Fear and Loathing: More on Disgruntlement Over Fees

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

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

Thursday, June 10, 2010

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

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

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!

Disgruntled Over Fees: How To Reframe The Conversation

Thursday, June 03, 2010

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.

Social Networking and Recruiting – Part 3: Making a Contribution

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

We’ll wrap up our discussion regarding social networking and recruiting today with some insight from Omowale Casselle, a contributor to the Electronic Recruiting Exchange’s blog network.

In the previous two posts on this topic (1,2), we learned about some of the major boundaries associated with social networking (i.e. what doesn’t work), and how “relational currency” is necessary to be a legitimate part of any social network. This still doesn’t give us much direction regarding how we should conduct ourselves concerning the regular input we offer to our social networks—especially as it relates to recruiting.

Casselle suggests our interactions on social networks have the following characteristics:

Be Present. This means establishing a presence on sites (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter & niche) that are important to your target audience. For each site that you join, you are going to have to spend lots of time establishing your presence. If you do your homework, you should be able to identify 3-5 sites that are most relevant to your target audience.

Be Knowledgeable. Recruiting is largely driven by the exchange of relevant information. Both employers and candidates are looking to learn more information about each other to establish fit. Based on your target audience, you should be prepared to highlight the major benefits of your industry, organization, and specific openings as well as respond to likely areas of candidate concern.

Be Helpful. As more and more people are connecting with one another on the social web, it is important to establish yourself as someone who can be helpful. If candidates have a question, do you quickly respond to it or do you ignore it? If a colleague is struggling with the implementation of some new technology that you have mastered, do you reach out and offer assistance, or do you let them struggle for the solution on their own? With all the talk around interaction and engagement, one of the major ways to establish a great reputation is to help others without expectation of reciprocity.

Be Social. When you see an interesting blog post, tweet, or status update – dive in. Don’t let fear of what others might think about your thoughts inhibit you from socially engaging with others. Expand your social network, reach out to people with peripheral but related interests. In no time, you will start to see just how interconnected different ideas and concepts are.

Be Aware. There are a variety of written and unwritten rules to social engagement. WRITING IN ALL CAPS, only tweeting about job openings, or discussing your personal relationship status on Facebook are typically frowned upon. However, there are also things that are not yet well-established that may be detrimental to your social recruiting efforts. Are you always negative? Do you only discuss or share content consistent with your point of view on a subject? Before you engage with others using social media or social networks, take a moment to think about how your target audience will receive it.

Be Yourself. Even though there might be a temptation to create an idealized image of yourself on the web (complete with amazing profile picture and embellished accomplishments), it isn’t going to work. In fact, the more you try to become someone you aren’t, the more people you are looking to build relationships with will shy away. By letting people know who you really are, you can start to truly build some real relationships.

Be Authentic. No one wants to engage with someone who constantly argues point of views that they don’t agree with. If you truly don’t agree with something, then by all means jump into the conversation and express your disagreement. But, don’t pretend to be against technology based recruiting while constantly tweeting job openings at your company. If you do, you will quickly lose all credibility. The main reason is that lots of users have a variety of interests, and they will begin to track people of interest to see what they have to say on a variety of forums.

This is good advice, but you may also notice it’s a lot of work. For some, this type of “work” is going to feel natural and enjoyable, but for others it will be a burden. If you’re in the first group, social networking can and should have a significant impact on how you recruit.

If you’re in the second group, you’ll find that you’ll only be able to “push this uphill” for a short while. Your energy toward social netoworking will quickly diminish and you won’t be able to consistently make the contributions necessary to be successful. Rather than beating yourself up, I would recommend finding other areas where you can make contributions that are more in line with your talents.

Social Networking and Recruiting – Part 2: Relational Currency

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

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:

Generosity;

Other-centeredness; and

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