Recruiting conversations are tricky.
 
Your objective is to get someone to make a positive change, but if you’re overbearing you could easily be fortifying their resolve to stay with their current broker.
 
Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School, explains how easy it is to make this mistake.
 
When we try to change a person’s mind, our first impulse is to preach about why we’re right and prosecute them for being wrong.
 
Yet experiments show that preaching and prosecuting typically backfire — and what doesn’t sway people may strengthen their beliefs.
 
Much as a vaccine inoculates the physical immune system against a virus, the act of resistance fortifies the psychological immune system.
 
Refuting a point of view produces antibodies against future attempts at influence, making people more certain of their own opinions and more ready to rebut alternatives.
 
The hard-charging, close-them-quickly recruiting methodologies often incite the psychological immune system in your recruiting prospects.
 
You not only lose an opportunity today, but you also make your chances of winning tomorrow much more difficult.

When crafting your recruiting message to the marketplace, it’s tempting to try and be everything to everyone.
 
We tell ourselves: We have better training, better compensation options, better leads, better managers, better culture, better community service opportunities, etc.
 
Even if this were true (you’re the best company in the world), it’s difficult for recruiting prospects to digest all these ideas. It’s better to focus on just one or two concepts.
 
More than a decade ago, Netflix set the example on how to build an employer brand on just one idea. Their idea was:
 
A great workplace is the opportunity to work with stunning colleagues.
 
When Netflix was a start-up, they couldn’t compete with the stock and compensation packages offered by their well-known and established competitors (Apple, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, etc.).
 
To differentiate themselves, they touted running their company like a professional sports team where only the best and brightest team-oriented players were allowed to stay on the team.
 
Are you sick of working with brilliant jerks? Come to Netflix.
 
Are you sick of working with a bunch of low performers? Come to Netflix.
 
Do you want to be pushed to rise to a higher standard by your peers? Come to Netflix.
 
They used this strategy to build one of the highest-performing cultures of any technology company.
 
Take a page from the Netflix playbook by identifying a recruiting niche that focuses on just one or two advantages that make you uniquely better than your competitors.

Yesterday, we discussed the preference most individuals have for multiplex relationships.
 
A multiplex connection is one where there is an overlap of roles or affiliations from more than one social context (ex. I work in real estate, and I’m an avid snow boarder).
 
It only makes sense to find and emphasize these types of connections during the recruiting process.
 
How do you make this happen? 
 
According to David Burkus, you push past normal small talk and ask some questions designed to get a prospect to reveal these connections.
 
Here are seven questions you may want to try:
 
What’s the best thing that happened to you last year?
 
What are you looking forward to this year?
 
Where did you grow up?
 
What do you do for fun?
 
Is there a charitable cause you support?
 
Who is your favorite superhero?
 
What’s the most important thing I should know about you?
 
These questions will help get the prospect to reveal what’s going on in their life outside of work and how they are connected to these activities and causes.
 
When you find a meaningful connection you share, you suddenly become a lot more interesting.

When starting a recruiting conversation, most hiring managers lead with something related to work (ex. How did your business go last year?).
 
While it’s natural (and appropriate) to start with a question like this, unless you branch off quickly to an ancillary topic, the relationship will probably never get off the ground.
 
Author David Burkus explains why this happens:
 
Research findings suggest we prefer and seek out relationships where there is more than one context for connecting with the other person.
 
Sociologists refer to these as multiplex connections where there is an overlap of roles or affiliations from a different social context.
 
If a colleague at work sits on the same nonprofit board as you or sits next to you in spin class at the local gym, then you two share a multiplex tie.
 
We prefer relationships with multiplex ties because they tend to be richer, more trusting, and longer lasting.
 
Because most people subconsciously want these types of connections, you’ll get less resistance by becoming proficient at pivoting to non-work related topics.

The most common mistake hiring managers make during the interview is talking too much.
 
It seems counterintuitive, but those who speak the least have the greatest influence during interviews.
 
How do you create more influence during your interviews?   Here are some of the techniques active listeners use:
 
1.  Be mentally present. Dr. Ron Friedman reminds us:
 
Since workplace conversations often have two modes (talking and waiting to talk), it’s impossible to absorb the full meaning behind a speaker’s words when you’re mentally composing your next lines.
 
You must be fully engaged and place your focus entirely on what is being said.
 
2.  Resisting the temptation to speak. Maintaining this type of focus is surprisingly difficult.
 
There is always a temptation to finish the other person’s sentences, make a quick joke, interrupt to correct a misstatement, etc.
 
You’ll know you’re making progress if you feel like you want to say something, but you don’t give into that urge.
 
3.  Paying attention to your listening posture. People relay they care about what’s being said through their body language.
 
When people are eager to hear more, they lean forward. A tilt of the head is associated with interest and curiosity. Head nodding can be a powerful sign of encouragement, especially when the speaker is expressing a difficult emotional point.
 
When a recruiting prospect is in the presence of a good listener, there is more going on than just the exchange of words.

Yesterday, we learned that active recruiting prospects are usually preferable to passive recruiting prospects.
 
Why?  According to researchers, it takes money to dislodge a passive prospect—you must “make them unhappy” with their current broker by what you’re offering.
 
On the other hand, active prospects are already thinking about leaving and will consider options that address the unique problems they’re trying to solve.
 
So, how do you tell if an agent is an active prospect?
 
1.  Look at their data.  When the data profile of an agent changes, they may become active.   Things like a significant drop in production, crossing certain benchmarks (time and production), and organizational and management changes tell you an agent may be looking.
 
There are lots of great tools on the market that can help alert you of these types of changes in an agent’s profile.
 
2.  Just ask.  Simple questions can get an agent to reveal their status.
 
Have you thought about changing brokerages, or are you at your forever brokerage?
 
Most agents change brokerages three or four times during their careers as they grow.  When do you see your next change happening?
 
It’s worth spending some effort assessing prospects before dedicating energy to more time-consuming recruiting tasks.
 
Your chances of success increase when the prospect is already leaning towards making a change.

HBR recently cited research that 86% of recruiting organizations focus their efforts on passive recruiting prospects.
 
By passive, they mean the prospect is not looking to change companies, and recruiters are proactively contacting them suggesting they consider a new opportunity.
 
By active, they mean the prospect is already considering a change (at least in their own mind) and has started taking or considering some proactive steps.
 
The researchers noticed an interesting distinction between the two types of prospects:
 
The number one factor that would encourage a passive job seeker to move is more money.
 
For active candidates the top factor is better work and career opportunities.
 
More active than passive job seekers report that they are passionate about their work, engaged in improving their skills, and reasonably satisfied with their current jobs.
 
They seem interested in moving because they are ambitious, not because they want higher pay.
 
What does this research tell us about real estate recruiting?
 
If you’re approaching passive real estate prospects (ie. those who usually say: I’m happy where I’m at…), you’ll most likely have to offer them something financially compelling to get them to consider moving.
 
If you’re approaching active real estate prospects, compensation doesn’t necessarily need to be your focus.  There are many other factors that may be important to this agent.
 
How do you tell the difference between active and passive prospects?
 
We’ll cover this in tomorrow’s Insight.

If you regularly watched “The Office” television series, you may remember a funny exchange between Michael Scott (the main character) and his previous boss, David Wallace:

Michael Scott:
David, it was my understanding that I was not going to be managed.

David Wallace:
What gave you that idea?

Michael Scott:
[pausing] It was just my understanding.

David Wallace:
I see.

Michael Scott:
Listen, why don’t we just leave the division manager position vacant? Truth be told, I think I thrive under a lack of accountability.

This makes us laugh because we all, at some time or another, find ourselves hating accountability.

In a post from the archive, Dave Mashburn reminds us of the reason behind this angst:

In most situations (and for most people), the word “accountability” elicits a flight or fight response in the nervous system. 
In some sense, we’re all uncomfortable with how it initially makes us feel.

Is there a way to reduce “accountability anxiety” while still retaining it as a vital management tool?

Dave recommends using some different terms to clarify what you’re really after:

For improvements to be made in any process, there must be visibility of what’s happening and the discipline to consistently measure outcomes.

For some reason, the words “visibility” and “discipline” don’t elicit the same negative feelings as the word “accountability,” even though the concepts are very similar.

In your next coaching session, try replacing accountability with visibility and discipline.

Not only are these words less authoritarian, but also they clearly define what lies at the heart of accountability.

When tracking hiring results, most offices will measure how many agents they hired and lost.
 
This produces the net hire metric.
 
Your net hires usually correlate to the number of transactions your office gained or lost.
 
If you had a net gain of 5 agents, your total transactions are likely higher.
 
If you had a net loss of 5 agents, your total transactions are likely lower.
 
There are situations where total office transactions increase while net hires decrease, but it’s very rare.
 
To overcome the net hire deficit, you would have to start hiring agents who are producing above your average agent while simultaneously increasing the average production of those left in your office.
 
Oh yeah and make that all happen in a declining market.
 
Is there a better way?
 
Put time, resources, and focus on recruiting your way to a net hire increase.
 
It’s simple math that always works when you’re chasing transactions.

If you’re a hiring manger, it’s tempting to ask someone to join your team early in the hiring process.

But this rarely produces positive results.

Yes, you might get lucky and find someone who is already in the process of breaking up with their current broker, and they’re ready to run into your arms.

I’m not saying this never happens, but the probability is low.

The fact is most professional agents see changing offices as a big hassle with no obvious value, and they’re too preoccupied with everything else in their own lives to listen to your offer.

For those agents, it’s better to start the relationship by asking them to do something with your team.

And, that something should have the possibility of touching an emotional nerve.

After the initial connection, ask their opinion on an upcoming decision, ask them to share some expertise they’re known to possess, or recognize them for a contribution they made to the community.

Of course, you also want to be a helpful resource for them.

But seeking out their opinions makes them feel important and useful.

If you treat them like a trusted colleague, they may just become one.

According to researchers, extrinsic motivation operates on a continuum that starts very externally and moves towards being intrinsic.
 
Step 1. External reward/punishment: Individuals participate in a system/process to gain external rewards (ex. money) or avoid punishment (ex. can’t pay bills).
 
Step 2. Advancement of ego: Individuals are focused on the approval of others (ex. compliments, recognition) and themselves (ex. maintaining self-esteem and feelings of worth). They can also be motivated by avoiding guilt at this stage.
 
Step 3. Identification: Individuals start to become conscious of the value of their activities or associations. They see the personal importance of a behavior beyond short-term reward.
 
Step 4. Integration: Individuals start to see themselves as part of the group and see their personal values and needs in congruence with the objectives of the team.
 
Except for a few intrinsically motivated agents, each agent in your office will be somewhere along this path.
 
Based on this continuum, there are two ways to look at retention strategy:
 
1.  Be better at Step 1 and Step 2 than your competitors by constantly increasing the value of what you’re offering.
 
2.  Attempt to convert your Step 1/2 agents into Step 3/4 agents.
 
Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages, and one approach is not necessarily better than the other.
 
But it’s important to pick one and commit yourself to it.
 
If you try to execute both strategies at the same time, you’ll likely be outmaneuvered by a competitor that is more focused.

Most agents (new or experienced) choose their broker based on a list of features.

It’s like reading a spec sheet for a new laptop you’re considering–commission split, technology, marketing programs, brand, training, office location, support services, etc.
 
After listing the features of each company, candidates attempt to assign a value to each offering.
 
What do I get? How much is this going to cost me? What’s the best value?
 
As a recruiter or hiring manager, getting drawn into these comparisons is a trap.
 
There will always be competitors who say they offer more at a lower price (and they’re usually lying).
 
How do you keep from getting sucked into this no-win situation?
 
One way is to focus on the success of the agents who are already on your team.
 
Jim Rohn famously said,
 
You’re the average of the five people with whom you spend the most time.
 
And researchers have confirmed both your personal and professional networks have a substantial effect on your success or failure.
 
Start asking your prospects:
 
Assuming the features offered across brokers are somewhat equal, who will be your peers, mentors, and role models in the company you choose?
 
This strategy allows you to build on the success you’ve already achieved rather than joining the race to the bottom.

According to a nationwide survey of more than 1,900 agents, those who consider themselves “experts” at generating leads earn nearly four times as much as agents who struggle with this activity.
 
Agents who consistently find quality leads earn $100,000 more than the agents who are failing at identifying top-notch leads.
 
This is not surprising when you consider real estate is a business built on lead generation. Word of mouth and networking are the strongest sources in generating good leads.
 
It’s probably safe to say, the same principle holds true for recruiting.
 
If a survey asked you:  How would rate yourself at generating recruiting leads?   [Expert, Growing, Novice, or Failing]
 
What would your response be?
 
If generating recruiting leads is not one of your core strengths, you’ll never be a high-performing recruiter or hiring manager.
 
It’s the first and most important part of recruiting execution.

The Gallup Organization reports that managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores across businesses in all industries.
 
When it comes to engaging agents and meeting their needs in the real estate industry, great managers are the key to unlocking high performance and creating a magnetic culture.
 
When individuals lack good management, they become disengaged and often leave their companies.
 
This is a valuable insight for recruiting both experienced and new-to-real-estate agents.
 
For experienced agents, most of your prospecting efforts should be directed at organizations that are known to have poor first level managers.
 
When a manager leaves or has a crisis at one of your competitor’s offices, it’s time to strike.
 
Agents are most likely to change companies when the agent-manager relationship is disrupted or strained.
 
For new-to-real-estate agents, make sure your interviews include several open-ended questions about the candidate’s experience with their current and previous managers.
 
Often this is where the pain and frustration will exist.
 
If candidates can envision a future with a great manager, it will serve as a strong attraction to you and your company.