Why sitting at your desk will kill your business

Monday, April 11, 2011

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

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

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

Monday, April 04, 2011

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: localhost/Mahesh/wordpress/

Attracting Younger Agents: Part 3

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

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?

Attracting Younger Agents: Part 2

Monday, March 28, 2011

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://workpuzzle.com/~workpuzz/workpuzzle/2011/03/three-timeless-time-management-ideas.html

Three Timeless Time Management Ideas

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

I know that many of you are expecting another blog about "attracting younger agents," but I am waiting for more responses to my call for input first. I'll follow up next time…

For some reason, I have had difficulty prioritizing my time to get the most out of the last few weeks. Over the past couple of years, I have used several systems to help with this, but occasionally I feel the need to find something new to help me organize and shake things up a bit. I'll share with you an old system that I have used in the past, and two new ones I came across this past week in my blog reading (one from Dan Foster's blog).

The old system is modeled after Steven Covey's book- First Things First. It is based on a simple four quadrant matrix where you have to categorize "Urgent" vs. "Non-Urgent" tasks, and "Important" vs. "Non-Important" tasks.

The Urgent/Important tasks of the week go straight to the top of your to-do list. These are the tasks that are not only very important to you, but should be done now (or regularly). These are the tasks that impact your life or your business greatly. This list should include activities that build and drive your values, your family, and your business. These are the items that will define you in the future.

The Non-Urgent/Important tasks are those that are equally valuable, but can wait, and don't have to be done regularly. More on this later…

The Urgent/Non-Important tasks are those that may appear to beckon your attention, yet don't come close to competing with the "important" tasks. These tasks can be difficult to determine. They may be the fires that people bring you that perhaps distract you from the real work to be done. For real estate managers, they might be some of the deal doctoring that could be delegated to someone else, freeing you to do the work that impacts the bottom line, like recruiting.

And lastly the Non-Urgent/Non-Important tasks are those that should be dropped off your list. Last week I was on the verge of beginning a task that might have ended up being a daily series of these blogs, only on Twitter. Now, for some, Twitter may fit into a more important or urgent category (or both)…perhaps it is their way of connecting with their young audience or marketing their services. But, after reading that only 1% of Americans are using Twitter and that most of them are under the age of 30…for me, it doesn't make sense. For others, it might. Just make sure it does! And when it does, where does it fit in the above categories?

And now for the new systems… The first one comes from CEO, Scott Belsky, who reminds us that with most priority systems, like the one above, we can easily exclude the most important priority: Finding Adequate time to invest in thinking creatively about the future. Watch this video for insight into this often forgotten practice.

Scott Belsky: Is It Urgent, Or Is It Important? from 99% on Vimeo.

This next system is shared by Dan Foster, Manager at Prudential NW in Portland. His system takes more time, but may be worth the work.

Track how you spend your time. Spend 3-5 days recording everything you do in 15 minute increments. Sounds terrible, and to be honest, it is. Stick with it though.

Identify your high and low payoff activities. From your list, assess each of your activities and identify them as either HIGH PAYOFF or LOW PAYOFF. You should have anywhere from 3-7 high payoff activities, depending on your role with your company.
Create your perfect week. Take a blank weekly calendar and write out your perfect schedule for a week.
Delegate the low payoff activities. Assemble the activities that did not make it into your perfect week and that you consider low-payoff activities and delegate them to someone else.
Communicate your schedule. It is extremely important that you let your clients, team, and family know about your new schedule and priority management plan. People will respect your time if they see you value it. Post your schedule, the hours you are available, and when you are completely unavailable.
Practice delivering solution based “No” responses. My high payoff activities become non-negotiable appointments on my calendar. If someone wants to meet during the time I have a high payoff activity scheduled, I tell them “No, I can’t meet with you then, but I can at ________ or at ________. Which of these two times works best for you?” This is a solution based “No” response and people prefer it to a simple “No, I can’t,” or “No, I’m busy then."
Review your plan. Your new plan should be reviewed daily for the first 30 days. After that, a weekly review is ideal. Shift activities to different time slots if needed during this review. Assess your energy level at certain times of the day and determine what level is required for you to deliver maximum results. Make adjustments and re-engage the next week.

There is value and wisdom in using various systems and integrating them as they make sense and as your business evolves. I have already performed a review of my own calendar and to-do list…now it's your turn!