WorkPuzzle

October 09, 2013

"Gallup-ing" Towards Success

Ten years ago I had the unique experience of attending the annual Positive Psychology Summit held at the Gallup, Inc, headquarters in Washington DC. If you aren't familiar with Gallup, some of their most outstanding work has focused on researching what makes companies successful. My visit left a lasting impression and I have continued to follow their various studies, in particular that of job fulfillment.

Dr. Gallup’s early work, the topic of job satisfaction, has been studied and written about in more than 10,000 articles and publications. Because most people spend a high percentage of their waking hours at work, studies of the workplace are of great interest for many professionals. The process of managing and improving the workplace is crucial and presents great challenges to nearly every organization.

Since the 1950's Gallup has conducted thousands of studies amid some of the world's most well known countries. They have taken the analyses (called meta-analyses) of a multitude of questions and responses and condensed it down to 12 simple yet powerful questions. This is now known as the Gallup Workplace Audit or informally as the Q12® (questions included below). The answers to these questions have been shown to have considerable impact on an organization. In fact, the analyses and further studies indicate that the answers to the Q12® and how a company responds to them, can largely define the success of a company over time.

"The quality of an organization’s human resources is perhaps the leading indicator of its growth and sustainability. The attainment of a workplace with high-caliber employees starts with the selection of the right people for the right jobs. Numerous studies have documented the utility of valid selection instruments and systems in the selection of the right people... After employees are hired, they make decisions and take actions every day that can affect the success of their organization."

(Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, & Muldrow, 1979; Hunter & Schmidt, 1983; Huselid, 1995; Schmidt & Rader, 1999; Harter, Hayes, & Schmidt, 2004).

All this really says is, if your employees are engaged in their job, the performance outcome is raised exponentially. And don't forget, performance is directly related to the company objectives of customer ratings, profitability, productivity, turnover, safety incidents, shrinkage, absenteeism and quality. Employment engagement and hiring the right people matters. These are not just business clichés. Are you taking this as seriously as it needs to be?

Take a look at the questions below. How do you think your employees would answer the questions? Where are you "on track" and where could you make improvements? How could your organization benefit from knowing this information?

You could be a company who "Gallup's" towards success!

The Q12® are:

Q00. (Overall Satisfaction) On a 5-point scale, where “5” is extremely satisfied and “1” is extremely dissatisfied, how satisfied are you with (your company) as a place to work?

Q01. I know what is expected of me at work.

Q02. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.

Q03. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.

Q04. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.

Q05. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.

Q06. There is someone at work who encourages my development.

Q07. At work, my opinions seem to count.

Q08. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.

Q09. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.

Q10. I have a best friend at work.

Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.

Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Engage in the WorkPuzzle discussion by joining the TMOC private social network. Commenting on a public blog like WorkPuzzle can be a little intimidating, so why not join the discussion inside the privacy of the TMOC discussion group?

By joining TMOC, you'll get to see who else is in the group and your comments will only be seen by those whom you trust. Joining TMOC is quick, easy, and free (no kidding…this takes less than 2 minutes). To get started, click here.

Already of a member of TMOC? If so, join the WorkPuzzle Dialog Group by clicking on the WorkPuzzle Group icon on the left side of your TMOC homepage. Questions? Email the WorkPuzzle editor (workpuzzle@hiringcenter.net) and we'll walk through the process.

Editor's Note: This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn. Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, a Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.

Posted at 02:30 PM in Coaching, Dr. David Mashburn, Personal Performance | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 07, 2013

Learning to Recruit on the White River

A few weeks ago, Ben and I had a trip planned to see a client in southern Missouri. Since we were in the vicinity, we decided to tack on an extra day and fish the, always amazing, White River in Northern Arkansas.

We were joined by my father, my brother-in-law, my brother, and his son. The day began in a section of the river where everyone usually pursues their fishing, within a short distance of where boats can be launched and rented.

In this section of river, one can utilize just about any type of bait or tackle, and anglers are allowed to keep their limit of fish. In this section of river, where everyone fishes everyday, we did OK. Nothing to write home about, but OK.

After about a half-hour in this section of the river, my Dad (who will turn 80 on his next birthday), turned to us and said, "Pull in your rods boys. We're moving".

My father knows this river well enough to know that we had seen nothing yet. He turned the boat upstream and opened up the throttle taking us two miles up river. The destination was a one-mile stretch of river that was different from the downstream portion of the river.

Why? What was different about this section of river?

First and most importantly, it is a designated "catch-and-release" section. If you are unfamiliar with this term, catch-and-release means exactly what is says: You cannot keep any fish. Now, catch and release is common in Seattle, but in the Ozark's, folks go fishing for sustenance, not necessarily solely for sport.

Secondly, it requires us to use modified lures that make catching fish less injurious to the fish and theoretically more difficult to catch fish.

Four hours later, the six of us had caught and released 169 beautiful trout, primarily rainbows. Catching these trout was not as easy as it may sound. We spent some time figuring out what they were going to pursue. Once we broke that code, my brother-in-law (with his tackle box that resembles a magicians hat) pulled out some red paint and modified other lures to resemble what they were attracted to.

In the real estate industry, there are a few well-known ways to recruit. In these popular venues, your company is forced to compete for the same agents as everyone else.

One of the ways to remain ahead of your competitors is to find new ways to fish. This often means fishing where no one else thinks of fishing.

It’s no secret that HiringCenter was designed to provide “access” to the section of the river where no one else is fishing. Working this section takes more time, innovation, and discipline than remaining in the areas where everyone else fishes. It also requires “cracking the code” of what attracts and engages these candidates.

The payoff is a steady flow of productive agents who would have never been found downstream.

As many of you know, this is not a solo effort. We’ve enjoyed the help and partnership of many great companies and recruiting leaders who have helped us “paint the lures” that attract the fish and learn new techniques to engage the next generation of real estate agents. Thank you for being such great fishing partners!

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Editor's Note: This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn. Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, a Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.

Posted at 08:31 PM in Dr. David Mashburn, Recruiting | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 03, 2013

What You Really Need to Know About Hiring and Retaining Millennials

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to present to a group of recruiting leaders who were gathered in Chicago for the Realty Alliance conference. Several of the attendees oversee very high-performing recruiting organizations, so there was much to share and learn.

One of the topics we addressed was the recruitment and retention of agents from the “millennial” age group. This group is generally considered those in the workforce who are currently 18 to 32 years old.

We are starting to hear more chatter on this topic as real estate companies strive to hire agents who, from an age perspective, are more reflective of the population at large. I recently read that by 2014, millennials will account for 36% of the American workforce and will make up 75% of the global workplace in 2025.

So, what is the secret to hiring agents in this age group?

It’s not as complicated as some human resources pundits would have you believe. For example, I recently read an article in the Washington Post outlining the “ten things millennials want from the workplace.” Here are my five favorites from the list:

1. Not money (ie. It’s not about the money)

2. Goofy perks (like scooters to get around the halls of the office)

3. A focus on social responsibility (apparently, older generations do not care about social causes…)

4. A focus on social justice and community service (not sure how these are different from social responsibility)

5. A “pass” on doing stupid things in their personal life (and then posting it on Facebook).

Maybe the authors just surveyed the Occupy WallStreet crowd to get the data for their article, but it seems surreal to me. We have millennials working for our company, I have two kids who are millennials, Dave has three kids who are millennials, and none of them focus on these issues.

I believe it’s safe to assume that if you tried to implement such advice, you’d quickly twist your organization into a pretzel of dysfunction. Unfortunately, greater than 90% of the articles I’ve read on millennial hiring over the last couple of years attempt to highlight the surface (and often silly) differences between younger and older generations.

Here’s a better idea. Why not focus on what we know to be true about all human beings and draw out the similarities between generations? Also, it is better to focus on core issues that drive human behavior and engagement.

A good place to start on collecting this information would be the Gallup Organization’s classic Q12 research. Gallup has been working on measuring employee engagement in organizations for more than 30 years. While they did not specifically focus on generational differences in this study, there is a surprising similarity among outcomes across age groups during this 30-year period. You can download a meta-analysis of this research if you care to read more.

Some media outlets are finally starting to pick up on these similarities that connect back to more reliable research. For example, FoxBusiness recently published an article citing a recent “What Millennials Want From Their Employers” survey. This survey found that millennials want:

1. To do meaningful work and be part of companies doing meaningful work.

2. A career that has a believable and viable future.

3. A mentor—someone to show them how to be productive and do their best work.

4. Community—they want some of their coworkers to also be their friends.

Do these ideas resonate with what you want from your work environment? I bet they do. Why? Because they are among the basic things most humans want from their work.

As you might suspect, all four of these themes are strongly demonstrated in Gallup’s Q12 research, which was originally collected from mostly baby-boomers and some generation X data sets.

The most important workplace engagement themes ring true across generations.

Focus on these similarities, and you’ll be much further ahead. Ignore the articles that highlight superficial generational differences. They may be fun to read, but they won’t help you hire more successfully or coach more effectively.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

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.

Posted at 08:41 PM in Ben Hess, Coaching, Personal Performance, Psychological Rules, Recruiting | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 30, 2013

What Value Do You Have to Offer a Candidate?

I am a firm believer that everyone receives information in different ways and at different times. Recently, my son Noah reminded me of this and it touched on an application in the interviewing process.

Noah is an avid runner. He loves it--distance or speed, lacrosse or cross-country. He is currently involved in a speed and agility training course. His first session was two weeks ago. He came away feeling positive about what he’ll get out of it, but not really understanding what he was being taught. He had his “AH HA” moment in his second session. I don’t know what was said or done, but all of the sudden, he got it.

One of the more frequent questions we receive when presenting to companies centers around the interviewing process, especially as it pertains to new-to-real estate candidates.

Here's the question: What is it that makes you a good recruiter/hiring manager?

Even though we discuss this topic freqently (sometimes with the same audience) each member seems to take away something different each time the question is asked.

The answer that seems to resonate most with me is: It's the value that you impart to the candidate.

At some point in the interview process you learn the candidate’s story, what they have liked/disliked in their work history, what about their bosses they have liked/disliked etc. As you then discuss what you heard, you can reiterate their points of pain in such a way that will demonstrate that a career in real estate could be a good match simply based on what they shared with you.

Is there value in this dialog? Absolutely!

Your value started the moment they walked in the door, and continued while you genuinely listened to their story…everyone wants to be heard. Your value continued as you had an honest discussion about their story and how a new career in real estate could align with their own goals and career preferences.

Your value does not stop there…it is now at critical mass. It is what you extend to them between the interview, through licensure and hiring that will determine your overall success in recruiting YOUR top talent.

Keep your value in front of them. Isn't it a natural instinct for humans to hold onto what they value?

If you answered yes, by extension would you agree that your high potential talent would then hold onto you as a valuable resource and partner in reaching their career goals?

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Editor's Note: Lee Gray is the Senior Account Manager at Tidemark Inc. Lee is a guest contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. .

Posted at 03:32 PM in Coaching, Lee Gray, Recruiting | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 25, 2013

What Golf Taught Me About Recruiting

It’s been a frustrating summer for me. The exasperation I’ve felt didn’t come at home…or at work…or at church. I’m sure frustration in any of those areas would have been easier to accept. No, my frustration came on the golf course.

You might read this and think to yourself, “Oh, David must be a terrible golfer or perhaps he is a beginner—it only makes sense that he’d experience some frustration trying to learn a difficult game like golf.” But, that’s not the case.

I've been golfing since I was 11-years-old, and I became proficient enough as a teenager to play on my high school golf team. I continued to play golf over the years, and I’m able to compete well against most weekend golfers. I used to find golf relaxing and enjoyable. So why all the frustration?

The golfing frustration I’m experiencing is a direct result of change. Change is hard, especially when you've done something the same way for so long, and you’ve done it relatively well.

My problem dates back to 1971 when I first began to golf. I learned to play under the direction of my grandfather. He was a decent golfer, but not a great teacher of proper technique. As a result, I developed some bad habits while establishing my swing.

One of my bad habits is cocking my left wrist back at the top of my backswing instead of keeping it straight. This fault forces me to make corrections later in my swing in order to make solid contact with the ball.

While this technique is not correct, it does work well 95% of the time (that’s why I’ve sustained this habit). Granted, sometimes the 5% of “not working” can ruin an afternoon of golf, but I generally accepted the idea of being a good enough golfer.

But over time, being good enough was getting a little old. So early this year, I decided to get better at golf, and I knew that playing one round every two weeks (and working on changes while playing) was not enough repetitions to see any changes materialize. I had to commit to practicing on the practice range and work diligently at correcting my swing.

I can't even begin to describe how uncomfortable it is to swing in a new way. Everything feels off and it’s not an enjoyable experience. Although I committed to working through the form issues, I longed to be back on the course where things felt normal and more comfortable.

As you suspect, I then did what I was told not to do. I went out and shot a round of golf before I was ready. While I attempting to focus on applying what I had learned on the range, I got seven holes into my round and lost my resolve. When I started scoring poorly, I quickly reverted back to my old habits so as not to humiliate myself. I began doing what I had always done.

In hindsight, I realized my mistake. I’ve now made my way back on the practice range and recommitted myself to the process of changing my swing for the better. While it is still uncomfortable, I know I’ll be susceptible to reverting back to my old ways if the new habits are not fully formed during practice.

So what does this have to do with recruiting?

Many recruiting techniques in the real estate industry have been used for many years. At some point in the past, each of these techniques was successful; otherwise it would not have been developed and used.

But, times change. While some of these old techniques remain effective, many of them have either lost their usefulness or have needed modifications to remain relevant. From a third party perspective, the recruiting methodologies in many real estate companies look like golf swings that need some work.

Does the swing need to be reconstructed completely? No. In my case, I’m only trying to learn how to not cock my wrist at the top of my backswing! The same is true in recruiting—even small tweaks can be difficult and all humans tend to resist change.

So, how do you get started on the path to making improvements to your recruiting techniques and methodologies? Take Harry Beckwork’s advice from the blog I wrote a couple of weeks ago:

"Assume your service is bad. It can't hurt and will force you to improve."

I started the process assuming that that my swing was bad, and then made a commitment to make it better.

As you start down this path, here are some questions you may want to consider:

What recruiting practices have you been using for the longest period of time?
What recruiting techniques have become less effective in recent years?
When is the last time you learned / tried something new?
When is the last time you asked an expert recruiter (someone in your network that you respect) what they do and what they have stopped doing?

Once a picture starts to emerge of the changes you need to make in order to improve, know that you’ll have to make a commitment to practice these changes. Forcing yourself to try new things and then practicing is always the hardest part of learning.

See you at the practice range….

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Editor's Note: This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn. Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, a Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.

Posted at 11:47 AM in Dr. David Mashburn, Personal Performance, Recruiting | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 19, 2013

When Recruiting--Should You Trust Your Gut?

In his best selling book, Daniel Kahneman creates the framework for his insights by defining the two “systems” of human reasoning that are employed to make decisions and judgments:

System 1 is sometimes referred to as intuition. It is fast and automatic and is usually associated with strong emotional bonds. It is based on formed habits and is very difficult to change or manipulate.

System 2 is sometimes referred to as reasoning. It is slower and much more volatile, being subject to conscious judgments and attitudes.

These framework definitions are a simple way of explaining how a judgments can occur in two different ways. In psychology, this is called a duel process theory. Obviously, I’m grossly over-simplifying these concepts. There is much to read on this topic if you care to learn more.

For our discussion, the following chart may be helpful in understanding the concept of System 1 and System 2:

So, here’s a question:

When it comes to making judgments in the recruiting process, is System 1 or System 2 more reliable?

Before you put too much thought into this question, I’ll share a quick story that contributed to some of Kahneman’s research. Early in his career, Kahneman and his research partner, Amos Tversky, discovered they both had identical silly ideas about the future professions of several toddlers they both knew.

“We could identify the argumentative three-year-old lawyer, the nerdy professor, the empathetic and mildly intrusive psychotherapist. Or course, these predictions were absurd, but we still found them appealing.

It was also clear that our intuitions were governed by the resemblance of each child to the cultural stereotype of a profession. The amusing exercise helped us develop a theory that was emerging in our minds at the time, about the role of resemblance in predictions. We went on to test and elaborate that theory in dozens of experiments.”

In simple terms, these gentlemen were employing System 1 to draw conclusions about a person’s fit for a particular profession. If a human’s mind is susceptible to quickly draw conclusions under these ridiculous circumstances, could it also draw wrong conclusions during a more traditional recruiting encounter?

Here is another example to consider. Let’s assume that Steve is selected at random from a representative sample:

“An individual has been described by a neighbor as follows: ‘Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure and a passion for detail.’

Is Steve more likely a librarian or a farmer?

The resemblance of Steve’s personality to that of a stereotypical librarian strikes everyone immediately, but equally relevant statistical considerations are almost always ignored.

Did it occur to you that there are more than 20 male farmers for each male librarian in the United States? Because there are so many more farmers, it almost certain that more ‘meek and tidy’ souls will be found on tractors than at library information desks.”

During multiple research studies, Kahneman found that participants ignored the relevant statistical facts and relied exclusively on resemblance. More specifically, the experiments demonstrated that humans tend to use resemblance to construct mental “rules of thumb.” Once developed, they rely on these mental rules to make difficult judgments—even to the point where it defies reason and causes predictable biases (systematic errors) in their predictions.

Conclusion: I think we'd all agree--systematic errors in hiring are a bad thing. Relying on intuition causes us to hire people we shouldn’t and overlook potential high performers. According to Kahneman, System 1 reigns supreme when making hiring decisions. By the way--if you think you’re exempt from this type of reasoning, you’re mistaken. It affects everyone who evaluates candidates and conducts interviews.*

How do you keep from getting stuck in an endless cycle of systematic errors?

First, recognize what is happening and make a conscious attempt to resist being controlled by your mind’s System 1. Second, learn how to employ System 2.

In our company, we use assessment tools to help us overcome the System 1 dominance. These tools do help, but it is also important to structure interviews so that you’re collecting data and not just allowing your System 2 to lazily disengage.

This means asking lots of open-ended questions, formulating thoughtful follow-up questions, listening, taking notes, drawing trial conclusions from your candidate’s answers, asking the candidate to defend their positions, etc.

We’ll cover more on this topic in future discussions, but for now, work to stay mentally sharp and engaged during your interviews. It will take more effort, but you’ll make better hires.

*Note: After evaluating the financials of many real estate companies over the last seven years, I’ve noticed that most companies have 40% to 60% “D” performers in their ranks at any point in time. Considering that many “D” performers leave the organization soon after they’re hired, most companies have a very poor track record at selecting high performers.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

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.

Posted at 09:11 PM in Ben Hess, Personal Performance, Positive Psychology, Psychological Rules, Recruiting | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 17, 2013

Making Decisions and Forming Judgments: An Introduction to Daniel Kahneman

A few weeks ago, I started reading a fascinating book called Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

I usually move through business books quickly and zero in on the few ideas that seem applicable. I suspect most business books are intentionally designed to be consumed in this manner. They’re “sugary” and easy to digest knowing the attention span of the readers (me included) is relatively short.

So it took some courage for Kahneman to write a 500-page book full of substantive content that is fairly difficult to understand. I’ve been reading for a couple of weeks and I’m only 20% finished! I recently picked up a couple other books to read in parallel because this one is going to take while, and I don’t want to rush through it. If I did race through it, I feel like I’d miss a bunch of great insights.

To provide some background, Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002. Since Kahneman is a psychologist (not an economist), it was unusual for him to win this prize. In fact, he was the first non-economist (by profession) to win this award. He won the prize for developing Prospect Theory-- a behavioral economic theory that describes the way people chose between alternatives that involve risk.

Studying Prospect Theory would be beneficial for anyone in the real estate profession (I can’t think of a Nobel-prize-winning topic more applicable to the day-to-day work of a real estate agent), but the topics we’ll be discussing in future WorkPuzzles will focus more on the psychology of making decisions and forming judgments. Here is quick summary of what we’ll hope to learn:

In his best selling book, Daniel Kahneman will take us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.

The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from recruiting your next agent to diagnosing what causes some of your agents to consistently make the wrong choices—each of these can be better understood by knowing how the two systems shape our judgments and decisions.

Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives—and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us (and those we manage) into trouble.

Tomorrow, I’ll share some specific insights concerning some of Kahneman's ideas and how they apply to recruiting. In the future, I'll occasionally revisit this topic with new insights and ideas that apply not only to recruiting, but also coaching and personal performance as well.

If you want to read the book on your own, the Kindle version in a great bargain (only $4.99 on Amazon) right now. Also, there are several summaries of this book available if you’re more of the “cliff-notes” type of person.

Regardless, I believe there is a lot learn from Daniel Kahneman’s manifesto. Writing from a near 80-year-old’s perspective, he has much wisdom to share.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

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.

Posted at 08:22 PM in Ben Hess, Coaching, Personal Performance, Positive Psychology, Psychological Rules, Recruiting | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 13, 2013

The Unintended Consequences of Rewarding Outstanding Performance

Last year, we wrote a series of blogs outlining some of the research concerning the usefulness of "carrot and stick" motivation techniques. The findings of the research were very clear: Providing extrinsic rewards cannot be blindly relied upon to help motivate individuals to perform better.

It's not that rewards should never be used. In some cases (and for some people), incentives do have a positive impact on both individual and team performance. But, don't be lulled into thinking this motivation technique is some kind of magic bullet. It's not. Offering an incentive can sometimes produce negative results.

In the case of our previous series, researchers demonstrated that trying to incentivize tasks that involve creativity was particularly ineffective. New research has now demonstrated offering incentives to top performers in your organization may also prove counterproductive in the long run.

The new research was recently summarized by Max Nisen at Business Insider,

"Prizes and rewards are designed to produce more effort, to give people something to strive towards. But what happens once they actually get it? According to a new study by Harvard's George Borjas and Notre Dame's Kirk Doran of recipients of the Fields Medal, the most prestigious prize in mathematics, winning big actually kills productivity.

Mathematicians who win it publish far less in the years afterwards than similarly brilliant "contenders"

It goes to show that major awards and recognition can have unintended consequences.

The drop off is pretty massive, as this chart shows:

This is explained, in part, by the classic economic "wealth effect." The impact of the Fields medal is significant. It's more prestigious than any other prize, and though the financial reward is a meager $15,000, the career and research opportunities available to a winner expand massively.

Because they've achieved so much "wealth" in terms of prestige, job security, and opportunity, winners are more likely to choose leisure activities over work, just as someone who suddenly comes into significant monetary rewards might.

Not only do they produce fewer papers, but the ones they do write are relatively less important. And winners take fewer mentees, as well.

The authors did find one surprising positive effect. Though they publish less, winners also take more risks in the future. They've already reached the pinnacle of their field, so they feel free to pursue moonshots, new areas of mathematics that they think are fascinating or vital.

The risk is quite large. The winners know they're capable of doing extraordinary work in a particular area. Moving outside of it makes future results far less certain. Their particular gifts or talent might not translate well, and they're going to have to learn new skills and an entirely new body of research in the new area, which is all very time consuming.

The researchers term movement outside the core field, "cognitive mobility," and its increase explains about half of the drop off in productivity for medal winners.

The prize frees them up in an extremely significant way. In the years leading up to the medal year, the likelihood of a mathematician straying from their comfort zone is very rare, at just 5%. For prize-winners, the rate quintuples to 25%."

This research obviously covers a very specific and unique population, but it has implications for high performers in any area. Whether it's promising a promotion, a raise, or an award, leaders have to think about the aftermath as well as the competition itself.

It's important to reward achievement, but it may also have the unintended side effect of creating complacency. At the same time, there's something to be said for giving top performers the opportunity and safety net required to do really innovative work, even if it's less certain and takes longer.

When this research is paired with Daniel Pink's observations highlighted in our previous series, it should be worth at least a prolonged head scratch. As I said previously,

"These days, carrots and sticks will often do more harm than good. The time has come to tap into the deeply human need to direct our own lives and create new things and to do better by ourselves and our world."

Exactly.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Editor's Note: This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn. Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, a Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.

Posted at 10:12 AM in Coaching, Dr. David Mashburn, Personal Performance | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 10, 2013

Selling the Invisible For Recruiting

I’ve recently been listening to the audio book edition of the classic Selling the Invisible by Harry Beckwith.

You might think that I picked this title as a means of improving our sales within Tidemark, but you’d be mistaken. I did read this book a few years ago for that purpose, but this time I wanted to think through how proven marketing ideas could help you improve the recruiting process.

It’s been my observation that most well-run real estate companies understand that they are not only in the real estate transaction business, but also in the agent recruiting business. Gaining market share means performing both functions well.

I’ve also noticed that top recruiting companies share a common defining characteristic—their management teams tend to seek out any and all information that might lead them to increased results. There is a solid correlation between openness to assessment/feedback and steady improvement.

Those who are not willing to track, examine, metric, compare, and seek improvement (including challenging long-held beliefs) will invariably underperform their competitors and peers.

As I was listening to Selling the Invisible from this perspective, I wrote down several principles that differentiate the best recruiting companies behavior from those who struggle. Here are some of the standout differentiators and my comments beside each one:

Assume your service is bad. It can't hurt, and it will force you to improve. It is so uncanny how the best leaders I have ever met in my entire life have always made this assumption. Conversely the worst have an arrogant stance of "we've figured it out." I have learned a great deal through the humility of these fine leaders.

Ignore your industry's benchmarks, and copy Disney's. The point here is to surprise the candidate. Remember the blog we did on the offices that display a welcome sign with each candidate’s name before every interview?

Big mistakes are big opportunities. If you aren't' performing well, see it as a time to examine, learn and improve. If you make a mistake with a candidate, follow it with an apology, a gift card, and a promise to improve. This will typically work wonders to reversing the course of the hiring process for most people.

Don't just think better. Think different. Be open to out of the box ways of understanding a dilemma. Don't get so locked into old belief systems that you aren't willing to entertain other ways of seeing realty. You just might discover something revolutionary.

Don't just create what the market needs or wants. Create what it would love. For recruiting, the market is the candidates you’re interviewing. The thing that all candidates love is to be understood thoroughly before making any bold statements about how you can solve their pain.

Every act is a marketing act. Make every employee a marketing employee. From the first contact with a candidate until he hands you his license, every touch with him is a marketing message.

What does each step in your recruiting process suggest to a candidate? The candidates who will turn into top producing agents will be intuitively sensitive to how they are being treated (this is part of what will make them great agents).

If anyone on your team is not treating them with the upmost amount of respect, they WILL go elsewhere. If you’re waiting for agents to prove themselves before treating them with this respect, you ARE losing the best candidates.

In most professional services, you are not really selling expertise - because your expertise is assumed, and because your prospect cannot intelligently evaluate your expertise anyway. Instead you are selling a relationship. Hopefully this speaks for itself.

Which of the above principles can you improve upon? Which are strengths? Which are weaknesses? Know that it is easier to see the weaknesses in others rather than yourself, so you might want to re-read the list a couple of times and make it a point of discussion with some of your peers.

Make sure you don’t miss the first point as you process this information-- we all must entertain a need for improvement if we want to grow.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Editor's Note: This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn. Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, a Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.

Posted at 05:15 AM in Dr. David Mashburn, Personal Performance, Recruiting | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)