WorkPuzzle

How to spot a Narcissistic Agent...and how they can poison your company

I have probably had more people ask me about narcissism than any other disorder in the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders.  This doesn’t surprise me.  Unlike most other disorders, narcissistic individuals can be very successful, and almost always very charming (when they want to be).

Most questions about this topic come out of pure curiosity, but some inquiries about narcissism come from executives raising concerns over a common dilemma: "This successful person (client, agent, other executive etc) is causing me constant headaches!" 

In lay terms, "narcissism" means an almost total self-absorbtion. These individuals are focused on getting a continual stream of adulation on the one hand, and exhibit a complete lack of emotional vulnerability on the other.  Narcissistic individuals can appear very charming superficially, and are often times (but not always) the life of the party.

The primary focus for them is to be "perfect" in every way in order to be above criticism or critique of any kind.  They don't seek out any depth or attachment in relationships.  Their egos are extremely fragile and to protect themselves, they devalue any input that may reveal flaws.

After seven years of successful therapy with one particular man who had this condition, he told me that he remembers a cheerleader in high school telling him (the star football player), "You are the most conceited person I have ever known," to which he replied: "Conceited?  Me?  No!  Conceit is a flaw; I have no flaws!"

Unfortunately, when untreated, these individuals can ruin the overall reputation and character of a company or office.  Narcissists can behave in ways that may lead other agents to want to sever ties and leave a company to get away from the arrogance. They tend to increase conflict, and lead to political and counterproductive office competition.  Narcissists are likely to withhold information that could benefit everyone, including your customers, in order to get their needs met primarily.

So, regardless of how much market share a narcissist brings to your office, you need to seriously weigh the hidden costs:  How do they impact morale?  How many consumers do they turn off on their way to getting deals done?  How do they represent your company?  Do they act with the values that your company stands for?
 
I’m hesitant to give you a symptom list for Narcissists, but I will offer you just a few tips to consider when coaching, assessing, and training your agents to succeed in their attitudes towards others (From Bob Sutton's "17 things I Believe"):

• One of the best tests of a person's character is how he or she treats those with less power.  Train your agents to treat everyone equally. 
• Most agents are either novices or experts:  Encourage your experts to seek-out novices to help; and your novices to seek out experts whom they can learn from. 
• Encourage good questions rather than encouraging smart answers. 
• Find people who err on the side of optimism and positive energy with others. 
• Avoid pompous jerks whenever possible.  They not only make you feel bad about yourself, chances are that everyone in your office will eventually start acting like 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.

Coaching For Confidence...Revisited

A few years back, I wrote a blog with the above title that became one of our most popular blog entries.  I reviewed it recently in order to address a manager's concern, and realized that a revisit to this important topic may be due.  Some of the information below is from the original blog, but included are new thoughts garnered along the way...

It's no secret that managing and coaching those around us can feel futile if those being coached lack confidence in their ability to succeed.  We've all witnessed talented people lose their spark and confidence, begin to wilt, and eventually begin to drop below performance standards.  Most of the time it feels like we can’t predict who will go which way.  And sometimes we can’t.  But, here are some clues and suggestions...
 
At the time I wrote the article, in 2009, I was watching "American Idol" (OK, I admitted I watched it- and still do) when one of the judges, Simon, who happened to be pretty candid and generally correct, asked a contestant, "Do you think that you can win this?"  Her answer, or lack thereof, proved that she clearly had serious doubts as to whether she could!  And you can guess what happened.  She was soon voted off the show.

Psychologist, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, expert on the subject of confidence explains:

"Confidence consists of positive expectations for favorable outcomes.  Confidence influences the willingness to invest - to commit money, time, reputation, emotional energy, or other resources - or to withhold or hedge investment.  This investment, or its absence, shapes the ability to perform.  In that sense, confidence lies at the heart of civilization.  Everything about an economy, a society, an organization, or a team depend on it.  Every step we take, every investment we make, is based on whether we feel we can count on ourselves and others to accomplish what has been promised.  Confidence determines whether our steps – individually or collectivity – are tiny and tentative or big and bold."  (Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Confidence: Leadership and the Psychology of Turnarounds, 2004)

Recruiting people is only the first stage of an ongoing process.  It's your job as a coach, manager, and/or mentor, to bring out the best in others, and that begins with assessing their confidence.  They have to believe that they can succeed in order to succeed.

This past weekend I caught the last two holes of the British Open.  I witnessed Darren Clarke, the least likely person to win the trophy, do it three strokes ahead of the runners up.  What struck me as I watched him on and off throughout various news stories the entire weekend, is that it appeared like he expected to win all along.

After the win, a commentator said that Clarke had consulted with his sports psychologist before the Open, who told him: “Don’t let your golf game determine your attitude, let your attitude determine your golf game.” 
 
So...what do you do if your agents begin to "lose," or rarely show a sense of confidence?

1. Ask them: "Do you believe that you will succeed?"  If they don't, or if they say yes in a tentative or not believable manner:
2. Then ask them what they believe the outcome will be if they don't really believe they can achieve their goals?  (Even though my graduate courses were over 25 years ago, I can tell you that those who believed they would finish and succeed, did!  Those who didn't have that confidence, failed!)
3. Once you have them talking openly about their uncertainty and its impact on their performance, ask them to remember a time when they did succeed - big time!  Get them to remember their attitude going into the situation.  What was their level of confidence?  Did they expect success?  How did they envision success?
4. And lastly, remind them that their best confidence comes when they aren't taking on important tasks and projects to bolster their ego, rather when they are doing it to contribute to clients, co-workers and society at large.  Only under these conditions can one sustain great performance.  Because when things don't go well, it's not about your ego, it's about your contribution!

And remind them…“Don’t let your sales so far this year determine your attitude, let your attitude determine your sales the remainder of the year!”

---

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.

New Research: Why Do People Leave Their Jobs in Today's Economy?

If you've read WorkPuzzle over the last few months, you probably remember several discussions (1, 2, 3) I've facilitated on the need for real estate companies to look beyond hiring just those agents who are already active/experienced in their industry.

If you're going to spend time and effort looking for candidates outside the industry (commonly called "new to real estate candidates"), it may be helpful to know what all those people  who "have normal jobs" are experiencing.  Thankfully, there are several researchers who study this topic.  

Mercer, a large global human resources firm, recently conducted surveys of more than 30,000 employees from various industries, and discovered that more than 50% of the workforce in the U.S is really unhappy with their employers.  Their findings were published in their What's Working? human resources industry report.  A similar survey was conducted in 2005.  The 2005 data serves as a benchmark for the findings this year.   

So, what's changed in the last six years?  There are four strong theme's that have emerged in the data.  These themes were recently identified and documented by recruiting expert Kevin Wheeler in a recent Electronic Recruiting Exchange forum.  Here are some of Kevin's observations:

"While money and benefits are not the primary reason people leave their employers in normal times, these times are very different.

This recession has lingered longer than most and is impacting a generation of workers who have not suffered much from recessions in the past.  Their tolerance is different, and so are their expectations.

Today I think there are four primary drivers of these rather frightening statistics.  And these same reasons will eventually drive away the new people you recruit as well, unless you are candid and realistic right up front with the candidates."

1.  It's About the Money.  

"For many employees it has been a long time since they have gotten much in the way of a pay increase.  The recession is often used as a reason for not granting reasonable increases, and managers have been more focused on performance — or lack of performance, as a way to hold down these increases.

Yet, employees see their organizations making good profits and in some cases even record profits.  Corporate coffers are flush with cash, yet this has not translated into significant pay increases.  At the same time, option grants have shrunk due to changes in how they are taxed, giving some employees even less reason to stay.  Employees perceive an unfairness in how they are paid compared to how firms are profiting."

2.  It's About Being Overworked.

"Second, and not completely separated from pay, is the amount of work that is being asked of employees.  Many people I speak with are really doing what two or more would have done prior to this recession.  Managers have asked for more and gotten it as employees fear there are few other jobs.

Yet the perception about jobs is changing, and many are starting to make a move if for no other reason than to lessen their workload or find a more flexible employer."

3.  It's About Flexibility and Respect.

"A third growing issue is the attitude younger workers, especially those in the Gen Y category, have about work.  They feel their personal freedom is threatened by restrictive social media polices.  And they are unhappy with the unwillingness of many firms to allow flexible working hours.

They are also inclined to want open, authentic cultures and this recession has caused firms to tighten up communications, keep more secrets, and allow much less open discussion.  This is all negative to the younger folks who will seek out more open and flexible environments."

4. It's About Lack of Training and Development.

"A fourth element is lack of development.  Many surveys have pointed out that Gen Y in particular, but all of us at some time, want to take on new responsibilities and learn new skills.  During the recession organizations cut back on training and limited development opportunities.

In some cases when development was available no one could take advantage oif it because of high-demand work requirements that left no time available.  This has resulted in frustrated and bored employees who are looking for a change."

I would recommend that you work these four themes into every candidate interview you conduct.  Ask open-ended questions that are directed at uncovering the pain that the candidate is experiencing in their current employment situation.  The pain will not be hard to find if you poke around on the topics listed above.

Remember, until this pain is identified and felt by the candidate, they will not be able to "hear" how a career in the real estate industry could alleviate that pain.

---

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.

What Summer Camp Can Teach You About Coaching New Agents

Earlier this year, one of my teenage sons had the idea of hosting a “bluegrass music camp” for kids this summer.  His older brother had attended a high school debate camp the previous year, and the college kids hosting that camp made it look pretty easy.  A budding entrepreneur was starting to spread his wings.

As some of you know, several of my children are pretty good bluegrass musicians.  To staff the camp, he recruited his brothers and a couple of his bluegrass friends.  He quickly had the staff necessary to pull this off.

Next, we put his mind to building a website for the event and a registration process, and finally securing a location for the camp.  He even started to promote the website through other adults in his network.  In April, things were looking great and hopes were high.  I even saw an email or two between his buddys, regarding “how much money they were going to make.”

Then reality set in.  Although he generated more than 1,000 unique visits to his website, the registrations were slow in coming.  As the weeks ticked by, it became apparent that he was not going to have enough kids registered to hold the camp.  Last week, he had to notify his instructors that the camp was cancelled.

As I contemplated how to turn this event into a learning experience, I ran across an article in this week’s issue of BusinessWeek.  The article highlights the growth and success of businesses that offer summer camps to kids.  The author tells the story of Andy Wexler, a summer camp entrepreneur who started a successful camp business:

“Andy Wexler didn’t much enjoy his own childhood camp experience. The only part he liked was going on field trips.  That’s why, as a 19-year-old junior at the University of California at Los Angeles in 1990, he borrowed $1,000 to start his own camp based entirely on daily excursions to Disney Land, Magic Mountain, karate studios, and more.  'I thought it would be a fun thing to do, so I got a list of kids and called them up,' says Wexler.  'I probably did about 1,000 telephone calls and convinced 25 parents to send me their kids.'

Within five years, his Southern California-based enterprise grew to more than 500 campers, and had revenues of more than $1 million for an 11-week season.  Today, Wexler’s idea has evolved into Pali Overnight Adventures, a 74-acre camp complex offering 9-to-16-year-old attendees 16 areas of concentration ranging from Secret Agent sessions, where kids do things like soar down ziplines while firing paintball guns, to Hollywood Stunt Camp, where campers learn to jump from a two-story building, to a Culinary Institute where they receive instruction from professional chefs.  Wexler’s camps cost almost $1,700 per week, as compared to, say, Camp Marston, a 90-year-old YMCA camp near San Diego, which costs $535 for six days.  Pali’s revenue has averaged 10 percent growth annually over the past decade and rose 39 percent this year:  'If we have a day where we make under $25,000, we’re in trouble,' he says.”

This is a nice little business that Mr. Wexler has put together.  If my math is right, he’s generating over $3M in revenue during his 11-week season.  He’s also experiencing nearly 40% growth this year.  How many mature businesses (he’s been in business over 20 years) are experiencing this kind of growth in today’s economic environment?

Similarly, my son had a great idea and picked an industry experiencing exciting growth.  So, what went wrong?  I suspect it is the same thing that goes wrong with new agents who are starting their businesses in the real estate industry today:  He was unwilling to do a sufficient level of prospecting to get his new venture off the ground.

Notice what Andy Wexler had to do to get his first 25 campers:  He made 1,000 phone calls!  My son did not make 1,000 phone calls.  And, subsequently, he did not fill his camp with 25 students.  

What’s the lesson?  It takes a huge amount of focused effort, determination, perseverance, and tenacity to get something new off the ground.  Of course, the payoff for this effort can be quite substantial.  Notice that Andy Wexler’s company grew from 25 campers the first year, to more than 500 campers by the fifth year.  Once he made the huge effort of getting the ball rolling, growth likely came more quickly and easily than he originally expected.

This has been a great learning experience for my son...and it serves as good advice for the new young agents that you’re bringing into the real estate industry during these difficult times. 

---

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

The Benefits of Discipline and Consistency

Do you hold yourself and your team to practicing discipline and consistency with regard to daily tasks?  Or, do you operate your work life passively and in a reactive manner, responding to whatever is thrown in front of you?  Over the last couple weeks, I have had reason to reflect on this question for myself, our company, and my marriage.

This reflection began when I read a blog titled "Why I Hope to Die Empty," by Todd Henry.  It got me thinking about the importance of not wasting our days on frivolous undertakings, but instead making use of our talents consistently and completely, until the day we die.

My initial reaction was one of exhaustion.  To many of us, this call to "empty ourselves," can sound like we're being asked to run a marathon, plus wind sprints, every day without any rest.  That sounds hard, doesn't it?  As a result, I attempted to ignore the content of this blog at first, however, it continued to relentlessly pester me.  I had several interactions throughout the last few weeks that forced me to consider this concept again and again.  The final straw came when the pastor of our church preached on the "Parable of the Ten Minas."  This parable centers around the importance of using our talents and resources for purposeful and responsible growth.

At that point, I realized that I could no longer ignore this important message.  I began to consider, once again, how I could be graded along the continuum when it comes to using my talents and resources well.  As usual, there were places I could be graded well, and other places...not so well.  However, what fascinated me much more than the tally of pluses and minuses were the reasons for my successes.  I demonstrated tremendous growth where my talents and resources were well invested.

As it turns out, and only upon weeks of reflection,  I realized that the  "A grades" in my life have not come from the home runs, the one time discoveries, or any presentation I've ever delivered.  Instead, they've consistently shown up as a result of getting on base every day...the bunts, the bloopers, and the infield singles.  Whether it has been in my education, my marriage, therapy with my patients, writing the blog, executing our business well, or interacting with others -- it's the small proactive activities, executed with discipline and consistency that have produced almost all of the growth in myself and others involved in those tasks.  Each activity, each day, in and of itself, never felt like I was doing anything that spectacular.  Most of it felt rather mundane and ho-hum.

I don't want you to get the idea that I have done anything heroic at all...or that I haven't made plenty of mistakes or wasted precious resources of talent, treasure, and time.  I have!  But, I'm beginning to see that the ho-hum, do-the-right-thing, plan-and-execute-tasks-proactively lifestyle... IS Heroic.  In looking at what has driven the truest, most sustainable impact, it's only been through years of doing what seems like the "mundane" right thing, that the lives of patients have changed, neighbors have confided in me, young couples have been mentored, companies have trusted us, and friendships have been built.

Not all of the above activities came with great willingness on my part either.  Ben Hess (Business Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, and now friend) ultimately had to convince me that jointly writing this blog twice weekly, would be time well spent for, not only our business partners, but for us and our own learning.  I resisted, thinking that it would be time we could be spending on other tasks (this is called lazy).  Ben couldn't have been more accurate in his recommendation.

So I urge you to ask your self these questions:

"What small steps am I taking consistently and proactively that have an impact on the growth of my business, the business of others, and the lives of others?"

"Am I spending the majority of my life reacting to circumstances of business and life without consistent, disciplined action?"  If so, "What talents am I ignoring by doing that?"

"What proactive tasks can I add to my schedule that will SLOWLY add value to the business, others, and my own learning?"

"What tasks are already right under my nose- right now- that I am actively avoiding?"

This should keep you busy for awhile...

 

---

 

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.

Waiting for Superman: Reinforces Principles of Management and Sales

If you haven’t already seen it, I want to highly recommend you watch the critically acclaimed documentary called Waiting for Superman.  Directed by Davis Guggenheim, Waiting for Superman, received the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival, as well as Best Documentary Feature at the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards.

Documentary filmmaker, Davis Guggenheim, explores the tragic ways in which the American public education system is failing our nation's children, and explores the principle differences between “dropout factory” public schools and some charter schools, many of which are in some of the worst neighborhoods.

On the public school side, dreadful statistics are presented in a series of animated episodes. He chronicles decades of diminishing national reading and math scores, America’s low standing when compared with other countries, the high dropout rate in urban public high schools, the tenure system (guaranteed by union contract), and the fact that it is against union rules to pay excellent teachers a higher wage than inferior ones.  Apparently, many public school principals rotate lousy teachers within a district, in pessimistic shuffles known as the Dance of the Lemons, the Turkey Trot, and Pass the Trash.

On the flip side, despite receiving public funds (as well as much private support), charter schools can hire non-union teachers and adopt their own curriculum and standards.  In these environments, they can hire and fire at will, reward good teaching, hold longer school days, and exercise high expectations.  What a concept!

What does this have to do with real estate?

I did some additional research and came upon an article, by Ellen Galinsky, who had personally spent time interviewing some of the best education innovators.  In this article, you will readily find principles that relate to the best managers and agents in real estate.  Here is some of what she has to say:

“About a year ago, I spent time interviewing and filming Geoffrey Canada and his staff at the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) for Mind in the Making.  Since Canada is one of the 'stars' of Waiting for Superman (as he deserves to be), I feel compelled to share my observations from that visit as a brief glimpse of what it will take to fix education.

 

To foster good teaching—it takes an adult learning environment where there is accountability: When I visited the HCZ, Canada told me that they look for teachers with a 'no excuses' attitude:  Everybody who comes in to work for me promises me they know these kids are poor and the families have problems.  However, Canada finds that if a teacher isn’t doing well, he or she is likely to begin blaming the difficulties in these children's home lives.  Canada says to these teachers:

'You knew [the realities of these children’s lives] when you took the job—you said you understood that was the deal—now you’re making excuses.'  If you allow people to make excuses, it becomes the kid’s fault, the parent’s fault, the community’s fault...versus those of us who are getting paid!  That said, the teachers at HCZ have a great deal of support for improving, including opportunities to learn more about children’s learning and teaching from other more experienced teachers, from specialists, and from colleges and universities which they are encouraged to attend.  I had the strong impression that HCZ was a learning community, where everyone, at every level, including Canada, was trying to learn more.  And that learning environment has become contagious, spilling over onto the children.

To foster good learning environments for the children, there needs to be high expectations and accountability, but mistakes are seen as part of the process of learning.  In its brochure, Canada describes the ultimate goal of HCZ: 'getting our kids into and through college.'  HCZ makes sure that this goal is visible and reinforced daily.  For example, in the Promise Academy elementary program I observed, the children line up in the hallway every morning and state this goal as their creed.  Canada says:
 If kids are saying their creed, 'I will go to college; I will succeed,'
if their parents are thinking that, if the teachers are thinking that, then you’ve got thirty percent of the work done.  In the HCZ, the children are expected to develop a good work ethic, put many hours into school, and to understand that there are times when learning won’t be fun.  The staff also know that it is impossible for children to succeed all of the time, which is why I like the rating system used there—not A, B, C, D, and F but 1 to 4, where 1 is an 'oops.'  The superintendent of HCZ, Daryl Rock describes their philosophy:  We give [children] the freedom to make mistakes.  We teach our kids that failure is not a way of labeling who you are—it’s just a way of identifying what you don’t know and what you need to put more effort into.  When kids understand that, they’re not hesitant about trying something, because if they fail, it’s not a reflection on them.  That just tells them:  'This is an area we need to work on.'  To put this in another way, the children aren’t just learning content, they are learning life skills, including how to take on challenges.”

Which attitudes are you and your company adopting toward productivity?
 
Furthermore, if you’ve been searching for a worthy cause for individual volunteering or better yet, to rally your office/company around, you might want to visit the Waiting for Superman website for action opportunities.  This could be what you’ve been waiting for...

---

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.

Is Searching For Stars Worth the Price? Part 2

Hopefully, you had the opportunity to read the blog that Dave highlighted earlier this week.  At the end of his posting, you may have noticed he referenced a “Part 2” to Bill Taylor’s original essay.  I found the follow-up article even more helpful than the original.  There is something about having to defend your ideas under hostile fire that causes the cream to rise to the top.    

Since digesting both articles amounts to a lot of reading, I thought it might be helpful to summarize a few of the main points and relate the specific ideas to the real estate industry.

1.   The “smart” take from the “strong.”  Traditionally, the strong take from the weak.  This is particularly true in the real estate industry.  If you’re fortunate enough to have a strong brand or even a multi-generational track record of success, you’ve probably been able to leverage that strength to defeat weak competitors and keep new opponents from gaining traction.  

Will this trend continue?  Not if real estate follows the pattern that has emerged in many other industries.  Bill puts it this way :

“... the great sweep of business and innovation has increased the power of the individual and the small team over the lumbering herd.”

Lumbering herds take notice.  There are some small, nimble teams and individuals who want what you have.

2.  Some companies believe in “stars” because they don’t believe in “systems.”  Bill references an article written by Malcom Gladwell in 2002 called The Talent Myth to make his point.

“The problem with this star-studded approach is the assumption that an organization's intelligence is simply a function of the intelligence of its employees.  [Some companies] believe in stars, because they don't believe in systems.  In a way, that's understandable, because our lives are so obviously enriched by individual brilliance.  Groups don't write great novels, and a committee didn't come up with the theory of relativity.

But companies work by different rules.  They don't just create; they execute and compete and coordinate the efforts of many different people, and the organizations that are most successful at that task are the ones where the system is the star."

With regard to real estate... Looking ahead, those companies that are able to make “the system the star” will have a distinct advantage over those which continue to depend upon the talent of individual contributors.

3.  Follow IBM’s example.  Just because a company is large and prominent, does not mean they’re destined for failure (or success).  IBM has lasted for more than 100 years because it has recreated itself as technology, culture, and business has changed again and again.

“It's worth noting that the debate over this post takes place during IBM's centennial celebration.  Now, I'm excited by the rise of Facebook, the IPO of LinkedIn, and all the latest successes from the startup world.  It's great stuff.  But for IBM to celebrate its 100th anniversary as a company, to remain, despite wave after wave of disruptive technological change, as a world-shaping force for solving big problems and making a big difference — that's truly something to admire.

IBM has stayed in the game for a century because it understands that groups are as important as individuals…  [As young IBM employees] report for duty, they get immersed in a system that emphasizes group cohesion over me-first individual achievement.  Great companies, great organizations of all kinds, are about how everyone works together as well as how each person does his or her work.  Winning [companies] are more than just a collection of talented individuals.”

Many of Tidemark’s clients are the most successful and prominent real estate companies in the country (some of these companies are even older than IBM).  And many of these companies are in the midst of a profound struggle to recreate themselves in the face of changing marketing conditions, new technologies, and high-energy competitors.

Don’t give up the fight to make this transition.  Become, once again, the IBM of your community...

---

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.

Is Searching for Stars Worth the Price?

Earlier this month I began to follow some controversy around a blog written by Bill Taylor (founder of FastCompany) for Harvard Business Review called Great People are Overated. 

While I agree with what he had to say, many did not.  In fact, those who didn't agree, spoke their opinions in hostile form.  So, I'd be interested in what you all have to say.  The real estate industry is an interesting arena to hold this debate, as we are all too familiar with a percentage of "star" agents who have the tendency to occasionally wield their power.  What price to the company, company values, and a sense of team work, do we actually sacrifice?

I was especially drawn to his quote, "Great teams, great companies, great organizations of all kinds are as much about character as credentials..."  I truly believe that this is the way it's supposed to be.

Here is the blog in its entirety:

"Last month, in an article in the New York Times on the ever-escalating 'war for talent' in Silicon Valley, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a passing comment that has become the entrepreneurial equivalent of a verbal tick — something that's said all the time, almost without thinking.

'Someone who is exceptional in their role is not just a little better than someone who is pretty good,' he argued when asked why he was willing to pay $47 million to acquire FriendFeed, a price that translated to about $4 million per employee...'They are 100 times better.'

Zuckerberg's casual calculation reminded me of a conversation with Marc Andreessen, the legendary co-founder of Netscape, and now one of Silicon Valley's most high-profile venture capitalists.  'The gap between what a highly productive person can do and what an average person can do is getting bigger and bigger,' he told Polly LaBarre and me for our book, Mavericks at Work. 'Five great programmers can completely outperform 1,000 mediocre programmers.'

Now, I admire what Mark Zuckerberg has built, and I consider Marc Andreessen without peer as an entrepreneur and a thinker, but do we take seriously what these two Silicon Valley giants claim about talent?

If you are building a company, would you prefer one standout person over one hundred pretty good people?

If you were launching a technology or developing a product, would you rather have five great engineers rather than 1,000 average engineers?

Have we become so culturally invested in the allure of the Free Agent, the lone wolf, the techno-rebel with a cause, that we are prepared to shower millions of dollars (maybe tens of millions) on a small number of superstars rather than a well-assembled team that may not dazzle with individual brilliance, but overwhelms with collective capability?

Isn't that what we see time and again with athletic competition, perhaps the closest thing we have these days to the frenzied competition in Silicon Valley? I spent Father's Day at Fenway Park, as the Red Sox hosted the Stanley Cup champion Boston Bruins to celebrate their victory.  Nobody would suggest the Bruins had the best individual players in the NHL — throughout the year, the stars of the Vancouver Canucks shone much more brightly.  But it was the Bruins' work as a team, a collective show of commitment and determination, that won the day.  And what won on the ice won on the hardwood as well — LeBron James vs. the Dallas Mavericks, anyone?...

Yes, a big part of the transformation of business over the last 20 years has been a pendulum swing in the logic of success.  The strong no longer take from the weak; the smart take from the strong.  From an organizational and competitive standpoint, raw power, brand incumbency, and sheer size, have lost their luster as sources of success.

But it's possible for the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction.  The latest trend in Silicon Valley, and the subject of the New York Times article in which Mark Zuckerberg explained his talent calculus, is called 'acqhiring' — shelling out big bucks to acquire a company, not to buy a product or a piece of technology, but to hire a few (or even one) software programmer or engineer who will arrive at the acquiring company and make a huge impact.  Facebook, according to the Times, is the pioneer of this new phenomenon, acquiring a slew of companies, killing their products, but keeping their developers.

Star-gazing entrepreneurs who are reluctant to look to sports for lessons in the limits of individual talent might instead look to Wall Street, and the research of Harvard Business School professor Boris Groysberg, captured in Chasing Stars.

Here's how Groysberg's publisher distills his insights:  'After examining the careers of more than 1,000 star analysts at Wall Street investment banks, and conducting more than two hundred frank interviews, Groysberg comes to a striking conclusion:  star analysts who change firms suffer an immediate and lasting decline in performance.  Their earlier excellence appears to have depended heavily on their former firms' general and proprietary resources, organizational cultures, networks, and colleagues.  There are a few exceptions, such as stars that move with their teams and stars that switch to better firms.  Female stars also perform better after changing jobs than their male counterparts do.  But most stars who switch firms turn out to be meteors, quickly losing luster in their new settings.'

I'm certainly not suggesting that leaders who are growing companies or building teams should settle for mediocrity.  But I am suggesting that there is more to long-term performance than the excellence of your individual players.  Great teams, great companies, great organizations of all kinds are as much about character as credentials, about what makes people tick as much as what they know.  Most of business life isn't really a choice between one great person and 100 pretty good people, but if that is the choice, I'm not sure I'd make the same choice as Mark Zuckerberg — especially if those 100 pretty good people work great as a team."

If you want to read Part II of this article here is the link:  http://blogs.hbr.org/taylor/2011/06/great_people_are_overrated_par.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.