a larger number can result in incremental recruiting successes that are worth pursuing.
 
If you decide to take on this challenge, I have an assignment for you:  You need to become a student of failure.  That’s right.  You need to become proficient at understanding why people fail. 
 
I know many of you have a bookshelf full of books on success.  But, have you ever spent time learning about failure?  A great place to start your education would be the April 2011 issue of Harvard Business Review.  In this publication, there are nine full-length articles, and seven short bios on the topic of failure.  The write-ups cover more than 60 pages ( yes, that’s 60 pages of small type).  There is a surprising amount of research that has been conducted on the topic of failure, and there is much to learn.
 
One article that I found particularly interesting highlighted the concept that not all failures are created equal—there are good failures and there are bad failures.  Being able to differentiate one from the other can be very helpful if you’re trying to figure out whom to engage in your newly expanded candidate search.
 
To document this phenomenon, HBR created a “Spectrum of Reasons for Failure.”  At one end of the spectrum, there are blameworthy failures (bad failures) and on the other end are praiseworthy failures (good failures).  Here is the list from bad to good:

• Deviance:  An individual chooses to violate a prescribed process or practice.
• Inattention:  An individual inadvertently deviates from prescribed specifications.
• Lack of Ability:  The individual does not have the skills, conditions, or training to execute the job.
• Process Inadequacy:  A competent individual adheres to a prescribed, but faulty or incomplete process.
• Task Challenge:  An individual faces a task too difficult to be executed reliably every time.
• Process Complexity:  A process composed of many elements breaks down when it encounters novel interactions.
• Uncertainty:  A lack of clarity about future events causes people to take seemly reasonable actions that produce undesired results.
• Hypothesis Testing:  An experiment conducted to prove that an idea or a design will succeed, fails.
• Exploratory Testing:  An experiment conducted to expand knowledge and investigate a possibility, leads to an undesired result.

Let’s suppose that you have the opportunity to engage one of your competitor’s agents who falls into the 40% to 60% of underperformers.  In striking up a discussion concerning “how business is going,” it would be natural to ask something like:  “Do you feel you’re meeting the original goals that you had when you decided to get into real estate?”    
 
And then as you listen to the answer and ask more open-ended questions, eventually get to the question:  “Why do you feel you have not been able to meet your goals?”  And then listen.  This is not the time to recruit and sell.  This is the time to collect information and make a determination if this person is experiencing a praiseworthy failure or a blameworthy failure.  Match the answers to the list above (after you wrap up the conversation) and then make a determination of whether this is someone worth pursuing.
 
In my next WorkPuzzle entry, I will reveal the one common trait that researchers claim is shared among those who are successful at turning failure into success.  If your candidate is lacking this trait, it’s a huge red flag!  Stay tuned...

 

---

 

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.

Experienced Agent Recruiting: Turning a Failure Into a Success

I spend quite a bit of time talking to real estate managers and owners about the topic of experienced agent recruiting.  This topic has been of particular interest in the last three or four years for many hiring managers.  
 
The interest is most commonly driven by simple demographics.  As the real estate industry started to decline several years ago, there were too many real estate agents for the amount of work that needed to be done.  As a result, many of the non-performing agents quickly left the industry, leaving a much smaller group of experienced agents to compete for a diminished number of opportunities.
 
Even with the smaller numbers, the 80/20 performance distribution still exists in most real estate companies (i.e. the top 20% of agents produce 80% of the revenue).  The top-performing agents in any particular company are difficult to dislodge in the recruiting process.  Why?  They’re making a good income, things are typically going well, and they have no compelling reason to make a change.
 
As a result, most hiring managers (i.e. real estate office managers responsible for recruiting) focus their recruiting efforts on the next group of productive agents in a competitive company -- The typical demographic of this agent is someone who has been a real estate agent for less than five years and is closing five to ten transactions per year.  The hiring manager’s line of reasoning goes like this… "If this agent left their lousy company where they are marginally successful and stepped into my wonderful organization, I could help them double or triple their production.”
 
I suspect that greater than 90% of hiring managers in the real estate industry use this strategy.  As a result, there is tremendous competition to recruit this relatively small group of agents.  These agents get constantly bombarded with recruiting calls and emails.  Those with even a remote bit of business acumen quickly realize they possess a desirable negotiating position.  Even if you are somehow successful at breaking above the recruiting noise they hear every day, a discussion rarely leads to a new hire under desirable terms.
 
If this is your only strategy, you may be finding that your recruiting results are not meeting the mark.  And, you’ll continue to be frustrated if this is the only methodology you use.  As an alternative, I’d like to suggest you focus on a new group of agents in your competitors' companies—those who are failing.
 
In a typical real estate company, 40% to 60% of agents fit the following description--they have been a real estate agent less than three years, they complete fewer than four transactions per year, they have an ancillary source of income or a  part-time job to make ends meet, and they often have no clue why they’re not successful.  Also, many of them regret their decision to go into real estate because of the time and resources they’ve wasted in attempting to make this career change.  
 
In short, these agents are failures.
 
Here is an important recruiting question you should ask yourself:  What if you figured out a way to reliably convert failures into successes? 
 
That’s what we’ll be discussing in the next couple of WorkPuzzles.  The reality is that most failures will remain failures.  But, there is a small percentage of individuals who can become successful inside the right system and under the right coaching. 
 
The key to picking these individuals is understanding both the nature of their failure (not all failures are created equal), and recognizing the common characteristics that some people possess which enable them to turn failure into success.

---

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.

How Real Estate Agents Helped to Bring Down Osama Bin Laden

Like most Americans, I’ve had a keen interest in the events that unfolded over the last couple of weeks regarding the death of Osama bin Laden.  I was proud to see our military execute such a difficult and risky mission with such precision and expertise.  

Of course, after the mission was complete, all the politicians and commentators jumped in to take credit and steer public opinion on this issue.  Because of the spin and posturing, I’ve honestly been disappointed by much of what I’ve read on the topic recently. 

That was true—until I picked up last week’s copy of Business Week.  Across a bright pink cover blazed the title, “Why Bin Laden Lost.”  The subtitle of the article was:  Al Qaeda’s leader died because he was outgunned.  He lost because he was wrong. 

The article, written by Brendan Greeley, makes the point that while bin Laden made a profound impact on the world, his ideas have failed (and will continue to fail) to produce the results he had hoped for.  Greeley put it this way: 

“This is the lesson of the past 10 years, and one Osama bin Laden, a man animated by a grandiose vision of restoring a 7th century Muslim empire, never grasped.  The most successful organizing principle the world has ever known is a simple guarantee that we can buy and do things that have no point greater than the satisfaction of our own happiness.”

Of course, Greeley points us back the our country's founding documents to make his point:

“The United States has no purpose.  That is perhaps its greatest achievement.  America's founding document, its Declaration of Independence, allows that a state exists only to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's it.  There's a curious lack of ambition in those words.  The United States was not founded for the greater glory of anything, or as the necessary outcome of history, but for the freedom to collect figurines, to join a clogging troupe, to take a road trip.”

Greely then spends the next couple of pages developing the argument that the basic human condition is inconsistent with the bin Laden’s world view.  

“…Osama bin Laden will lose because nobody actually wants to live in a cave.  Even bin Laden didn't want to live in a cave.  As Bloomberg News reported, in Abbottabad he sent runners out for equal amounts of Coke and Pepsi, for Nestlé milk and the good-quality shampoos.  The societies that make these things do not turn up their noses at the consumer and his whims, the needs that lack any justification larger than the personal.”

Finally, Greely sums up his point by making the following statement:

"We humans follow base and pedestrian needs.  We need narratives for our lives, and we look to the speechmakers, the prisoners of conscience, to write them for us.  These narratives render our desires into abstract phrases.  Freedom.  Self-determination.  Democracy. 

All of which are means to an end.  For us humans, the end is almost always just a house and some quiet to raise our daughters.  Some friends, and a measure of something fermented.  Someone to love.”

Do you look at what you do as a real estate owner, manager, or other participant in the real estate industry as an important part of the "end" that Greely references?  If you're a WorkPuzzle reader who is not in the real estate industry, do you provide some other "base or pedestrian" need to our society?  

If so, your contribution is more valuable than you may realize.  As millions of us make these small contributions on a day-in and day-out basis, they add up to something quite significant--a society that was able to look down and defeat bin Laden's philosophy.  Certainly there will be more battles to fight, but for now, pat yourself on the back and know that you are helping our country win the war of ideas that rages around the world.  And then get back to work!

Read the full BusinessWeek article. 

---

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.

Dueling Time Management Theories: The Right System or The Right State of Mind? Part 2

Last week, I briefly introduced you to two of the prominent time management theories that have become quite popular in recent years.  While both are valuable systems, they approach the topic from very different angles.

In today’s WorkPuzzle, I’ll summarize some of the highlights of both systems.  As you read through these principles and ideas, think about the flow of your activities over the last week.  How would things have been different if you had approached tasks in a different way? 

Getting Things Done System / David Allen

1.  The right system equips an individual to capture information and act upon it. 

“People don’t capture stuff that has their attention.  They don’t acknowledge it or objectify it.  And it keeps rolling around in the organizational psyche as well as the personal psyche, draining energy and creating incredible psychic residue.”

2.  The right system involves making lists and completing tasks.

“Your head is for having ideas, not holding them.  Just dumping everything out of your head and externalizing it is a huge step, and it can have a significant effect…  The problem is that everybody is multitasking and getting distracted by the latest and the loudest.  They fail because they haven’t captured, clarified, organized, or built in a regular review system they trust.”

3.  The right system involves breaking down big tasks into small “next actions.”

“What most people put on their to-do lists are vague things [that really represent a lot of work].  Instead, a to-do list should specify a smaller next action.  There’s actually a part of us that loves to produce, that loves to be complete.  Now I’ve created motivation:  I see a desired result, I have confidence I can get there, and I see the path.” 

The Energy Project / Tony Schwartz

1.   Having the right state of mind involves realizing your limitations as a human.

“It is humbling to discover that we’re creatures of habit, and what we did yesterday is what we’re going to do today.  We think that the way to make a change is to push harder, but our willpower and self-discipline are wildly overrated.  [Change can only happen if you] co-opt the process by which negative habits arise without your intention, and substitute what we call 'positive rituals' or deliberate practices."

2.  Having the right state of mind means reserving your most productive time of the day for the most important work.

“Another ritual I have is to always do the most important task of the day first thing in the morning, when I’m least distracted.  Ninety percent of people check their email as soon as they get to work.  That turns their agenda over to someone else.”

3.  Having the right state of mind means recognizing that there is a natural pull the brain has towards ineffectiveness.  This force must be met with deliberate practices that push you towards effectiveness.

“There’s a problem with making a decision based on how you’re feeling at any given moment.  Generally speaking, that doesn’t work.  Psychologically, we have two different selves.  One is very primitive and reactive.  The other is more evolved and reflective.  People need to recognize when the primitive, reactive self is taking over and influencing them to avoid things that are uncomfortable.”

As you can probably tell, one system is not better than the other.  In fact, being mindful of both approaches would probably do the most to improve your effectiveness.  Hopefully, you’ll become a student of how you do your best work.  This means both following a well-developed system and having your mind right as work through your tasks.

Quotations cited:   Allen, David.  Schwartz, Tony.  Harvard Business Review, May 2011.  Interview.  83 - 87.  Print.  29 Apr 2011.  <http://www.hbr.org>. 

---

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.

Dueling Time Management Theories: The Right System or The Right State of Mind?

As many of you know, I have a keen interest in time management and productivity.  I love to load my schedule up and work hard to accomplish as much a possible during the day.  If I fall into bed exhausted from a meaningful day's work, I feel satisfied.  At that point, sleep feels like a reward and the next day is something I look forward to tackling. 

But,there is a natural struggle with approaching life like this.  It is only satisfying if I'm accomplishing things that are meaningful and tied to a purpose that I consider important.  As life "happens," I'm constantly pulled towards the things that are urgent and contain less meaning.  Thus, the need for time management becomes even more apparent.

Dave and I have both written WorkPuzzle articles in the past that reference David Allen's time management theories.  Allen has written several best-selling books on this topic, and he is considered by many to be the foremost expert on this topic in recent years.  

Last November, I wrote a series of WorkPuzzle articles (1,2,3,4) highlighting the work of Tony Schwarz.  Schwartz has also written several best-selling books (one of which my kids call "the blue book" because I reference it a lot in our family discussions), but approaches time management and productivity from a completely different perspective than Allen.

As I have studied these two approaches over the last year, I thought I was being original by trying to integrate the best of these authors' theories.  As it turns outs, I wasn't being original at all.  There are a bunch of people trying to reconcile these theories...So many, in fact, that Harvard Business Review (HBR) featured an article this month on the topic of how these theories compare and contrast.  

In today's WorkPuzzle, I'll lay out some background and general ideas.  Next time, I'll summarize some of the speifics that I find particularly helpful. 

First, how each person defines what they do.  In their own words:

David Allen:  "I help people and orgaizations produce more with less input.  I teach a set of best practices and a methodology that produce a greater sense of concentration and control."

Tony Schwartz:  "I teach individuals and organizations how to manage energy more skillfully in order to get more done in less time, more sustainably.  That requires a new way of working--one that balances periods of high focus with intermittent renewal."

What are the general principles that each author teaches?  

Schwartz: "Thereʼs a fundamental misunderstanding about how human beings operate at their best.  Most of us mistakenly assume weʼre meant to run like computers—at high speeds, continuously, for long periods of time, running multiple programs simultaneously.  Itʼs just not true.

Human beings are designed to be rhythmic.  The heart pulses; muscles contract and relax.  Weʼre at our best when weʼre moving rhythmically between spending energy and renewing it.  We need to recognize the insight of athletes, who manage their work-rest ratios.  We encourage people to work intensely for 90 minutes and then take a break to recover.  We teach them to eat small, energy-rich meals every few hours, rather than three big meals a day.  We believe napping drives productivity, although that remains a tough sell in most companies.

Still, the reality is that if a person works continuously all through the day, sheʼll produce less than a person of equal talent who works very intensely for short periods and then recovers before working intensely again."

Allen: "I believe it's an issue of choosing the right work.  Peter Drucker said that the toughest job for knowledge workers is defining the work.  A century ago, 80% of the world made and moved things.  You worked as long as you could, and then you slept, and then you got up and worked again.  You didnʼt have to triage or make executive decisions.  Itʼs harder to be productive today because the work has become much more complex."

Hopefully, this will peak your interest for more detail next time.  By the way, if you haven't picked up a copy of HBR in a while, the May issue would be a good one to buy.  There are a bunch of helpful articles this month... 

---

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.

Draining the Meaning From Work: Are You Part of the Problem?

Last Friday, I re-published an excellent article written by Ron Ashkenas about how many of us don't look forward to returning from our weekends.  It is not that weekends should not be enjoyable--it is just that work should be enjoyable too.

One of the causes of this sense of work malaise, as Ron pointed out, is feeling  a lack of purpose at work.  It is well-documented that unless a person feels a legitimate sense of purpose in what they're doing, it will be difficult to sustain excitement and energy towards that activity.

Certainly it's appropriate to take inventory of your own work activities and make sure that you're working with a sense of purpose in your daily tasks.  But here is another important question:  

How would those you manage say they feel about their sense of purpose in your work environment?

Interestingly, Harvard Business Review (HBR) recently conducted some research on this topic and uncovered several surprising insights.  The researchers in the study were trying to figure out how work gets stripped of its meaning (I'm not kidding, people actually do study this stuff).  

The data in the study was collected by analyzing the work diary entries of 238 "knowledge workers" who agreed to be part of the project.  After compiling the data, researchers looked for patterns that related to the topic of meaning at work.  There were four common themes that emerged.  HBR called these themes the "4 Primary Ways in Which Managers Unwittingly Drain Work of Its Meaning."  Here's a quick summary:

1.  Managers dismiss the importance of employees' work or ideas.  This was the most common theme that was documented.  Managers ask someone to work on something, and then pay little attention to the results that are being produced.  The researchers cited one example where an employee went three solid weeks without any positive feedback from his manager on a project that he was told was critical to the company's success.  It is hard to feel like you're working on something meaningful when this type of disconnect happens.

2.  Managers destroy employees' sense of ownership in the work.  When a manager asks someone to work on an important task and then takes it away at a critical juncture, it's demoralizing.  The HBR research did not cite specific real estate industry examples, but I can imagine many cases where new agents are "micro-managed" at just the wrong time.  It is better to allow some mistakes to happen and then train around those mistakes.  This will put a new agent on the path to long-term ownership of their transactions and provide more meaning in their day-to-day tasks.

3.  Managers may send the message that the work employees are doing will never see the light of day.  How could this happen?  In many organizations, there is constant pressure to find innovations that will produce new business and help the company compete more effectively.  But, these innovations may be short-lived if they do not produce quick results.  As priorities change (a necessity in any business), managers need to be sensitive to the time, effort, and life-energy that individuals may have put into these projects.  Find ways to reuse the work accomplished on the shelved projects and be open and forthright with communication about the bigger purpose that may have emerged.

4. Managers neglect to inform employees about unexpected changes in priorities.  As noted above, communication goes a long way to helping people deal with disappointment.  While changes can sometimes not be avoided, it helps to explain the bigger picture.  Keep in mind that BSing someone on your team never works.  People want to be part of an organization that has a consistent and meaningful purpose.  If legitimate changes are necessary to respond to such things as market conditions, new technologies, and competitive pressures, the people you manage will understand.  But, if changes are being made because of bad strategy or management mistakes, things suddenly feel pretty meaningless.

Bottom line:  If you have the responsibility of managing, you also have a responsibility to ensure that those in your group are working with a sense of purpose.  By doing so, you'll not only have a more productive and engaged team, you'll be answering a higher calling of your own.

 Source:  Harvard Business Review, The Power of Small Wins, May 2011, p. 77

---

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.

Are You Looking Forward to the Weekend?

I've been up to my ears the last week or so and have not had time to write and publish on schedule.  I hope to get back on track next week.  In lieu of publishing something original, I thought I'd share an article that I ran across earlier in the week that I found particularly helpful.    

Most of us are looking forward to the Easter weekend where we'll enjoy time with friends and family.  But, will you be one of those who feels a little disappointment, or maybe some anxiety when Sunday night rolls around?  If so, Ron's advice may be helpful. 

Make the Weekend Last All Week

-Written by Ron Ashkenas

Ron Ashkenas is a managing partner of Schaffer Consulting and a co-author of The GE Work-Out and The Boundaryless Organization.  His latest book is Simply Effective.

Not long ago I was talking with a recently retired client who said that the best thing about retirement was not having weekends.  I must have looked puzzled, because he then explained that all the years of his working life had been based on one major distinction:  that being the difference between the "workweek" and the "weekend."  Monday through Friday was spent doing what he had to do, while the weekend was the time for doing what he really enjoyed.

So — like so many of us — every Sunday night he would start getting anxious about going back to work.  But as a retiree, now his life wasn't regulated by this rhythm.  In other words, he didn't have to stop doing what he really enjoyed just because the weekend was over.

My guess is that many people feel this tension between their jobs and their lives.  Work is what they do for a living, while the meaningful (and fun) activities take place outside of work.  As the old joke goes, "If it was fun, they wouldn't call it work."

What's behind this sentiment, and what can managers do to blur this self-imposed distinction between the workweek and the weekend?  Let me suggest three causes of the weekend syndrome, each of which holds an opportunity for managers to make their people feel more excited — and more productive — at work.

Lack of purpose:  First, it's likely that some of your people feel that their work doesn't make a difference in the wider world.  It may not be universal, but many people are motivated by a desire to contribute socially, as Dave and Wendy Ulrich suggest in The Why of Work.  Witness the large numbers of employees who commit time (outside of work) to volunteering, political causes, and religious groups.  Imagine the kind of commitment and energy they would exhibit in the workplace if they felt that their jobs made an equal difference.  Yet the irony is that almost all organizations must create some form of social value, or they wouldn't remain in existence.  Organizations create products or services that people need, discover ways to improve the quality of life, enhance our security, fuel our economy, and educate our children.  But in the humdrum of everyday work, we often lose sight of these connections.
Opportunity:  Continually remind people of the purpose of the business — and how their individual and team activities make a difference.

Meaningless Tasks:  A second reason why people devalue their work time is that often they are asked to complete stupid or menial tasks.  Most employees are smart enough to know when they are spending time on tasks or activities that don't add value — unnecessary processes, dead-end research, endless decision loops, bureaucratic approvals, redundant presentations, unproductive meetings, etc.  When employees' jobs fill up with these responsibilities they become bored, cynical, and frustrated — and increasingly look for fulfillment outside of work.
Opportunity:  Engage people in seeking out and destroying these mind-numbing activities.  A number of years ago Wal-Mart called it "Get the Dumb Out" of work; and many companies such as GE and IBM do this continually and relentlessly.

The Fun Factor:  The third possible cause for the weekend syndrome is that work simply isn't fun.  We drearily perform the same tasks, talk to the same people, and produce the same products and services on a daily basis.  There's no game-like competition, no challenge, no adrenaline rush.  And in the absence of those zest factors, people seek their fun and excitement outside of work, through sports, escapist entertainment, family games, travel, etc.
Opportunity:  My colleagues and I have worked with hundreds of managers over the years who have found creative ways to inject fun into the workplace — through hundred-day projects, team challenges, model weeks, customer field trips, innovation contests, and the like.  Although it's not in any job description, making work fun is an important part of a manager's responsibilities.

Great organizations are places where employees are excited to get out of bed each morning and go to work — to find meaning, do things that add value, and have fun.  If you can create that kind of environment in your workplace, your people won't be looking forward just to the weekend — they'll also be looking forward to Monday morning.

It is a good reminder for all of us--we need to enjoy the weekends, but also learn to enjoy the weeks.  Happy Easter!

---

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.

Seven Reasons Candidates Should Be Meeting With Your CEO

I have spoken recently with two of our clients who have implemented the hiring practice of having candidates meet with the CEO or President of the company.  As a result, in both cases, the companies are experiencing recruiting results significantly above other companies who use our service.

  While this is not the only factor leading to the success of these clients, they may have discovered a best practice that could benefit many more companies who want to improve their hiring results. 

I thought we had just serendipitously found this technique, but it turns out that many high performing companies use a meeting with the CEO to improve their recruiting effectiveness--especially with candidates who have a lot of potential.  Recruiting guru, Dr. John Sullivan, recently documented some of the reasons these meetings are so effective:

"If you’ve ever eaten at a high-end restaurant you know that it isn’t uncommon for the executive chef to visit the tables of VIP customers in hopes that he can influence them to refer their friends and return.  Using the CEO in recruiting efforts is very similar.  The act has been encouraged for years, but doesn’t happen nearly as much as it should.  Some of the reasons why this approach is so powerful include:

• CEOs are great salespeople (usually) — It’s hard to ascend to the role of CEO without being able to sell a vision and market your organization’s ability to attain that vision.  When effectively briefed about a candidate’s 'job acceptance criteria' most CEOs can close the deal.  In the rare cases where the candidate doesn’t accept, they often come back a month later.
• The feeling of a partnership and an impact — When I advise firms on this practice, I recommend that the CEO use a phrase similar to 'I need your help. I know that with you and I working closely together, we can build an exciting future for this company.'  The goal is to build the feeling of a partnership and a close working relationship that will directly impact the future of the company for many years.
• Straight from the horse’s mouth — Talking directly to the CEO means that the candidate will receive direct unfiltered messages.  That alone can be reassuring when they might not trust the word of a recruiter oblivious to the inside story.
• High probability of execution — The candidate knows that any promises that are made have a high probability of coming true because they are backed by the power, resources, and integrity of the CEO.
• Future access — The fact that the CEO will meet with a candidate now should leave the impression that they will have continuous access as an employee.
• Power by association — Because everyone at the firm knows that the candidate met with the CEO, they’re likely, at least initially, to listen to them.
• Bragging rights — Talking directly to the CEO is something notable that the candidate can tell their friends, even if they never accept a job.  It’s an honor merely to be invited."

In real estate recruiting, I believe that this technique can have an even stronger impact on younger candidates.  It is a big risk for many individuals to start a real estate career--this is especially true if you're young (not much experience yet), need a primary income (not the spouse who supplements the family's income while the kids are in school), and have talent (have options to work in other career fields).  If someone like this is on the fence, it is a great time to bring in the big guns.

What if your CEO is reluctant to play this role?  Dr. Sullivan offers some advice on this as well:

"Some CEOs are smart and automatically assume the role as 'the chief recruiter' for the firm.  In other cases it takes some convincing and building the business case.  Some approaches to consider include:

• Others do it — Demonstrate to her/him that other CEOs who they admire are successfully using this technique.
• Consider a pilot — Offer to run a small-scale pilot program for a month in order to judge the results and the ROI.
• Show the impact on recruiting — Show them the percentage increase in the number of difficult candidates who are hired as a result of the CEO being involved.  Also, during onboarding, ask new hires with CEO involvement to rank the factors that influenced their decision to say yes.  Report the importance of their involvement back to the CEO.
• Show the impact on performance — Periodically report the superior business results and innovations produced by individuals who were recruited using this approach.
• Place limits — Show them that you respect their time by setting a limit on the number [of meetings] they are requested to do each month.  Also limit it to high-impact jobs and hard-to-recruit candidates for those jobs."

Question:  Does your company's President or CEO meet with candidates?  If so, what has been the result of these interviews?

---

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.