From
Are Our Recruiting Strategies Made Up of Clichés ?
Every organization has at its' core the need to recruit.
Having examined challenges in recruiting through survey
and hands on experience with over 500 individually owned
organizations it is clear. The recruiting strategies
that previously were depended on to work and achieve
a result; for the most part do not get the desired result
now. If these tired strategies and practices are continued
then it is a "given" that over time companies
will face a premature demise. They will not be rebuilding
their agent populations in ways that focus on their current
business.
Most organizations set into the recruiting arena with
the thought that it is nice thing to do; important certainly
but not critical. In fact it is not uncommon to hear
organizational leadership say " hey managers you
need to recruit; let's get agents". Then these same
leaders depart without a concrete agreement on what the
parameters of that requirement are. They believe that
some mailings can go out; some ads can be run and that
some phone calls need to be made; even that creating
a contest for "achievement" can be implemented
and the results will change.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
This focus to recruit becomes an empty directive that
is not enforced; rarely monitored; and has as its' foundation
a history of outmoded methods that insure inadequate
results. A manager typically does a few consistent things.
- they will run some ads
- they will call a few agents
on their hit lists
- they will "network" at
board activities
- they find some people to go have lunch
with
- negligible they make lame phone calls to targeted
candidates that have value
- They poll their agents
about who they know
. …and the result is usually not one that changes
the growth of the organization.
These activities seem to be a strategy; but in reality
it is a haphazard gun shot approach that has little valid
potential upside result. Why do we go do what we know
will not get a result? Is it to just satisfy the perception
that we are doing what it takes to recruit?
Listed below are the theories of execution that have
supported this behavior. The statements themselves even
sound valid; but under examination they are full of holes
that can only partially direct a manager to a solution
and in reality fail to recognize the real challenge.
These are strategies that sound like they can lead to
solutions but in truth have failed to work well and have
created the recruiting dilemma that most organizations
face.
Look at these often heard directives that create "knee
jerk" recruiting activities.
"We need to Grab market share... lets recruit experienced
agents!"
This ignores so many activities of true importance in
recruiting that it should scare every broker owner who
reads it. First of all what it promotes is a concept
that says "if they are doing business, hire them"
However most managers do not have a true understanding
of what is an agents' specific business plan; what is
their specific prospecting strategy; what is the specific
profitability that an agent will add . What is the specific
layer of business strategy an agent will add to add to
the office in terms of planned company dollar that this
agent will add?
The result is that if this is person is experienced
we take out the checkbook hire anybody from anywhere
as long as they are licensed and perceived to be productive;
but we have not defined what makes the best candidate.
Why is an experienced agent the best candidate?
Yes, that candidate may bring some "instant" market
share; but at what cost. When an experienced agent arrives;
what is the profit implication. Industry standards show
that If an agent comes on board at a level over 65% the
dollars that are left to pay the bills are few and therefore
squeeze the benefit.
Then there is a justification. Many brokers then say
well there is a spill over effect.
That "justification" is really not totally
true either. Has it been examined what the cost of doing
business really is to an affiliate and how that compares
to what is needed on an agent per agent basis to break
even? What is the company dollar that is left after all
is said and done. If the belief that market share is
the answer try and remember Eastern Airlines who owned
all of the market share on the east coast to Florida.
Their retained dollar from the market share was so low
they could not survive. Market share as a primary recruiting
goal is not the best answer.
Why are we limiting the horizon and at the same time
damaging the potential profit?
This leads to the next challenge:
I do not want new people
Get a grip! When you came into the business what were
you doing? Were you born into the business. The reality
is you were doing something else. You were also an exact
stage of life doing it. The activities and involvement
you had then may not be the same as the ones you have
now!
If that vision is with sound familiar; imagine how long
you have been doing this and relate that to how old you
were then(the day you came into this business).. Can
you imagine that there is someone today in those similar
circumstances that might mirror who you used to be?
In other words there is a candidate today in the market
place that resembles who you once were that would make
an ideal candidate for you. Have you looked?
The profit of each individual office is based upon the
mix of entry level and advanced players. If we stack
the deck with one candidate we can not build the office.
An example of this success is a client in New England.
He recruited 12 people this year. Of his top ten agents
now; 8 of them were from that new group; most of them
were not even agents in the industry. This result then
is raising the entire bar in his office. The existing
group got challenged from agents who did not exist one
year ago. The market share grew because new agents did
new business. Profit grew because agents were added that
were at lower split-levels and were managed to produce
quickly. If looking at new agents was not a strategy
where would this organization be?
Which leads to…..
Setting inappropriate recruiting goals
It is not unusual for a manager or company leader to
provide this consultant with a fixed number of how many
potential agents that they feel they need; and expect
to see. Often the consultant asks, "how was that
number decided upon?" The answer is startling. It
usually relates to desks; or to wall space or some other
equally unimportant criterion. The reality is it should
be based upon several things. What is the market share
potential based upon the number of transactions that
an agent should handle and therefore many agents that
would create business opportunities for.
That coupled with the required company dollar growth
goals begins to formulate the proper recruiting goals.
Consider….
If an agent were assigned to a primary market for prospecting;
how many specific individual primary market does the
office need to dominate? How does that relate to company
dollars needed. What should happen is that for every
300 residential units that have appropriate turnover
in a market there should be an agent. The actual number
needed has nothing to do with the physical space it relates
to the true market share need and the dollars that are
required to build a profit.
Managers do not prospect to that requirement. Even if
they did they would not believe they could insure production.
Leading to ….
Mangers present the industry in clichés (i.e.:
you need six months money in the bank; don't expect any
money the first year; we're a team; were a fun environment
to work in etc.)
A leading business writer once noted that if "work" were
fun it would be called play not work!
Today's' career minded individuals are not taking any
career objective as a casual opportunity. They expect
to be held accountable to be productive and to maximize
their results in a shorter amount of time. The old clichés
of the industry are not going to attract a 35-year-old
career person who is changing jobs. These candidates
are often better educated than their predecessors; and
frequently have had strong career experiences. If you
were a high achieving individual; would you want to not
get paid for six months? Would you looking for work to
be your social network?
Solid relationships with a business focus will cement
the opportunity. Imagine presenting a candidate with
the road map for their first thirty days by the hour.
Imagine showing a true success path. One client recently,
who subscribes to this consultant's theory of setting
firm expectations, had three agents starting on one day.
Each had appointments two hours after they started. Their
first day had an expectation of prospecting.(as did the
second and the third etc.).
Hire them now; if they go down the street I will loose
them!
Many managers believe that candidates have to be "slam
dunked." Why not make sure that the candidate is
going to do this your way. Wouldn't you rather find out
now that they will subscribe to the office leadership
model rather than later. What job hires people in one
sitting. Even if it is an experienced agent isn't a business
plan requirement before the affiliation an important
discussion? If we skip steps costly mistakes can happen.
If the business plan is skipped than the agent could
be an unprofitable addition to the office and it might
not even get discovered.
The candidate gains tremendous respect for someone who
appears to be thinking of his or her best interests.
If these interests are tied to business driven issues
look at the power from managerial leadership that the
organization will achieve.
The dignity of a cliché free hiring system that
differentiates a manager is powerful. Third tier organizations
have killed their competition recruiting by applying
the brakes and not seeming desperate. Many use a system
that establishes an opportunity
Having a candidate focus is a powerful leadership position.
It builds esteem from the candidate toward the organization
and it begins to position the organization as one worth
joining. If the organization is worth joining, the company
checkbook stays in the drawer. Recruiting without the
clichés builds profit by its' very nature and
focus on real not perceived business values.
^ top
< Back to Articles |
