What You Really Need to Know About Hiring and Retaining Millennials

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to present to a
group of recruiting leaders who were gathered in Chicago for the Realty
Alliance conference. Several of the
attendees oversee very high-performing recruiting organizations, so there was
much to share and learn.

One of the topics we addressed was the recruitment
and retention of agents from the “millennial” age group. This group is generally considered those in
the workforce who are currently 18 to 32 years old.

We are starting to hear more chatter on this topic as real
estate companies strive to hire agents who, from an age perspective, are more
reflective of the population at large. I recently read that by 2014, millennials will account for 36% of the American
workforce and will make up 75% of the global workplace in 2025.

So, what is the secret to hiring agents in this age group?

It’s not as complicated as some human resources pundits
would have you believe. For example, I
recently read an article in the Washington Post outlining the “ten things
millennials want from the workplace.”
Here are my five favorites from the list:

1. Not money (ie. It’s
not about the money)

2. Goofy perks (like
scooters to get around the halls of the office)

3. A focus on social
responsibility (apparently, older generations do not care about social causes…)

4. A focus on social
justice and community service (not sure how these are different from social
responsibility)

5. A “pass” on doing
stupid things in their personal life (and then posting it on Facebook).

Maybe the authors just surveyed the Occupy WallStreet crowd
to get the data for their article, but it seems surreal to me. We have millennials working for our company,
I have two kids who are millennials, Dave has three kids who are millennials,
and none of them focus on these issues.

I believe it’s safe to assume that if you tried to implement
such advice, you’d quickly twist your organization into a pretzel of
dysfunction. Unfortunately, greater than
90% of the articles I’ve read on millennial hiring over the last couple of
years attempt to highlight the surface (and often silly) differences between
younger and older generations.

Here’s a better idea.
Why not focus on what we know to be true about all human beings and draw
out the similarities between generations?
Also, it is better to focus on core issues that drive human behavior and
engagement.

A good place to start on collecting this information would
be the Gallup Organization’s classic Q12 research. Gallup has been working on measuring employee
engagement in organizations for more than 30 years. While they did not specifically focus on
generational differences in this study, there is a surprising similarity among
outcomes across age groups during this 30-year period. You can download a meta-analysis of this
research if you care to read more.

Some media outlets are finally starting to pick up on these similarities
that connect back to more reliable research.
For example, FoxBusiness recently published an article citing a recent
“What Millennials Want From Their Employers” survey. This survey found that millennials want:

1. To do meaningful
work and be part of companies doing meaningful work.

2. A career that has
a believable and viable future.

3. A mentor—someone
to show them how to be productive and do their best work.

4. Community—they
want some of their coworkers to also be their friends.

Do these ideas resonate with what you want from your work
environment? I bet they do. Why? Because they are among the basic things most humans want from their work.

As you might suspect, all four of these themes are
strongly demonstrated in Gallup’s Q12 research, which was originally collected
from mostly baby-boomers and some generation X data sets.

The most important workplace engagement themes ring true
across generations.

Focus on these similarities, and you’ll be much further
ahead. Ignore the articles that
highlight superficial generational differences.
They may be fun to read, but they won’t help you hire more
successfully or coach more effectively.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Engage in the WorkPuzzle discussion by joining the TMOC private social network. Commenting on a public blog like WorkPuzzle can be a little intimidating, so why not join the discussion inside the privacy of the TMOC discussion group?

By joining TMOC, you'll get to see who else is in the group and your comments will only be seen by those whom you trust. Joining TMOC is quick, easy, and free (no kidding…this takes less than 2 minutes). To get started, click here.

Already of a member of TMOC? If so, join the WorkPuzzle Dialog Group by clicking on the WorkPuzzle Group icon on the left side of your TMOC homepage. Questions? Email the WorkPuzzle editor (workpuzzle@hiringcenter.net) and we'll walk through the process.

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.

What Value Do You Have to Offer a Candidate?

Monday, September 30, 2013

I am a firm believer that
everyone receives information in different ways and at different
times. Recently, my son Noah reminded me of this and it touched on an application
in the interviewing process.

Noah is an avid runner. He loves it–distance or speed, lacrosse or cross-country. He is currently involved in a speed and
agility training course. His first
session was two weeks ago. He came away
feeling positive about what he’ll get out of it, but not really understanding
what he was being taught. He had his “AH
HA” moment in his second session. I
don’t know what was said or done, but all of the sudden, he got it.

One of the more frequent
questions we receive when presenting to companies centers around the interviewing process, especially as it pertains to
new-to-real estate candidates.

Here's the question: What is it that makes you a good recruiter/hiring manager?

Even though we discuss this topic freqently (sometimes with the same audience) each
member seems to take away something different each time the question is asked.

The answer that seems to resonate most with me is: It's the value that you impart to the candidate.

At some point in the
interview process you learn the candidate’s story, what they have
liked/disliked in their work history, what about their bosses they have liked/disliked etc. As you then discuss
what you heard, you can reiterate their points of pain in such a way that will
demonstrate that a career in real estate could be a good match simply based on
what they shared with you.

Is there value in this dialog? Absolutely!

Your value started the moment
they walked in the door, and continued while you genuinely listened to their
story…everyone wants to be heard. Your
value continued as you had an honest discussion about their story and how a new
career in real estate could align with their own goals and career preferences.

Your value does not stop
there…it is now at critical mass. It is
what you extend to them between the interview, through licensure and hiring that
will determine your overall success in recruiting YOUR top talent.

Keep your value in front of
them. Isn't it a natural instinct for humans to
hold onto what they value?

If you
answered yes, by extension would you agree that your high potential talent
would then hold onto you as a valuable resource and partner in reaching their
career goals?

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Editor's Note: Lee Gray is the Senior Account Manager at Tidemark Inc. Lee is a guest contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. .

What Golf Taught Me About Recruiting

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

It’s been a frustrating summer for me. The exasperation I’ve felt didn’t come at
home…or at work…or at church. I’m sure frustration in any of those areas would
have been easier to accept. No, my frustration came on the golf course.

You might read this and think to yourself, “Oh, David must be a
terrible golfer or perhaps he is a beginner—it only makes sense that he’d
experience some frustration trying to learn a difficult game like golf.” But,
that’s not the case.

I've been golfing since I was 11-years-old, and I became
proficient enough as a teenager to play on my high school golf team. I continued to play golf over the years, and
I’m able to compete well against most weekend golfers. I used to find golf
relaxing and enjoyable. So why all the
frustration?

The golfing frustration I’m experiencing is a direct result of
change. Change is hard, especially when you've done something the same way for
so long, and you’ve done it relatively well.

My problem dates back to 1971 when I first began to golf. I learned
to play under the direction of my grandfather.
He was a decent golfer, but not a great teacher of proper technique. As
a result, I developed some bad habits while establishing my swing.

One of my bad habits is cocking my left wrist back at the top of
my backswing instead of keeping it straight.
This fault forces me to make corrections later in my swing in order to
make solid contact with the ball.

While this technique is not correct, it does work well 95% of
the time (that’s why I’ve sustained this habit). Granted, sometimes the 5% of “not working”
can ruin an afternoon of golf, but I generally accepted the idea of being a good
enough golfer.

But over time, being good enough was getting a little old. So early this year, I decided to get better
at golf, and I knew that playing one round every two weeks (and working on
changes while playing) was not enough repetitions to see any changes materialize. I had to commit to practicing on the practice
range and work diligently at correcting my swing.

I can't even begin to describe how uncomfortable it is to swing
in a new way. Everything feels off and it’s not an enjoyable experience. Although I committed to working through the
form issues, I longed to be back on the course where things felt normal and
more comfortable.

As you suspect, I then did what I was told not to do. I went out
and shot a round of golf before I was ready. While I attempting to focus on applying what I
had learned on the range, I got seven holes into my round and lost my resolve.
When I started scoring poorly, I quickly reverted back to my old habits so as not to humiliate myself. I began doing what I had always done.

In hindsight, I realized my mistake. I’ve now made my way back on the practice
range and recommitted myself to the process of changing my swing for the
better. While it is still uncomfortable,
I know I’ll be susceptible to reverting back to my old ways if the new habits
are not fully formed during practice.

So what does this have to do with recruiting?

Many recruiting techniques in the real estate industry have
been used for many years. At some point
in the past, each of these techniques was successful; otherwise it would not
have been developed and used.

But, times change. While
some of these old techniques remain effective, many of them have either lost
their usefulness or have needed modifications to remain relevant. From a third party perspective, the
recruiting methodologies in many real estate companies look like golf swings
that need some work.

Does the swing need to be reconstructed completely? No. In
my case, I’m only trying to learn how to not cock my wrist at the top of my
backswing! The same is true in
recruiting—even small tweaks can be difficult and all humans tend to resist
change.

So, how do you get started on the path to making improvements to
your recruiting techniques and methodologies?
Take Harry Beckwork’s advice from the blog I wrote a couple of weeks ago:

"Assume your service is bad. It can't hurt and will force
you to improve."

I started the process assuming that that my swing was bad, and
then made a commitment to make it better.

As you start down this path, here are some questions you may
want to consider:

What recruiting practices have you been using for the longest
period of time?
What recruiting techniques have become less effective in recent
years?
When is the last time you learned / tried something new?
When is the last time you asked an expert recruiter (someone in your
network that you respect) what they do and what they have stopped doing?

Once a picture starts to
emerge of the changes you need to make in order to improve, know that you’ll
have to make a commitment to practice these changes. Forcing yourself to try new things and then
practicing is always the hardest part of learning.

See you at the practice range….

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

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.

When Recruiting–Should You Trust Your Gut?

Thursday, September 19, 2013

In his best selling book, Daniel Kahneman creates the
framework for his insights by defining the two “systems” of human reasoning
that are employed to make decisions and judgments:

System 1 is sometimes referred to as intuition. It is fast and automatic and is usually associated with strong emotional bonds. It is based on
formed habits and is very difficult to change or manipulate.

System 2 is sometimes referred to as reasoning. It is slower and much more volatile, being
subject to conscious judgments and attitudes.

These framework definitions are a simple way of explaining how
a judgments can occur in two different ways.
In psychology, this is called a duel process theory. Obviously, I’m grossly over-simplifying these
concepts. There is much to read on this
topic if you care to learn more.

For our discussion, the following chart may be helpful in
understanding the concept of System 1 and System 2:

So, here’s a question:

When it comes to making judgments in the recruiting process, is System 1
or System 2 more reliable?

Before you put too much thought into this question, I’ll
share a quick story that contributed to some of Kahneman’s research. Early in his career, Kahneman and his
research partner, Amos Tversky, discovered they both had identical silly ideas
about the future professions of several toddlers they both knew.

“We could identify the argumentative three-year-old lawyer,
the nerdy professor, the empathetic and mildly intrusive psychotherapist. Or course, these predictions were absurd, but
we still found them appealing.

It was also clear that our intuitions were governed by the
resemblance of each child to the cultural stereotype of a profession. The amusing exercise helped us develop a theory
that was emerging in our minds at the time, about the role of resemblance in
predictions. We went on to test and
elaborate that theory in dozens of experiments.”

In simple terms, these gentlemen were employing System 1 to
draw conclusions about a person’s fit for a particular profession. If a human’s mind is susceptible to quickly
draw conclusions under these ridiculous circumstances, could it also draw
wrong conclusions during a more traditional recruiting encounter?

Here is another example to consider. Let’s assume that Steve is selected at random
from a representative sample:

“An individual has been described by a neighbor as
follows: ‘Steve is very shy and
withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the
world of reality. A meek and tidy soul,
he has a need for order and structure and a passion for detail.’

Is Steve more likely a librarian or a farmer?

The resemblance of Steve’s personality to that of a
stereotypical librarian strikes everyone immediately, but equally relevant
statistical considerations are almost always ignored.

Did it occur to you that there are more than 20 male farmers
for each male librarian in the United States?
Because there are so many more farmers, it almost certain that more ‘meek
and tidy’ souls will be found on tractors than at library information desks.”

During multiple research studies, Kahneman found that
participants ignored the relevant statistical facts and relied exclusively on
resemblance. More specifically, the experiments
demonstrated that humans tend to use resemblance to construct mental “rules of
thumb.” Once developed, they rely on
these mental rules to make difficult judgments—even to the point where it
defies reason and causes predictable biases (systematic errors) in their
predictions.

Conclusion: I think we'd all agree–systematic
errors in hiring are a bad thing.
Relying on intuition causes us to hire people we shouldn’t and
overlook potential high performers. According to Kahneman, System 1 reigns supreme
when making hiring decisions. By the
way–if you think you’re exempt from this type of reasoning, you’re
mistaken. It affects everyone who
evaluates candidates and conducts interviews.*

How do you keep from getting stuck in an endless cycle of
systematic errors?

First, recognize what is happening and make a conscious
attempt to resist being controlled by your mind’s System 1. Second, learn how to employ System 2.

In our company, we use assessment tools to help us overcome
the System 1 dominance. These tools do
help, but it is also important to structure interviews so that you’re collecting
data and not just allowing your System 2 to lazily disengage.

This means asking lots of open-ended
questions, formulating thoughtful follow-up questions, listening, taking notes,
drawing trial conclusions from your candidate’s answers, asking the candidate
to defend their positions, etc.

We’ll cover more on this topic in future discussions, but for
now, work to stay mentally sharp and engaged during your interviews. It will take more effort, but you’ll make
better hires.

*Note: After
evaluating the financials of many real estate companies over the last seven
years, I’ve noticed that most companies have 40% to 60% “D” performers in their
ranks at any point in time. Considering
that many “D” performers leave the organization soon after they’re hired, most
companies have a very poor track record at selecting high performers.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

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.

Making Decisions and Forming Judgments: An Introduction to Daniel Kahneman

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

A few weeks ago, I started reading a fascinating book called
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

I usually move through business books quickly and zero in on
the few ideas that seem applicable. I suspect
most business books are intentionally designed to be consumed in this manner. They’re “sugary” and easy to digest knowing
the attention span of the readers (me included) is relatively short.

So it took some courage for Kahneman to write a 500-page
book full of substantive content that is fairly difficult to understand. I’ve been reading for a couple of weeks and
I’m only 20% finished! I recently picked up a couple other books to read in parallel because this one is going to
take while, and I don’t want to rush through it. If I did race through it, I feel like I’d
miss a bunch of great insights.

To provide some background, Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for
Economics in 2002. Since Kahneman is a
psychologist (not an economist), it was unusual for him to win this prize. In fact, he was the first non-economist (by
profession) to win this award. He won
the prize for developing Prospect Theory— a behavioral economic theory that
describes the way people chose between alternatives that involve risk.

Studying Prospect Theory would be beneficial for anyone in the real estate profession (I can’t think of a Nobel-prize-winning topic more applicable to the
day-to-day work of a real estate agent), but the topics we’ll be discussing in
future WorkPuzzles will focus more on the psychology of making decisions and forming judgments. Here is quick summary of what
we’ll hope to learn:

In his best selling book, Daniel Kahneman will take us on a
groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way
we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and
emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.

The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the
difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound
effect of cognitive biases on everything from recruiting your next agent to
diagnosing what causes some of your agents to consistently make the wrong
choices—each of these can be better understood by knowing how the two systems
shape our judgments and decisions.

Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our
intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers
practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our
business and our personal lives—and how we can use different techniques to
guard against the mental glitches that often get us (and those we manage) into
trouble.

Tomorrow, I’ll share some specific insights concerning some of Kahneman's ideas and how they apply to recruiting. In the future, I'll occasionally revisit this topic with new insights and ideas that apply not only to recruiting, but also coaching and personal performance as well.

If you want to read the book on your own, the Kindle version
in a great bargain (only $4.99 on Amazon) right now. Also, there are several summaries of this
book available if you’re more of the “cliff-notes” type of person.

Regardless, I believe there is a lot learn from Daniel
Kahneman’s manifesto. Writing from a near 80-year-old’s perspective, he has much wisdom to share.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

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.

The Unintended Consequences of Rewarding Outstanding Performance

Friday, September 13, 2013

Last year, we wrote a series of blogs outlining some of the
research concerning the usefulness of
"carrot and stick" motivation techniques. The findings of the research were very
clear: Providing extrinsic rewards
cannot be blindly relied upon to help motivate individuals to perform better.

It's not that rewards should never be used. In some cases (and for some people),
incentives do have a positive impact on both individual and team
performance. But, don't be lulled into
thinking this motivation technique is some kind of magic bullet. It's not.
Offering an incentive can sometimes produce negative results.

In the case of our previous series, researchers demonstrated
that trying to incentivize tasks that involve creativity was particularly
ineffective. New research has now demonstrated offering incentives to top
performers in your organization may also prove counterproductive in the long
run.

The new research was recently summarized by Max Nisen at
Business Insider,

"Prizes and rewards are designed to produce
more effort, to give people something to strive towards. But what happens once
they actually get it? According to a new study by Harvard's George Borjas and
Notre Dame's Kirk Doran of recipients of the Fields Medal, the most prestigious
prize in mathematics, winning big actually kills productivity.

Mathematicians who win it publish far less in the
years afterwards than similarly brilliant "contenders"

It goes to show that major awards and recognition
can have unintended consequences.

The drop off is pretty massive, as this chart
shows:

This is explained, in part, by the classic
economic "wealth effect." The impact of the Fields medal is
significant. It's more prestigious than any other prize, and though the
financial reward is a meager $15,000, the career and research opportunities
available to a winner expand massively.

Because they've achieved so much
"wealth" in terms of prestige, job security, and opportunity, winners
are more likely to choose leisure activities over work, just as someone who
suddenly comes into significant monetary rewards might.

Not only do they produce fewer papers, but the
ones they do write are relatively less important. And winners take fewer
mentees, as well.

The authors did find one surprising positive effect.
Though they publish less, winners also take more risks in the future. They've
already reached the pinnacle of their field, so they feel free to pursue
moonshots, new areas of mathematics that they think are fascinating or vital.

The risk is quite large. The winners know they're
capable of doing extraordinary work in a particular area. Moving outside of it
makes future results far less certain. Their particular gifts or talent might
not translate well, and they're going to have to learn new skills and an
entirely new body of research in the new area, which is all very time
consuming.

The researchers term movement outside the core
field, "cognitive mobility," and its increase explains about half of
the drop off in productivity for medal winners.

The prize frees them up in an extremely
significant way. In the years leading up to the medal year, the likelihood of a
mathematician straying from their comfort zone is very rare, at just 5%. For
prize-winners, the rate quintuples to 25%."

This research obviously covers a very specific
and unique population, but it has implications for high performers in any area.
Whether it's promising a promotion, a raise, or an award, leaders have to think
about the aftermath as well as the competition itself.

It's important to reward achievement, but it may
also have the unintended side effect of creating complacency. At the same time, there's something to be said
for giving top performers the opportunity and safety net required to do really
innovative work, even if it's less certain and takes longer.

When this research is paired with Daniel
Pink's observations highlighted in our previous series, it should be worth at least a prolonged head scratch. As I said previously,

"These days, carrots and sticks will often do more harm than good. The time
has come to tap into the deeply human need to direct our own lives and
create new things and to do better by ourselves and our world."

Exactly.

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

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.

What You Really Need to Know About Hiring and Retaining Millennials

What Value Do You Have to Offer a Candidate?

What Golf Taught Me About Recruiting

When Recruiting–Should You Trust Your Gut?

Making Decisions and Forming Judgments: An Introduction to Daniel Kahneman

The Unintended Consequences of Rewarding Outstanding Performance

Subscribe to WorkPuzzle

Search for Other WorkPuzzle Postings