WorkPuzzle

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 to create change: Part 3

As I mentioned in the last blog, I am excited about this edition.  (You'll see why in the "Build Habits" section below...)  In the first two editions of this series (1,2), I introduced you to a well-constructed book by the Heath brothers entitled, "Switch: How To Change Things When Change Is Hard."

The authors consolidate a lot of information about the major elements of change, including how to create change, in their very concise, easy to read book.  The brothers liberally borrow their basic analogy around the elements of change from Psychologist and Researcher, Dr. Jonathan Haidt.  They explain that change involves two parts of the whole person that we are all familiar with....a person's emotional side, as well as their brain's rational side.

As I mentioned before, to create change, you must impact both sides.  The overpowering emotional side is identified as the "Elephant," and the rational, decision-making component sits atop the Elephant as the "Rider."  When conflict arises between the two, the Rider is easily the underdog.  (I addressed "the Rider" and "the Elephant" in the first two editions.)

Lastly, to create change, you must provide and shape a clear PATH.  This means that you must provide clear direction.  Sometimes change doesn't require anything we've described so far.  Sometimes, it only requires providing a path that's clear, accessible, habitual and inherent in the culture.  We all occasionally entertain the lazy habit of blaming character rather than environment when it comes to groups of individuals who may not be performing in the way we envision necessary.  However, the following are ways that you can begin to make change easier.

Tweak the Environment.  Did you know that the airline industry has a "sterile cockpit" rule that applies to any commercial plane flying below 10,000 feet?  Apparently, the most accident-prone time is while a flight is either ascending or descending.  Conversations that are not flight-related are not permitted at this time.

Similarly, the authors describe an IT group that had been unsuccessfully grappling with continually taking far too long in developing new products.  They set out to reduce new product development from three years to eight months. They decided to adopt the sterile cockpit rule for new projects, establishing "quiet hours" on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday mornings, before noon.  Making this simple tweak of the environment provided coders ample time to concentrate on complex bits of code without being interrupted, which turned out was the major culprit to slowing progress.  Ultimately, the group achieved a nine-month development cycle.  Not too shabby for a simple fix.  This result reinforces the idea that what can appear as a people problem, is often a situational challenge.  We all have a tendency to minimize, or ignore all together, the fact that situational forces can greatly influence and shape peoples' behavior.  And often, just simple tweaks of the path can produce dramatic behavioral changes that we wouldn't otherwise expect.

Build Habits.  When one has a habit, one has a sort of behavioral auto-pilot.  Habits allow behavior to happen without taxing the rider or the elephant...Both are simply doing what they always do.  Once habits are built, little energy is expended.  There are several examples in the book that address companies helping their people develop habits.  Your office/company can either help reinforce or deter successful habits.  Paying attention to your power to do so, is vital.

To change anything, you must build habits.  One way to help build habits is to set up "action triggers."  Action triggers are behaviors that are always followed by the habit you want to build.  For example, every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for the past 25 years, I have gone to the gym to work out.  This is such a strong habit that I don't ever even consider placing something else in that time slot.  These specific days/times of the week pre-load a decision to work out, and therefore prevent the Rider from scheduling over them.  Setting up action triggers have been proven to TRIPLE the chance of successful goal completion.

So, while helping build your agents' business plan, ask them to specify exactly when they will perform each activity.  Don't take a given time for granted...Instead ask, "After what activity will you do this?  After brushing your teeth?  After dropping off your children at school?"  Etc.  The authors offer several great examples of how you, as a leader, can help others to create habits and even "instant habits" through action triggers.

The authors then spend considerable time discussing the MAGIC, underrated, and sometimes despised tool...The Checklist!

Bear with me, and read further... This simple tool can make or break your company's success.  Dr. Peter Pronovost of Johns Hopkins, was fed up with the finacial waste and human loss attributed to preventable line infections occurring in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).  So, he finally resorted to demanding that all staff take the time to check off a simple checklist of routine, required tasks.  It was a five-part checklist, containing items like, (1) Wash hands, (2) Clean skin with antiseptic, and so on... No new activities were added, rather, the expected routine was simply itemized out.

Eighteen months after the checklist was put into place by Johns Hopkins and some Michigan hospitals, $175 million dollars and 1500 lives had been saved.  "Check lists are insurance against over confidence."  I love that sentence.  Print it out in bold letters and paste to your office door.  If you think a checklist is for boring, menial jobs, then try your luck flying a 747.  I can tell you, first hand, that the majority of recruiting efforts put forth by most real estate companies, involve completely flying by the seat of their pants.  They not only don't have a checklist, but wouldn't know what items to place on their checklist if they were asked to create one.  If you are a client of ours, then you know that we have built-in checklists (literally thousands daily - between our clients and us) that ensure that the best sourcing and the best recruiting can be accomplished.

The last way to change the clear the path is to Rally the Herd.  There is no scientific fact more etched in granite than peoples' tendency to follow the lead of people in their immediate environment.  This is another reason to make sure you churn out agents who stand around the water cooler too much and never produce.  If 90% of your agents are working, most of the others will follow their lead.  Find ways to instill a sense that "this is the way we do it here" and ensure that it's in fact done that way.  Lead an Elephant on an unfamiliar path, and it's likely to follow the herd...

The authors acknowledge that change isn't always easy.  But the evidence suggests that when change works, it tends to follow a predictable pattern.  Visit the authors at  http://www.heathbrothers.com.

---

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. 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.

Why Sitting At Your Desk Will Kill Your Business: Part 2

Earlier this week, I stressed the importance of spending less time at the desk and more time building value-added relationships.  How critical is this principle?  The following scenario provides a powerful example regarding the Real Estate Manager position, but I think it relates to the position of Real Estate Agent as well.  Answer the following question honestly:

If ownership announced tomorrow:

"As of today there are no longer Office Manager positions.  That job is no longer a part of our organizational structure.  From this day forward the Manager position will be replaced by a Coach/Recruiter position.  And furthermore, if you don't have a high number of agents who choose to be coached by you and a large pipeline of experienced agents from other companies who you meet with, or contact regularly in hopes of recruiting, then you no longer have a job."

How would that turn out for you?  A little scary isn't it?

Well guess what?  This actually happened recently in a fairly large real estate company.  (In an upcoming article I may share with you more about this company.  I'm awaiting permission to do so...)

If you would fare VERY well in the above scenario, pat yourself on the back for a job well done.  You can consider yourself part of the top 25% of managers who have managed to build a true and committed following.  If you would truly fear the above scenario, it's not too late.  At any time, you can commit to actions that will improve your "true following"-- It's time to overhaul your weekly schedule and prioritize your schedule to better reflect what leaders actually do.

The title of "Leader" can be appointed, but the meaning of Leader is much more practical than that.  A true leader is determined by how many people would actually follow them, given the choice.  As I mentioned, sitting at your desk is not the way to build a following.

In the upcoming final edition on this topic, I'll provide three steps to becoming a good manager.

---

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. 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.

Why sitting at your desk will kill your business

I know we all have work to do.  And much of that work is at our desk and on our computer.  And yes, we shouldn't fall behind in the work that must be done at that location.  But, I would argue that most of us spend far too much time with busy work, and far too little time in the activity of strengthening relationships.  In fact, I would dare to say that many of you may be using "desk time" to avoid the work of building relationships, which is the vital nourishment to the ultimate success in the service industry.

Ben and I recently attended two conferences.  The primary reason for attending these conferences was to set up meetings with several interested, prospective clients in order to, hopefully, get them signed on as clients.  Secondly, we used this time to touch base with current clients and further build those relationships.  Unfortunately, we had several cancellations of set appointments, and were left twiddling our thumbs much of the time in the business suite we had rented.

I could have easily used this extra time to get ahead in my writing, catch up with email or numerous personal computer related chores. Fortunately, the very principle of this blog edition came screaming in my conscious mind:  "Nothing can happen if I'm in my room!"

As I ventured out with no particular plan in mind, day after day, I stumbled onto several very old and very new clients, in addition to non-client acquaintances.  Without going into too much detail regarding who I met and spoke to, I CAN tell you that many of these interactions were absolutely priceless.

Being around people, having conversations, asking about families, getting to know their challenges, and then actually helping them, and them helping you, is how most businesses are built.

• Howard Shultz, founder and CEO of Starbucks visits...drum roll please...25 Starbucks locations per week.
• Herb Kelleher, well known natural schmoozer and CEO of Southwest Airlines for 37 years was known to say, "You have to treat your employees like customers."  And by the way, the day of his retirement celebration, Southwest pilots took out a full page ad in USA Today thanking Herb.  That same day, American Airlines pilots were picketing their employer...

If you are a manager of people, or an agent trying to build a business, you cannot miss the importance of this principle.  The priority of rubbing elbows with the people that you coach, manage, hope to do business with, those you've already done business with, and hope to recruit... is irreplaceable.

How important?  I'll use an example in the next blog that might surprise you.

---

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.  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.

How Do Candidates Find Jobs? Don’t Believe the Hype

As many of you  know, my day job involves running a recruitment process outsourcing (RPO) company called Tidemark.  We specialize in high-volume candidate sourcing for companies who have difficult-to-fill positions. 

So, when research, such as that compiled by CareerXroads in their Tenth Annual Source of Hire study, is released, it peaks my interest.  I know many of you will not share my passion (and rightfully so) for this information, but I thought a quick summary of the findings might prove interesting. 

Here are some observations that John Zappe, a technology reporter for Electronic Recruiting Exchange, put together:

“[The study] reports the results of a survey of 36 large, “well-branded” but anonymous U.S. companies who cumulatively employ 1.32 million workers and hired not quite 133,000 employees in 2010.   

As has been the case from the beginning in 2001, referrals from employees, vendors, alumni, customers, and other sources was the leading source of external hires. Last year, the surveyed companies reported 27.5 percent of their external hires came from referrals. The percentage has fluctuated only modestly over the years.  What is somewhat surprising about the referrals is that 51.7 percent of the responding companies said that up to 20 percent of their referral hires come from sources other than employees.

In past years, corporate career sites occupied second place, as a source of external hires.  However, candidates come to corporate sites often by clicking on job postings on job boards or search engines.  The current report makes the same point.  ‘Career sites are critical but they are more likely to be the end point, not the beginning or middle,’ states the report.”

What about social media?  One of the questions we often hear...What impact is social media having on candidate sourcing?  Fortunately, the study compiled some data on this topic as well:

“[The study reports] 57.1 percent of the respondents reported that social media played an important part in their direct sourcing program (only 5% of total sourcing).  That was the percentage reporting they researched candidates on social networks.  Asked to rank the impact of social media on various parts of their recruiting program, respondents said its influence was greatest on direct sourcing, college hiring, and on hiring from job boards.”

What does all this mean for hiring in the real estate industry?  Here are some of my observations:

1.  Job Boards Are Not Dead.  There are many people who believe that jobs boards are declining and are no longer relevant.  This is not true.  Most career site hires were originally referred to a given company's website from job boards, which play a role in nearly 45% of all new hires.  If you do not have an effective job board presence, you’re missing out on a large portion of the hiring action.

2.  Referrals Are Still Critical.  For an industry that depends upon client referrals for a large portion of their marketing success, this should feel natural.  Do you regularly ask those in your network for hiring referrals?  If not, you’re missing out.  This is how people most commonly change careers and switch employers.

3.  Don’t Ignore Your Own Career Site / Employment Brand.  A couple months ago, we wrote a WorkPuzzle series on employment branding.  The conclusion…candidates will look you up on the internet and form opinions on what they find.  The CareerXroads study supports this conclusion.

4.  Social Media is Way Over-Hyped as a Sourcing Tool.  The data shows that referrals, job boards, and career sites account for over 70% of the new hire sourcing.  Where’s social media?  It’s buried in the 5% attributed to direct sourcing.  As the study indicates, social media outlets are often used to research candidates after they are sourced.  Maybe this will change in the future, but at this point, social media is a small player in candidate sourcing.

5.  Does This Apply to Real Estate?  I know many of our readers may discount this type of study because it was not conducted inside the real estate industry.  Granted, a real estate specific study may give us better insight on this topic, but consider the data from the candidate’s perspective... How does a human being in our society seek out and react to career-related information?  If you have this data as a baseline, I would argue you’re better equipped to interpret the idiosyncrasies of real estate hiring.

A Couple Questions to Consider:  Was any of this data surprising to you?  Does this cause you to want to change anything about your hiring process?

For confidential responses:  Email workpuzzle@hiringcenter.net

For public responses:  Use the comment link at the bottom of today's posting:  www.workpuzzle.com

---

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.

Attracting Younger Agents: Part 3

In the last edition I summarized comments from several of you regarding the dilemma of whether to concentrate efforts on hiring older (38+ yrs) or younger (21-35 yrs) agents.  Everyone agrees that there needs to be diversity in age represented, but there are definitely strong opinions that are approximately split down the middle, with a slight edge in the favor of focusing most of one's efforts on younger agents. 

Being a relatively new observer of this industry (five years), I may need your help deciphering the core logic behind these stances, but let me take a whack at it...

Much of the discussion may hinge on the differences in the model pertaining to the actual work of the agent. That is: What makes someone successful?  This difference can be deeply ingrained (perhaps rightfully so) and represents the historic culture of the organization; including the hiring, the training, the tools, the systems, the managers, and perhaps even the expectations, as well as the culture of your region.

One side can be described as the more traditional model.  The traditional model is clearly a networking strategy.  The networking strategy relies heavily on the circle of influence, and as such, requires that agents have a large circle of influence with individuals who want to buy or sell homes.  An extension of this belief is that the optimum age preference for this group would probably be 35-55.  The further belief, is that from within this group, it is much easier to choose a top performer, as they come with a proven track record of success or have raised their children well, while coaching soccer, running the PTA and serving on their local church board of elders.

The other side is focused on developing and training new talent.  This side appears to want to simultaneously shape the younger talent into the habits around systems that they want to instill, while encouraging this group to connect with their generation in ways that are innovative and fits their style and geographic region.  This side wants to capitalize on the e-lead innovations and social network strategies.

Both models, if executed with clear dedication, probably work well.  But, in my opinion, we must consider the home buyer.  What do they want?  What a home buyer wants in the Midwest may be different than what a home buyer wants on the west coast.  I know, when we studied a company in Seattle, there were clearly both types of agents working:  Traditional and E-Lead. The CCI assessment captured and defined both profiles among their top performers.  This market demanded both.

But, what if we assume for a moment (as some do), that buyers want to deal with someone in their age bracket?

Here are some facts from the American Housing Survey (AHS):

• The typical age of home buyers has remained at 39 years of age since 2007.
• However, when looking closer there are differences among first-time home buyers and repeat home buyers.
• The age of first-time home buyers fluctuates with household affordability.  From 2003 to 2006, during the housing boom, younger buyers had a more difficult time entering the market and the typical age rose to 32.  In 2007, the typical age of first-time home buyers fell to 31, and from 2008 to 2010 the typical age has remained at 30.
• Among repeat buyers the story is different.  When many markets became buyer’s markets, current home owners stayed in their homes longer, putting off selling and moving to a different home.  This affected not only tenure in home, but the typical age of repeat buyers.  Repeat buyers increased in age steadily on an annual basis from 41 in 2001 to 49 in 2010. 

The youthful section of this chart seems to dictate that at the very least one should seriously consider hiring a representative sample of younger agents.  In fact the "median" never really tells the story like the average does.  Dig deeper and you find that two-thirds of the first time householders were under age 35 while less than 5 percent of these householders were over age 55.

But here is another thought. Allow me to kick around an idea... What if there is an entirely different model for training the next generation of agents?  What if there is a model where age doesn't matter...where only talent, eagerness, willingness to learn, motivation and execution matter?  I have a 26 year old son who sells in an industry where he is calling on and selling to much older adults.  In addition, one of his 28 year old friends sells business insurance.  Both young men are very successful, selling to much older adults.  The list can go on... Pharmaceutical sales people are usually young and call on doctors, who may be much older. 

Or consider 25 year old Josh Flagg and his young, very successful Realtor buddies who are featured in "Million Dollar Listing" on the Bravo network.  He can't relying solely on circle of influence.

Why does the Real Estate Industry generally ignore this age group?

One of the complaints that has been shared with me regarding hiring younger people is that they have no savings to rely on to get them through the first few months.  The argument is that, "Older adults have more financial stability to get started."  They say, "There isn't a proven track record..."

But, where older adults also have a mortgage, insurance, car payments, kids to support, and expensive habits, young people have little of this, young people can live with their parents or don't mind living in a dump to get by temporarily.  Historically, in most professions outside of real estate, young people have more tolerance for risk, more energy and motivation, fewer fears, and need less security.

These are just thoughts that were stirred up from the discussion.  But I urge you to be thinking about the following:  Is there something about the traditional real estate mentality that seems to miss out on capturing the imagination of this group?  Is there something about the average real estate manager that doesn't appeal to the best and brightest young people?

Here is my usual and customary belief about all industries:  The brightest talent does exist in all age groups.  And when you get them, they'll succeed.  The question is... are you set up to attract and keep them?

---

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.  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.

Attracting Younger Agents: Part 2

In the last edition, titled "Three Timeless Time Management Ideas," you might have noticed that the video was not related to the topic.  I apologize.  Please refer back to WorkPuzzle.com to see the video originally intended.

Now back to today's subject:  Responses to Appealing To Younger Agents, Part 1 (posted a week ago) generated stronger opinions than I've seen from any previous blog entry that I can recall.  All the feedback I've received comes from industry professionals who've witnessed the evolution of the real estate industry, far before I dipped my toe into the mix.  It certainly seems to be a topic of interest and worthy of serious discussion.

The responses seem to be split down the middle.  One group believes that recruiting a younger candidate mix must be taken very seriously, and actively pursued.  The other side makes a credible argument for continuing the way the industry always has...sticking to primarily recruiting and hiring older (38+ yr olds) candidates. 

  Let's first consider the second group.  Here's the well thought out argument: Real estate has traditionally attracted people in their second careers, or individuals whose spouses have a steady income and who already have school-aged children.  This population has garnered a network of friends, has a history of success, and doesn't need as much hand holding to get things moving.  Scott Nelson (CEO of Comey and Shepherd in Cincinnati) referred to this as "..relying on fundamental human behavior rather than embracing a so-called trend too quickly."  Having witnessed the real estate industry first hand since he was a child, he says, "My belief in business is that we can make as many mistakes by moving too slowly to embrace new things as we can by moving too fast."

Additionally, this camp is also concerned about younger people having the financial means to begin a full-commission sales job.  Many believe that the older, more experienced agents, have the means and motivation to work well in the industry.

On the flip side, others believe that hiring younger people should be a top priority in order to fill in the gap that was left when the easy money dried up.  Easy money in the last real estate "up" cycle, they argue, attracted non-committed younger people who weren't really in it to do good work.  The veterans hung in there and as a result the age average shot up as the less effective bailed in droves.

These people believe that younger people are attracted to working in a more mobile way, either from home or from Starbucks, and want to come into an office less often.  Ironically, despite the need for mobility, some in this group believe that younger people like to work in teams and with more reciprocal work, rather than as lone rangers.

Rod Eller of Prudential Carolinas actually introduced us to some of his younger agents (approximately early 30's).  The agents in this cohort, he says, have been some of the most productive since last November.  He says, "It seems the older agents almost packed up shop over the winter.  Most of the production has come from the younger...and newer agents in the last four months." 

Another thoughtful response I received is that, "Younger agents are looking for a blend of the old with the new, and a culture that gives them flexibility and understanding.  They want a manager and company that teaches them how to sell, but shows them that there's no bad way to generate a lead - go ahead and use technology or old fashioned shoe leather - as long as you are generating!"  This person goes on to say, "I found the younger agents are also attracted to stability.  They may be willing to take a risk getting into this business, IF they know that other young agents are finding success in your company ahead of them."

Before I elaborate on my thoughts, let me first describe what has stood out to me most in the above responses:  It is apparent that what counts most is a having a thoughtful and somewhat definite philosophy, and a plan.  Only then can you execute and maintain your position as a dominant player in your market.  If you operate your plan while knowing the trends and carefully weighing all alternatives, you'll probably be in good shape.

I know that I promised you my thoughts about this, but addressing them today will make this blog twice as long as it usually is, so I'll chime in next edition.  Having read the varying opinions, appearing to be sliced down the middle, it's going to take me a few days to digest it all and deliver some independent thoughts.  In the meantime, be sure to write me if you have anything additional to add.  Thanks for your responses - They have been very helpful!

Editor's Note:  A correction was made to the video segment of our previous blog posting.  To revisit the article, please go to http://www.workpuzzle.com/workpuzzle/2011/03/three-timeless-time-management-ideas.html

---

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.  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.