WorkPuzzle

Fear and Loathing: More on Disgruntlement Over Fees

Over the past few weeks, Ben and I have written two articles (1,2) about effectively addressing agent complaints regarding fees.  We have come to understand that this subject poses ongoing challenges that require some wisdom to handle correctly.  In my last article on the subject, I promised to further discuss the topic from a personal perspective.  So, here it goes...

In 1987, I was 27 years old, had just earned my doctorate, had two boys in diapers, $3,000 in the bank, and a hefty student loan to repay.  My only asset was the smallest version of a Honda Civic you've ever seen, when my wife and I had the bright idea of moving to Seattle to open my private practice in clinical psychology.

You may be wondering what a psychology practice has in common with a real estate office.  Hang with me....I believe there are some principles that can be applied here...

Despite being brazen enough to open a practice in an area where I had few contacts, there are a few things I did right.  I hit the ground running, taking potential referral sources out to breakfast or lunch to build a network.  In other words, I was quickly dwindling down my 3k by treating already successful people like physicians, pastors, attorneys, and other shrinks to lunches they could afford, and I couldn't.  This has nothing to do with what I'm wanting to convey, I just like remembering the fact that I was once that much of a risk taker...

And, I did a few things wrong—Namely reducing fees for people who complained loud and often enough about them.  This occurs more often than you think.  I was actually told to do this to help build my practice.  However, it proved to be a huge mistake that I think we can all learn from.

(Skip forward 3 years - Building my practice...)

My practice was almost full and I was gaining confidence in my skills, when a client I was treating (the wife in a husband/wife duo) began to complain about being charged for a late cancellation fee I had applied for the previous week's missed appointment.  Now, prior to this, I would have immediately defended my position, showed her the signed form agreeing to pay under those conditions and most likely, in the end, tucked my tail between my legs and deleted the charge.

But this time was different.  I noticed that the husband was looking uncomfortable with the conflict that his wife and I were having.  Somehow, that gave me the courage to simply ask more questions.  Asking questions about her frustration proved to be the key to unlocking enormous hidden conflicts in their marriage around money.  It all began when the husband finally broke his silence and said, “This is sooo typical.  We’re worth 23 million dollars and she persists in being cheap when it doesn’t really matter.”

My questioning elicited information that I would have never gotten to if I had been defensive.  Now remember, as a psychologist, I'm trained to ask questions rather than take comments defensively, but I use to do it anyway when it came to fees.

From that point forward I came to understand two principles that helped me build a lasting and vibrant practice—with a waiting list.

The principles are:

1. The fee is never the real problem.  Figure out the problem.  Always assume that the fee discussion is a discussion about something else.  Figure out what the complaints are underneath the surface complaint, and ask what it would take to experience value.

2. Always do business with clients who appreciate the value of my work for them.  In my third or fourth year of business, I decided to never again do business with people who are constantly finding things to complain about.

An amazing thing happened when I applied these principles.  But, I am out of time today.  I’ll share them with you next time.... (How's that for a teaser!)

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, 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.  

Anecdotal Discoveries: Self-Interest is a Powerful Motivator

Most of what we share on WorkPuzzle is based on research and the scientific findings of professionals who have published what they’ve learned.  I learn a lot by studying these sources, but I also learn from personal experience and the happenstance of life.  Today, I’ll share a principle I discovered many years ago, but saw play out in living color in a recent exchange with some of my family members.

A couple of weeks ago, one of our family’s cell phones went missing.  It happened to be the phone that my older boys share.  It is what we call a “community phone.”  The idea is that one of the boys can grab it before they head out of the house for some event.  When it is not being used, it is supposed to reside on a shelf next to where we keep the car keys.  So, when it got lost, I immediately got the “I didn’t have it last...” comments (almost in unison) from my sons.  

This isn’t the first time the phone has been lost and no one seemed to be motivated to find it (myself included).....until this week.  My oldest son is flying to Baltimore on Friday for a college-prep seminar and needs to take the phone with him.  With this event looming, my wife became motivated to find the phone… "I’m not sending my son across the country, by himself without a phone!"  So, now one person has started to look for the missing phone.

To assist my overworked wife (I was still not motivated enough to actually help her search myself), I announced at the breakfast table on Monday that if someone did not find the phone by Wednesday evening, I was going to be forced to buy a new phone....and, my sons would have to pay for the replacement!

I thought this would get them moving, but surprisingly, it produced no action.  I think it was a combination of Wednesday being a long way from Monday (at least in a teenager’s mind) and the hope that this unfortunate turn of events would result in them getting a new, “cooler” phone—even if it did cost them a little money.

By Tuesday morning, there was still no noticeable effort towards finding the phone.  So, I was very pleased when my 8-year old daughter approached me with an unrelated request:  “Dad, I need to earn some money.  Do you have any jobs that I could do?”  Of course, I jumped on this opportunity and offered her $5 if she could find the phone.  Now, she was motivated!  She rifled through every coat pocket, backpack, and drawer in the house.  She left quite a mess behind her, but still no phone surfaced.

At dinner on Tuesday, I announced that there was only one day left to find the phone before I purchased a new one at their expense.  I also added some well-meant chiding about taking care of your belongings, managing resources carefully, and paying attention to details.  While this was all good information, it wasn’t sparking the motivation that I'd hoped for.  Then, something interesting happened:  My 15-year old son, after politely waiting for my phone monologue to finish, asked me a question:  “Dad, would it be OK if I went to my friend’s graduation party on Sunday?”  

Granting this request meant that I’d have to drive him to a nearby town and back, so he needed my help.  At this point, I again recognized an opportunity to create phone searching motivation.  So, I told him that if he could find the phone before Wednesday night, he could go to the party.

For the first time since we started working on this problem, he actually put some mental effort towards finding the phone.  In fact, he closed his eyes and thought hard for about a minute.  Then, he looked up and said:  “The phone is in my fly fishing vest in our storage locker.”  Sure enough, that’s where it was!

Here is the principle:  Self-interest is a powerful motivator.  In this case, neither financial penalties, nor financial gains produced enough motivation among the family to solve the problem.  Only when I tapped my son’s unique self-interest (need for social interaction), was his motivation finally sparked.  Not only was it sparked, it was engaged in such a powerful way that it resulted in him solving the problem with an amazing amount of speed and effectiveness.

Think about ways that you could be engaging the self-interests of those you manage, coach, and even recruit.  Resist the temptation to formulate universal incentives—the impact of these programs will be limited.  Instead, spend time discovering the unique self-interests of those you hope to motivate.  While you don’t want to use this information to wrongly manipulate, you can develop a healthy partnership between helping individuals get their personal needs met and generating motivation to address the greater good.

---

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 Art of Asking Questions

A couple of weeks ago, Dave Mashburn wrote a series of blogs to help you increase your success when interviewing new real estate candidates.  If you have not had a chance to read these yet (1, 2, 3), I would encourage you to do so—there is a lot of great information packed into these discussions.

This appears to be an issue that bedevils a lot of people.  I spoke with a real estate owner just last week who was struggling with the issue of convincing a candidate to come on board while she was simultaneously considering an offer made by his competitor. 

In this case, the competitor had done a great job of framing the decision around the fee structure (i.e. the overhead) necessary to be part of a real estate office.  Since the competitor was the low cost option in this category, the candidate was leaning toward joining the competitor’s office.

At this point, most hiring managers will tend to be on their heels.  How do you convince a candidate to get his/her focus off of the minor issue of fees and consider the bigger picture?  That is, without sounding defensive?

Try asking questions.  Not just any questions, but questions that are designed to move the discussion from a conflict between you and the candidate, to a conflict that exists only in the candidate’s brain.  Ideally, you want to facilitate the discussion that the candidate is having with herself until the conflict is resolved.

This isn’t as hard as you may think.  Business consultant, Steve Roesler, recently offered some simple insight that I think is helpful on this topic.

“When you keep announcing the righteousness of your position, the problem defines you.  When you respond with a question, both of you begin defining the problem and looking for solutions.  Which do you want?

Here are four model questions that will help you stay above the fray:  

• 'If this doesn't meet your requirements (criteria, needs), what can be done to ensure that it does?'
• 'If you like the idea but not the related cost, what can we do about the budget constraints?'
• 'If we can't start the project now, when do you think it would be a good time to get it going?'
• 'If you don't want to change anything and think the procedures are fine the way they are, what is it that you like about how they work now?'

You get the idea.  The first part of the question acknowledges that you heard the issue;  the second invites action from the other person.  That way, you stay out of 'argument' mode and create an environment where the responsibility for a solution is a mutual effort.”

Try crafting some questions that address the objections your candidates will likely bring up.  Practice saying them a few times before your interview so that they don’t sound canned.  And then give it a try.  Maybe you’ll be successful at tapping your inner psychologist!

---

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. 

Disgruntled Over Fees: How To Reframe The Conversation

As a member of the American Psychological Association, I get an annual request for some hefty dues.  The amount is always a bit of a shock.  These are fees I really don’t have to pay.  I could easily drop out of the Association.  But instead, each year, I write the check and send it in.  I have no manager or supervisor to complain to...nobody to negotiate with...just me and the internal conflict:  to pay, or not to pay.  And, like I said, I pay.

I recently had the opportunity to speak to a large group of managers about a related topic:  The real estate industry's annual problem of dealing with conflicts and negotiations around agent fees.

Managers constantly dread the invariable conversations around defending the value agents are deriving from the fees they pay to their respective companies.  Several months ago, one manager described like this:

“It's like I’m always on my heels.” 

Being on your heels is never a promising stance if you don’t want to get pushed over.  So, if all managers are on their heels, how does one get back on their toes?

There are several principles that can help you reframe your role and regain your footing when it comes to having these discussions.  Now, much of what I am about to say will require you to dig deep and reflect on your true value to your agents in order to pull this off.  As you’ll see, each ensuing layer of this approach will demand that you reflect more and more about your true core reasons for doing what you do.

(1)  The number one foundational principle is that you must learn to see your role as a semi-neutral party who is sincerely trying to help your agents arrive at the very best decision for themselves, their families and their future.  You’ll be surprised what can happen when you take this role.  What does this look like?

First, neutrality demands that you understand that questioning is normal.  We all have internal doubts about being cheated.  None of us want to pay fees that are unreasonable.

(2)  When you normalize questioning it's easier to carry out the second principle: Refuse to take sides.  When you refuse to take sides you leave the conflict where it belongs; Inside the head of the person with the conflict (see Anatomy of a Decision).  Only by pushing the conflict (both sides) back into the agent's head can you begin to help them reveal and weigh both sides, without bringing yourself into a position of defending the opposing view.

We’ve all experienced what I’m referring to.  The same agent who is forcing you to defend the fees, was the very night before defending the fees to his/her spouse, who was complaining about the fees.  We all defend and attack sides depending on who we are speaking to.  So...refuse to play that game.  Once you defend one side, you force your agent to defend the other side.

Remember...for me and my APA dues, there is nobody to complain to.  So, I have to play out the two parts of the argument inside my head.  Both sides present themselves and argue, until it becomes a rational internal discussion of weighing the pros and cons, the benefits and liabilities, and yes – what the Association has done to indirectly (through media PR, research, conference development, technology investment, etc.) ensure that the public has a good perception of Psychologists in general.

I make my best decisions by weighing both sides, by myself.  Some people are capable of doing this, others need someone to facilitate this inner dialogue.   In this case, that someone is you!  In the next edition I'll share what you can do to further your role as facilitator.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, 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.  

Social Networking and Recruiting - Part 2: Relational Currency

Last week, we began a discussion about the use of online social networking for marketing and recruiting.  We talked about some of the principles that seem to govern this puzzling environment.  But, maybe it is only puzzling because we approach it from an odd perspective.

Earlier this week, I was packing up for a business trip to Philadelphia.  My three-year-old noticed I was loading my suitcase and asked me to bring her back a seashell from my trip.  I told her, “Honey, I’m not going to the ocean on this trip, so I can’t bring you back a seashell.”  (My last trip was to the New Jersey coast and resulted in a seashell I picked up on the beach.)  But, she was undeterred.  Before I left the house, she made the same request three or four more times, each with a gentle reminder from me that seashells were not plentiful in Philadelphia.  As my wife dropped me off curbside at the airport, she gave it one more try… "Don't forget to pick up a seashell for me Daddy!”

It is clear that my daughter now connects business trips with seashells.  Granted, she is three years old and still has a few things to learn.  But, she is making the same mistake many of us make when we approach online social media—we assume (and hope) that this environment will respond like environments where direct marketing tactics are effective.  After all, there are a whole bunch of people congregating in one place, based on similar interests (much like a direct mail list or a tradeshow).  It only makes sense that they would be open to receiving and acting on well-crafted marketing messages, right?  Wrong.  Not all business trips produce seashells, no matter how often we ask.

In social networking, there’s a principle called “Relational Currency” that seems to govern interactions.   Michael Hyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson, a large publishing company, does a great job of describing this principle:

“Sometimes when I speak with marketing executives about social media, they seem to get it.  But they don’t.  Not really.  They falsely believe that Twitter and Facebook are like every other broadcast channel.  They see it as an opportunity to blast their message out to thousands of followers—for free!—and sell them stuff.  My response?  No.  No.  NO!  A thousand times, no!  Twitter is not a broadcast medium. 

Twitter and Facebook are relational tools not transactional tools. Contrary to what many think, social media rewards:

1. Generosity;
2. Other-centeredness; and
3. Helpfulness

It is a vehicle that appeals to people’s deep, God-given desire to connect.  It works when there is trust.  When it becomes just another form of spam (violating people’s trust), it fails to be effective.”

If we insist on using direct marketing currency (well-crafted messages that highlight the benefits of a product, service, or new position) in an environment where only social currency (generosity, other-centeredness, and helpfulness) is accepted, we’ll naturally experience a lot of frustration.

Michael Hyatt goes on to describe an “exchange rate” for the world of social networking:

“This [exchange rate] is what I have come to call the 20-to-1 rule.  It represents a ratio.  It means that you have to make 20 relational deposits for every marketing withdrawal.  This isn’t science.  I don’t have any hard, empirical evidence to prove it.

But I have observed that if you just keep asking people to do something—buy your book, come to our conference, sign up for our cause—without making adequate deposits, they will begin ignoring you.  Eventually, they will unfollow you and disconnect from your updates.

No one wants to be spammed.  Not today.  There are too many alternative sources of content.  If you want to build a social media presence, one where people listen to you, then you have to be a giver not a taker.  I think 20-to-1 is about right.”

Here’s the take away—don’t expect to get your marketing or recruiting message heard in the realm of social networking unless you’re willing to use the currency that works in that environment.  To be effective, you’re going to have to put in a lot of effort and be a legitimate contributor.   

Now, does anyone know where I could find a seashell in Philadelphia?  

 Source: http://michaelhyatt.com/2010/04/the-20-to-1-rule.html

---

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. 

Social Networking and Recruiting

I’ve been reading a lot about social networking lately—especially as it applies to recruiting.  One of the business problems our company is constantly trying to solve is:  How do you engage the highest quality candidates possible early in the recruiting process?  Or more specifically:  How do you entice candidates to engage in a dialog about their careers before they even start looking for a change?

This is a tough nut to crack.  In the last couple of years, there has naturally been more interest in social networks as a vehicle for accomplishing this task.  Many career sites, including the major job boards, have attempted to leverage the internet traffic that social networking sites enjoy, for their own benefit.  Their efforts have been met with a lot of frustration and poor results.

Recently, many of the discussions on this topic have migrated from espousing the great potential that social networks hold, to, “Does anyone have this figured out?”  As this unfolds, I believe we’ll start uncovering some of the underlying principles that drive social networking and how it can be more effectively used for marketing and recruiting.

I wish I had a complete list of these principles to share with you at this point, but I’m not there yet.  Like many other people who are trying to understand social networking, I’m starting to notice a few things and connect some dots, but the full picture has not emerged yet.  This may take awhile!

Over the next couple of discussions, I’m going to share some of the things I’ve noticed in the process of discovery.  If you've figured out some things in this arena, please share them via email or comments and we’ll learn together.

Earlier this week, Todd Raphael, editor of the Electronic Recruiting Exchange, posted an update from a recent forum on social networking and recruiting.  The summary was titled, “A Community Few People Really Want.”  Here are some thoughts that emerged from this discussion:

1.  Social Network users are concerned about privacy when it comes to career issues.

When sharing things online, users are quick to share information about “where the party is,” or “what’s happening tonight,” but don’t want to share information that later can be scrutinized by potential employers, work colleagues, and other professionals.  If we're asking someone to share what they don't like about their current job, don't expect anyone with much intelligence to answer the question--this type of information has a way of getting to the wrong people.

2.  Nothing kills a conversation like having “big brother” sponsor it.

“One conference-goer in the session said she created an online group for college-age students and interns to interact.  Well, she tried.  They didn’t take to it.  ‘It’s been a one-way blast to them,’ she said.  ‘They would not engage.’  She said many see each other in real life every couple of weeks at an event the company puts on, which involves a short educational session followed by networking.  They also do community service projects together.  But on the company intranet, they’re not chatty.  And this is a problem because recruiters want them online so they can check them out and recruit them."

 3.  Online social networking will not replace face-to-face networking.

Another forum contributor advised that “…if you don’t capture people in the medium you want, but you engage them in some other way, that’s plenty good.  It’s about fostering community.  If the face-to-face networking events work, do more of them.  We spend a lot of time fighting what isn’t working, rather than doing what is working and saying, ‘let’s increase the volume of that, and chase those things.'”

Hopefully, this type of input will help you start to see where the major boundaries are with regard to social networking applications.  These boundaries should help us define more clearly what doesn't work.  From there, we can focus on activities that have the best potential for reaching candidates.  More to come in the next couple WorkPuzzles…

---

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 Art and Science of Interviewing New Agent Candidates - Part 3

Recruiting the best new agents demands an understanding of how the best recruits think and reach decisions.  As previously mentioned, it also requires an understanding of the natural conflict that occurs inside the minds of people further down the ladder of the recruiting pipeline...the people who are just beginning to ponder the possibility of becoming an agent.

In the preceding two blog entries, I addressed some fundamental problems associated with instant gratification thinking.  I have seen many managers fall into this pattern of recruiting.  Such tactics really undermine any chance of hiring the best new candidates. If you haven't done so already, I urge you to review the first two discussions on this topic (1,2) so that you are familiar with these pitfalls.  Today, I will change gears and address the actual decision making process that unfolds inside the minds of people further down the decision pipeline, and the role you can play in helping them through that process.

Read the next few paragraphs carefully.  What might seem ridiculously obvious at first, will gradually build a powerful model toward helping almost anyone with any decision.  You must first understand the building blocks...

Throughout most of the decision making process, the wisest people carefully weigh all angles before committing to something new.  That means that they typically hold two opposing views (or sides) in their minds that are in temporary conflict.

In order for that conflict to work itself out successfully toward a decision they can commit to, they must be able to think about, consider, and assess the possible pros and cons of each argument that exists in their heads, from both sides.  In other words, they have to fully realize and accept that there are two sides,  must be open to both, weigh both, and ultimately commit to one.  With me so far?

Now, most of you are accustomed to seeing people who have already been through this process before ever speaking to you.  They are in licensing school, etc.  They have already done the above before you ever meet them.

But, those who have just recently begun the process of discovery haven't had time to consider both sides of the argument.  What do you think happens when you become a salesman at this point?  Desperate people might comply and fail, but what about people who aren't desperate?  What happens if your role slips into only offering all the good reasons to become an agent?  If this occurs, two things happen:

1. You force them to take on the other side of the argument; and
2. They no longer feel that you will act as an objective resource to address their concerns.

In other words, as soon as they sense that you want it more than they do, you lose any leverage or influence.  Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with overcoming objections, but you must carefully do it without wanting it more than they do.

Your job is to continually push the argument back where it belongs--- in their own head.  The conflict doesn't belong between you and them.  If you find that you are taking one side, then you are forcing them to take the other.  They will defend whatever is the opposite side of the argument.

Many times people even attempt to draw you into a debate in order to force the decision outside their own head so that they can win the argument with you, because they can't win it on their own.  If you feel drawn in, as if you want to close the deal, then this is probably happening.  Watch for it.

The appropriate way to handle this is to point out to them that they suddenly seem to be trying to talk themselves out of what they had previously been weighing out so carefully.  Confess to them that you suddenly feel like trying to sell them on becoming and agent, when it isn't your role to do so.  Assure them that it's an anxiety provoking decision, but that it seems like they are trying to undermine what they had previously been excited about.

If you take this patient role of neutral observer and keep pushing the conflict back into the person's own head, then and only then, can they make a decision they can live with.  It takes work, but there will be some jewels you'll find along the way.  And I guarantee that whatever they decide, they'll respect your objectivity enough to use your company's services in the future.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, 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.  

The Art and Science of Interviewing New Agent Candidates - Part 2

As promised, today I'll continue breaking down the psychology of good candidate interviewees and the anatomy of a decision within the minds of smart people.

Despite warnings from my high school English teacher, I am throwing caution to the wind and plan to mix as many metaphors and analogies in the following paragraphs as it takes to get my point across. 

We have to start with a dating analogy.  How did you...or would you... find your ideal spouse?  Would you wait for people to ask you out, or would you pursue multiple people before finding the best match?  Were you one of those who waited for people to pursue you?  Not the best plan folks.  But this is exactly what many managers do. Desperate people generally grab the low hanging fruit.  (No joke was intended here, but yes...I see it...and yes, a new metaphor!)  It takes no skill, little courage, no risk, and absolutely no courting skills to ask a desperate person to marry.  Often times, these folks later wonder why they are disappointed with the end result...

Of course, even though most of us can relate to the dating/marriage analogy, it breaks down at some point because you (as a manager) want to hire an entire office full of good performers, not just one.  So back to the harvesting fruit analogy...

You certainly want to pick some low hanging fruit, (low hanging fruit are those people who you traditionally hire out of real estate licensing schools etc) because doing so eats up the fewest resources, and because you CAN find some great fruit there.  But, can you really find the highest volume of good fruit if you settle for only low hanging fruit?  The answer is an emphatic NO.  If you want abundant good fruit, you have to work harder to get to the fruit that is out of reach and assume that there is fruit that your competitor is too lazy to find ways to harvest.  

Great harvesters find the tools to capture every piece of fruit they can get their hands on, even if it takes more time and energy.  Keep in mind, you will likely have to throw away a great deal of bad fruit in order to find the best.  Remember Kevin Ryan, CEO of AlleyCorp who interviews someone EVERY DAY?  He does this because he is willing to expend the energy and time to uncover the best talent.  He says:

“I used to think business was 50 percent having the right people.  Now I think it's 80 percent.  The best way to be productive is to have a great team.  So I spend more time than most CEOs on human resources.  That's 20 percent of my week.”

When it comes to interviewing the best candidates, you have to change your entire mindset.  The best fruit will probably not be low hanging.  Any one of your competitors can find those folks--they're easy to get to.  But who is going to spend the time and energy working to attract the candidates who are already good at what they do...only they happen to work in a different industry?  Who's going to have the patience to court these people over several months of indecisiveness, licensing school, and occasional second thoughts?  NEWS ALERT- The brightest and most motivated people will not say yes right away.  (More on this next edition.)

Who among you are willing to turn over enough rocks and do the necessary work to dislodge those hard to find diamonds?  (I warned you!  If you're keeping track, that's metaphor #3.)  Doing this takes patience, consistent engagement, and finesse.

The finesse part is knowing how to talk to people who you suspect will become very good agents, but who might not be able to pull the trigger as fast as you'd like.  This is often the hard part.  How do you get them to arrive at "yes" without sounding like an impatient salesman?  The brightest candidates will resist this pressure.

In part three of this discussion I'll explain the anatomy of a decision and how you can best facilitate arriving at the right decision.  The process I'll share is used in psychotherapy by every well trained psychologist and will enable you to help anyone through any decision.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, 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.  

The Art and Science of Interviewing New Agent Candidates

Recruiting the best new agents demands an understanding of how the best recruits think and reach decisions.  It also requires an understanding of the natural conflict that occurs inside the minds of people further down the ladder of the recruiting pipeline...the people who are just beginning to ponder the possibility of becoming an agent.

Many managers have told me, point blank, that they don't have time to waste on someone who has trouble deciding if real estate is right for them.  One manager has been known to say, "If I have to interview a person for more than 20 minutes, then the candidate isn't right for real estate."   Here's another one I hear a lot:  "If they don't have a license, then I'm not interested."

The managers who say this are very confident in their views.  And for the first few years that I worked in this industry, I naturally had to respect their views because I hadn't seen enough to gauge the accuracy, or fallacy, of what they were so convinced of.

But now I have.  And I have ample evidence to suggest that their strong-headed, somewhat bullheaded way of interviewing new agent candidates rarely uncovers the best candidates, rather it attracts the most desperate and insecure candidates who fake cooperation and decisiveness just to get the approval of the inpatient narcissistic manager.  Now, I don't really expect these types of managers to change.

However, most managers I've met really want to know how to interview well, and are hungry to understand what is going on inside the minds of high caliber people.  That is...most managers fit somewhere between the ones who naturally and somehow intuitively act to facilitate the decision process, and those who treat candidates like peons.  (Side note: Knowing how to facilitate the decision making process in someone without appearing to want it more than the they do is hard to learn, and even tougher to practice: 9 years of school and 25 years of practice and I still make mistakes with this.)

So, for those who want to learn more, I'll spend the next few blogs breaking down the psychology of those ideal recruits, including the anatomy of their decision making process. 

In the meantime, send me your comments and stories either through the blog or my email.

Stay tuned... 

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, 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.  

The Importance Of Grit

We all know people who aren’t necessarily exceedingly intelligent or particularly talented, who have a way of succeeding no matter what they do.

A researcher noticed this about ten years ago and set out to learn what this is and how it works.   Since then, Angela Lee Duckworth, PhD, has conducted a series of studies on a concept called "grit."  Grit is another word for backbone, chutzpah, fortitude, guts, stick-to-it-iveness, etc.  It all started when Dr. Duckworth (while a student in Graduate School) observed that it wasn't necessarily the smartest people who succeeded and made a lasting impact on science. 

She had a hunch that it was a person's personal "grit" recipe that made the difference in their level of success.  Across six studies, Duckworth found that grit significantly contributed to successful outcomes:  Undergrads with the most grit earned higher grade point averages than their peers.  West Point Cadets with the highest levels of grit were more likely to return after the first summer.  Even "grittier" spelling bee competitors (a situation where IQ would seem the best predictor) out-spelled their less tenacious competitors.  Among older individuals, people with substantial grit had higher levels of education and made fewer career changes than less gritty peers of the same age.

In reviewing the literature, there appears to be little explanation as to how a person can acquire grit.  So, is this something innate in some and not in others?  Is it based on our genetic make-up?  Or, are there outside influences that haven't been explored as of yet (socio-economic status, traumatic circumstances early in life, family dynamics, etc...)?

Duckworth is still trying to find the answer.  But I want to remind you of the research on the growth mind set, which states that if you simply teach people about how the brain has the ability to change and grow, they can change and adopt new behaviors and learn beyond what they imagined was possible.  This is not pop psychology.  This is an empirically proven fact.  

So, ask your most gritty managers, executives and agents, “What has made you gritty?” or, “What is it about how you think that makes you capable of overcoming so many obstacles?”

I guarantee that you will have a powerful discussion develop that you never could have anticipated.

Many successful people don't attribute their success to their IQ or level of talent, but rather to their tenacity.  Genius Thomas Edison was one of those people.  Edison once said:  "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." 

"When you get into a tight place and everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could not hang on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn."  (Harriet Beecher Stowe)

Here is another prime example of grit:  Poet David Baker is Director of Creative Writing at Denison University, and author of seven books of poetry, including "Midwest Eclogue."  Mr. Baker laments: 

"Unfortunately, no one comes in my window and whispers poems to me... Poets [have to] work hard.  I may work on a single poem for weeks or months and write 60 or 70 drafts—only to decide that draft 22 was the good one."

Along these same lines, people often refer to Mozart's diaries, where he divulges that an entire symphony appeared, supposedly intact, in his head.  However, Jonathan Plucker an educational psychologist at Indiana University points out:

"But no one ever quotes the next paragraph, where he talks about how he refined the work for months."

So what can we learn from this?  The data shows that if we praise talent and accomplishments, we get stagnation, and even failure.  However, in studies where "effort" was rewarded, the result was growth and greater success.  Stick to rewarding effort in you and in others and you'll develop a successful team.  

Success comes to those who work harder...

In the meantime, if you want to contribute to science, visit http://www.ppresearch.sas.upenn.edu/ to take a ten minute grit assessment.

Source:  Psychology Today

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, 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.