WorkPuzzle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the general principles that each author teaches?  

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Are You Looking Forward to the Weekend?

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

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

Make the Weekend Last All Week

-Written by Ron Ashkenas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Three Steps To Becoming A Better Manager

In the previous edition, I shared a true story that many of you found quite alarming.  In closing, I promised to next provide a no-nonsense path to becoming a better manager.  After all, becoming a true leader takes work - It doesn't happen accidentally.  It occurs mindfully and intentionally for most...and although it may appear to come naturally and accidentally for a few, it really doesn't.  Everyone has to work at it.  Research shows that it takes 10,000 hours of doing a task well to become an expert at it.  Management is no different.

To catch up, please take a moment to read the last posting if you haven't already.  In summary the question was posed:  If you were suddenly thrown into a position of having to count on a TRUE following - not an appointed following- would there be anyone following you?

If you're not quite sure, there is good news... By following a simple set of steps, you can begin to slowly build the behavior of a good leader. Here are a few of the essentials:

1. Find a mentor.  If you want to become a leader, it's imperative that you learn from a leader.  Don't put this off.  Assign yourself the task of finding someone now.  And don't just find someone who's getting the job done - Find someone who's hitting it out of the park.  Every time you are with this person, have a list of good questions, and ask them.  What are their habits?  What are their top priorities?  What they may see as second nature, you might find revolutionary.  Make their habits yours.
2. Listen to people and meet their needs.  Great leaders know what their people want and help them fulfill their goals.  They know what motivates each individual, what scares each individual, and ultimately what each person dreams of.  If you're simply fulfilling your role in order to exploit the talents and performance of the people you are leading, they'll smell it a mile a way.  Agents, whether you're recruiting them or motivating them to perform, are not objects to exploit, they are people to help.  And when they feel helped by you and inspired by you, they'll return the favor.  Make this a central focus every day.  Scott Nelson, owner of Comey and Shepherd in Cincinnati, sets a great standard:  "Our managers are required to 're-recruit' their own agents, at least one per week, and take them off-site to lunch or coffee.  I do the same thing, and usually have two or three such lunches per week.  I engage 125-150 agents per year, and it makes a big difference.  I also go to a branch sales meeting each week and keep in touch personally with email."
3. Coaching is Key.  What is the bottom line?  It's this:  If your agents don't perform well, you don't perform well.  Just like when a college basketball coach doesn't coach well, the team doesn't perform well.  There is a reason that most successful sports coaches develop slowly from coaching at the high school level--to college assistant--to head coach... They must gradually learn the skills of training and motivating a team to greatness.  Even the most talented young athletes who are recruited from across the country require consistent practice, direction, and motivation.  Learn how to build performance, and you'll always have a job.

Don't get in a habit of blaming poor performance on other variables--like for instance, "They're lazy or stupid."  Great coaches never do this.  Always view it as your responsibility to coach more effectively. 

---

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.