WorkPuzzle

The 25 Weirdest Interview Questions

How about some light reading today?

Since one of our secondary goals is to help managers interview candidates better, I thought I'd share what I highly recommend you NOT do during interviews:  Ask ridiculous questions! Ironically, this is exactly what some of the most prestigious companies do.  But, keep in mind...they can get away with it!  Candidates are lining up to get into some of these companies, which are arrogant enough to ask some pretty strange questions.  It's almost seen as an initiation or hazing.

I found these questions on a site developed by a company called Glass Door.  This company helps job candidates take a peek into their prospective employer's interview process through the help of past interviewees posting their interview questions on the site.

Here are some of the strangest interview questions encountered over the last year:

1. If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?
2. How many ridges are there around a quarter? (Reportedly from Deloitte)
3. What is the philosophy of martial arts? (A spokesperson for Aflac, where this question was used, says she hopes the candidate quoted Kwai Chang Caine from the 1970s TV show Kung Fu: “I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions.”)
4. Explain to me what has happened in this country during the last ten years. (Reportedly from Boston Consulting)
5. Rate yourself on a scale of one to ten...how weird are you? (Reportedly from Capital One)
6. How many basketballs can you fit in this room? (Reportedly from Google)
7. Out of 25 horses, pick the fastest three horses.  In each race, only five horses can run at the same time.  What is the minimum number of races required? (Reportedly from Bloomberg LP)
8. If you could be any superhero, who would it be? (Reportedly from AT&T)
9. You have a birthday cake and have exactly three slices to cut it into eight equal pieces, how do you do it? (Reportedly from Blackrock Portfolio Management)
10. Given the numbers 1 to 1000, what is the minimum number of guesses needed to find a specific number if you are given the hint “higher” or “lower” for each guess you make? (Reportedly from Facebook)
11. If you had 5,623 participants in a tournament, how many games would need to be played to determine the winner? (Reportedly from Amazon)
12. An apple costs 20 cents, an orange costs 40 cents, and a grapefruit costs 60 cents.  How much is a pear? (Reportedly from Epic Systems)
13. There are three boxes: One contains only apples, one contains only oranges, and one contains both apples and oranges.  The boxes have been incorrectly labeled such that no label identifies the actual contents of its box.  Opening just one box, and without looking in the box, you take out one piece of fruit.  By looking at the fruit, how can you immediately label all of the boxes correctly? (Reportedly from Apple)
14. How many traffic lights are in Manhattan? (Reportedly from Argus Information and Advisory Services)
15. You are in a dark room with no light.  You have 19 gray socks and 25 black socks.  What are the chances you will get a matching pair? (Reportedly from Convergex)
16. What do wood and alcohol have in common? (Reportedly from Guardsmark)
17. How do you weigh an elephant without using a weighing machine? (Reportedly from IBM)
18. You have eight pennies.  Seven weigh the same, but one weighs less.  You also have a judge's scale.  Find the penny that weighs less in three steps. (Reportedly from Intel)
19. Why do you think only a small portion of the population makes over $150,000? (Reportedly from New York Life)
20. You are in charge of 20 people.  Organize them to figure out how many bicycles were sold in your area last year. (Reportedly from Schlumberger)
21. How many bottles of beer are [consumed] in the city [in a] week? (Reportedly from Nielsen)
22. What’s the square root of 2000? (Reportedly from UBS)
23. A train leaves San Antonio for Houston at 60 mph.  Another train leaves Houston for San Antonio at 80 mph.  Houston and San Antonio are 300 miles apart.  If a bird leaves San Antonio at 100 mph, and turns around and flies back once it reaches the Houston train, and continues to fly between the two, how far will it have flown when they collide? (Reportedly from USAA)
24. How are M&Ms made? (Reportedly from US Bank)
25. What would you do if you just inherited a pizzeria from your Uncle? (This question comes from Volkswagen)

How did you do? In the next edition, I'll share the answers to some of these questions.

---

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.

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.

The Positive Brain and Productivity

I know you were expecting a follow up article from Ben regarding his last blog on Experienced Agent Recruiting.  Ben is out of town and will pick up where he left off in the next WorkPuzzle edition.  But, on an unrelated note...   

I’ve never cared very much for books like, “The Power of Positive Thinking," or motivational speakers like Tony Robbins.  I’m one of those guys who get a bit nauseous if a speaker asks the audience to perform some sort of goofy exercise to brighten our day.  Maybe it’s my scientific background that makes me question the motives of people who are trying to sell happiness. 
 
However, as you have probably gathered if you’ve been reading WorkPuzzle for very long, Ben and I occasionally supply you with hard research evidence regarding happiness, positive emotion, and success that should be made mandatory learning for anyone who manages people.  Research over the last 15 years has mushroomed on the topic, and has supplied empirical evidence that should compel you to make a point of knowing, applying, and teaching about the this important link between happiness and success.

The latest summary of the research by Shawn Achor, a former Harvard psychology professor and author of The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology that Fuel Success and Performance at Work (Crown Business 2010) is a worthwhile, empirically grounded read.

Here he says what we all have witnessed: "You can take individuals of equal levels of intelligence, and you find there's dramatic variance in their success rates."  If career success isn't primarily a function of intelligence, then what causes it?  According to the evidence, Achor points to optimism, social support and whether we view stress as an opportunity or a threat.

The evidence is clear that, “Our brains are designed to work much better when they are in a positive state as opposed to a negative or neutral one," says Achor.  "We find that when people are positive, it raises their productivity rate by 31 percent compared to when they're in a negative state of mind.  Sales people sell 37 percent more than their negative counterparts.  We know that doctors, when they're positive, perform diagnoses 19 percent more accurately."

There is a neurotransmitter called dopamine (related to pleasure) that is released in the brain when we’re in a positive state of mind.  Furthermore, scientists have found that the brain can access all kinds of creativity, activate learning centers, and provide motivational energy when dopamine is naturally released in the positive state.  As a result, positive brains see more possibilities, and productivity rises.

Does your office create positive states of mind?  Are you mindful of working to keep your team positive, regardless of current stressors? The best leaders in history have had an uncanny way of providing this model and a path for those around them to experience the same.  It’s a worthy goal.

---

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.

Experienced Agent Recruiting: Turning a Failure Into a Success

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

---

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

How Real Estate Agents Helped to Bring Down Osama Bin Laden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full BusinessWeek article. 

---

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

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.

How to Create Change: Part 2

In the first edition of this series, 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" in last week's edition).
 
Research tells us that in order to achieve lasting change, the Elephant and Rider need to unite.  Lastly, you must provide a clear PATH.  In this edition I'll provide for you some examples of motivating the elephant.

MOTIVATING THE ELEPHANT -- The following are techniques that can help you tap into a person's emotional side (Elephant), which can spark actions that will lead to lasting change.

Find the Feeling.  Most of you can relate to the necessity of "feeling" the need to change in order to provide the rocket fuel and begin the necessary work to actually make the change happen.  I can personally remember, while in graduate school class, a guest lecturer spontaneously changing his topic from whatever practical, cerebral lesson he was sent there to instruct...to telling my class: "What you're learning here is less important than how badly you want to be good at what you do."  He continued, "And furthermore, how good you are, will determine EVERYTHING... Your reputation, where you work, how much you make, your options in life, and most importantly, the satisfaction you will gain from a life well-lived."  I can vividly remember him stating that, "Mediocrity will get you nowhere."  After hearing this, I took a long walk and introspected more deeply than I had in a long time.  Those words motivated the Elephant in me, and gave the Rider (my brain) the energy needed to alter my behavior (not only "getting through" school but excelling) and sustain my tenacity for a long time.  It's not that the pure content lectures were unimportant, but this one altered something deep and enduring inside me. 

Shrink the Change.  In the book, the authors speak of a car wash that ran a promotion using loyalty cards.  They tested two variations of customer cards to see which worked the best.  One card was an 8-stamp card, earning a free car wash when the card is filled.  Another card was a 10-stamp card, but already had 2 stamps completed, advancing them 20% toward their goal, but, in reality had the same amount required.  Several months later, only 19% of the customers given the empty 8 stamp card had received a free car wash, in contrast to 34% of the head-start group.  The authors state that this type of behavior is found in multiple studies.  In other words, people find it more motivating to be partially finished with a long-term goal than to be at the starting gate of a shorter one. How could you motivate your agents or managers to achieve a long-term goal by highlighting what's already been accomplished toward its completion?  To motivate an uninspired Elephant, shrink the change.

Grow Your People.  Change is very difficult if people believe that they can't change, or that they don't have any influence.  In past blog editions, I've written about the "Growth Mindset," an empirically verified set of facts that will determine the percentage of people who will thrive in your organization.  The Heath brothers list several examples to further the power of believing that people can grow and change.  Here's just one example: 
 
In 1977 the St. Lucia parrot faced extinction.  Despite laws and several "carrot and stick" attempts to change the fact that Island natives undervalued the bird, nothing changed.  Some even continued to eat the bird as a delicacy, while others turned their backs.  All analytical cases for protecting the bird had failed.  So instead, the government implemented an emotional appeal.  To do this they set out to convince St. Lucians that they were the kind of people who protected their own (there is much research confirming that people will live up to a collective belief system about "who" they are).  They did this by making the public assumption that St. Lucians swell with pride over their exclusive Island parrot.  The Parrot Campaign included T-shirts, bumper stickers and locally recorded songs about the Island's pride around their parrot.  In fact, the bird became part of the natives' national identity and it was constantly being compared to other "uglier" national birds, including our own Bald Eagle.  Stories published in 2008 noted that St. Lucians had not been caught shooting the parrot for the past fifteen years, resurrecting the species from extinction.

How can you find the feeling, shrink the change, and grow your people to accomplish the "impossible?"
I am very excited for the next edition...the final piece of change -- Clarifying the Path.

---

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.

How to Create Change

How many times have you thrown up your hands, as a manager, parent, or business owner, and said "I give up.. I've tried everything and there is no way I can change this culture... or this pattern of behaviors?"  We have all, at some point, hit major road blocks in our quest to find ways to implement lasting change.

As a practicing Clinical Psychologist, I could point you to a large library of books about how to create change, written in thickly worded scientific language...but rarely have I seen a book written in layman's language that breaks down the process and elements of change effectively.

I am nearing the end of a such a book.  This well-constructed read by the Heath brothers is titled, "Switch: How To Change Things When Change Is Hard."  It's one of those books I wish I had thought of writing (although I wouldn't have done nearly as good a job). 

What they do, and do well, is manage to break down much of the information about the major elements of change, including how to create change, all presented in a concise book that's a joy to read.  The brothers liberally borrow their basic analogy regarding the elements of change from Psychologist and researcher, Dr. Jonathan Haidt.  The premise is that change involves two parts of the whole person that we are all familiar with -- A person's emotional side, as well as their rational side ("the brain").

And to create change you must impact both.  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.  Research tells us that in order to make lasting change, the Elephant and Rider need to unite.

The last element is "The Path," or a VERY clear direction.

Over the next three editions, I'll share with you examples of appropriate uses of the following options:

   1. Directing the Rider - Analytical, Rational thinking 
   2. Motivating the Elephant - Appealing to Emotion and instinct
   3. Shaping the Path - Providing clear Direction

1. Direct the Rider:

Finding the Bright Spots.  In 1990, an international organization that helps needy children accepted a Vietnamese government invitation to decrease malnutrition.  They were given only six months to make a difference.  This short timeline made it impossible to end poverty, to purify water, or to build a sanitation system to address starvation.  They had to find a simpler solution and find it fast.  Most of us would waste precious time focusing on looking at, and even trying to magnify the problem.  This organization didn't.  Instead they traveled to a rural village and met with mothers whose children were thriving.  They were obsessed with finding the "Bright Spots."  Despite widespread malnutrition, they found them.  They discovered that "bright spot" moms fed their children four times a day (easier on kids' digestive systems), vs. the standard two meals.  Another finding was that bright spot moms added shrimp and crab from the rice paddies into their kids' meals.  Cooking classes where bright spot moms taught other mothers how to prepare healthy meals for their children ensued.  The mothers already had the emotional motivation (Elephant) in the form of their natural concern for their kids.  They needed direction (The Rider needed a Path), not motivation.  Six months later, 65 percent of the village kids were better nourished and stayed that way.

How often have you set out to find exactly what your best agents and managers do right...not just generally, but as specifically as possible?  How do they organize their days?  How many calls and emails do they make and to whom do they make them?  Figure out the detailed formula utilized by the best of the best, and then deduce the common denominators.

Point to the Destination.  In the mid 1980s, a major investment firm's research department ranked an embarrassing fifteenth among their banking clients.  This coincided with the hiring of a new GM, labeled "The Company Coach."  After discovering that the analysts of the company had become isolated from clients and each other, holding onto knowledge rather than sharing information and credit, he set the expectation for all analysts to initiate at least 125 client conversations per month.  In addition, he required analysts to cite colleagues' work at least twice during presentations, thus promoting a team environment.  He told everyone that he expected the firm to be among the premiere investment magazine's top five.  He directed the rider by laying out clear expectations (make 125 calls and cite colleagues work), and he also painted the destination.  In three years, the firm went from fifteenth to first place.

We have several clients who have done something similar to the above examples with regard to addressing goals around recruiting expectations.  Is it possible for you to be even more enticing with a clearer, more compelling goal?  Can you be precise about your exact expectations?  Instead of saying, "Make more recruiting calls,"...say, "Make X number of calls and X number of appointments per week."

 In the next edition, I'll discuss ideas around Motivating the Elephant.

---

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.

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

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

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

Getting Things Done System / David Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Energy Project / Tony Schwartz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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