When a new agent begins working for you, they enter Stage One of their agent life cycle.  They’re brand new, fresh-faced, and eager to succeed.  They soak up all the information and guidance they can from you.  They look to you – Sales Manager, General Manager, District Manager – to help them succeed.  They look up to you as the expert who will steer them through the rough and challenging waters on their path to success in their new business.

During this initial stage – the “Honeymoon” stage – you can do no wrong.  They (hopefully) follow your advice and wisdom, and consequently start seeing their business and their income grow.  This is the period of time when an advisor is most excited, most fearful, and most hopeful.

As their book of business continues to grow (assuming they haven’t quit), they begin to enter Stage Two – the “Independent” stage.  As they enter this second stage of their life cycle, the advisor has been working hard to survive and then to thrive in their business.  They’ve been putting in long hours to meet the company’s production goals, to meet your expectations, and to succeed.

At some point in this second stage, an agent will get to a place where they feel very independent.  They start to feel like they’re the ones who’ve been out in the field, calling on prospects, knocking on doors, getting rejected, and making the sales.  And all the while, you’ve been sitting there, safe in your office, handing down commands and decrees.  And then to add insult to injury, you’re making money off their hard work!

And so, discontent sets in.  The agent or advisor becomes somewhat disgruntled.  They begin to find fault with you, with the company, with the products, and with the service.  They feel, at some level, that your advice is hollow because – after all – they are the ones living and dying in the field while you sit in your office, insulated from “reality”.  And furthermore, the only advice you give is just advice that lines your own pockets; the advice really isn’t for the good of the agents.

Some agents are more vocal than others during this stage, but nevertheless, it causes them to wonder whether they’d be better off striking out on their own.  And this brings them to a crossroads, which leads them into the third stage of an agent’s life cycle.

Stage Three is very interesting, because this is where the path splits, and the consequences vary widely depending on the path chosen.  The first path of this third stage – the path most advantageous to you and your business – is the one where the agent decides that his or her relationship with you is more a partnership than one of adversaries.  The relationship shifts to one of collaboration, cooperation, and sharing of ideas.  An advisor who chooses this path also is certain to treat his or her business as a business.  They will be focused on leveraging time, building systems, and growing income.

The second path taken by some agents is one of agreeability and satisfaction.  These agents will be supportive of you and will be happy to be a part of your team, but unlike those agents on the first path, these agents are pretty happy with the level of success they’ve already achieved and are fine with maintaining the status quo.  They’ll put in some extra effort if you ask them to… but not too much.

In contrast, some agents will take the third path.  This is a path where dissatisfaction and apathy settle in.  The advisor becomes increasingly dissatisfied with his or her situation, but not so unhappy as to leave.  So they settle into a life of negativity and mediocrity.  They live an existence of fault-finding, whining, and complacency.  Their business is more about not failing, rather than one of success and growth.

The fourth path in this third stage is one where the agent’s level of dissatisfaction and their desire for independence rise to a level where they simply leave.  They may jump to another company (“the grass is always greener” syndrome) or they may strike out on their own.  The bottom line is that they leave your team.  It’s especially disheartening if you’ve invested a lot of time, energy and emotion into their success.  This is, obviously, the least desirable outcome of Stage 3.

Clearly, the most desirable outcome is for an agent to pursue the first path – one of collaboration, cooperation, and growth, and the second most desirable outcome is an agent who goes down the second path – one of modest and contented success.  So the question then becomes, “How do you fill your sales team with agents and advisors who pursue the first path or at least the second one?”

The answer is two-fold.  It starts with recruiting the right agents.  One needs to recruit people who have the skills, attitude, and business-owner mindset necessary to succeed.  Finding attracting and selecting the right prospective candidates is an art that can be mastered by anyone… with some guidance, some practice, and some self-discipline.

The second aspect to building a team of advisors who pursue the first path has to do with how well we perform as leaders.  Exceptional leadership inspires the best effort in others.  Unfortunately, elevating one’s leadership competencies is more difficult than it sounds.  It is difficult because we most often act and react unconsciously.  And because we are unconscious of our habits, we are usually “blind” to them.  We’re not consciously aware of our actions and words.  It often takes an outside set of eyes and ears to help us change the habits which affect our leadership effectiveness.  As we refine our leadership competencies, we elevate our ability to inspire our agents, to instill pride and loyalty, to create a vision for our business and our team, and ultimately to improve production.

The bottom line is that by recruiting effectively and honing your leadership skills, you can dramatically improve your agent retention and production.

The three mistakes are 1) choosing someone because they are “hungry” for an opportunity, 2) choosing someone because you “like” them, and 3) choosing someone who’s “running from” something rather than “running towards” something.  Let me explain these mistakes in more detail.

Choosing Someone Because They’re “Hungry”

It’s tempting to select someone who’s “hungry”.  It would seem logical that a candidate who is anxious for an opportunity would be the perfect person.  They’d work hard, be conscientious, and push through any adversity they might face.

But it doesn’t work that way.  You see, often the person who’s eager for an opportunity is really just desperate for cash flow, and will jump at any means to generate income.  That is…  until the job they really want comes along.  Just because they’re willing to latch onto a way to make money doesn’t mean that it’s the opportunity they really want.

Nor does it mean they’re even qualified to get the job done.  It’s enough of a challenge succeeding when an agent has the skills and abilities necessary for their profession, but putting someone in that position who lacks those skills is unfair to them, to your team, and to you.

Don’t get me wrong.  If you find someone with the skills needed for success AND they’re hungry for that success, you may very well have a superstar in the making.  It’s just that simply being eager for an opportunity is insufficient cause to bring someone onto your team.

A good way to stay objective in this process is to make a list of the traits necessary for success in your opportunity.  Then, as you interview someone, have this list of required traits in front of you so you can literally or mentally check them off.  It will keep you from choosing someone for the wrong reasons.

Choosing Someone Because You “Like” Them

We all have a tendency to be drawn to people we like, which is a good thing.  The problem arises when we allow our feelings about a person to override our better judgment.  Please understand, I’m not talking about ignoring your “gut” feeling about someone (or some “thing” for that matter).  No.  I’m speaking about making a decision to bring someone onto your team because there is something about them you “like”.

It might be the way they dress or their manner of speaking.  It may be that they remind you of someone else or that you find them attractive.  The point is that none of those factors will affect their ability to succeed.  None of those things will serve them well without additionally having the traits and skills you know they need to succeed.  The challenge is to keep the feeling of “liking them” from clouding your judgment.

Many of the traits or qualities they possess may very well help them in their profession, but those qualities by themselves are an insufficient reason to recruit them.  By referring back to that list of required traits you developed, you can stay objective in your decision-making.

Choosing Someone Who’s “Running From” Something

This recruiting mistake is a bit more subtle than the other two, but making it yields the same results – a failed sales agent.  First, let’s define what we’re talking about and then we’ll discuss how to determine whether the issue exists.  A definite distinction exists between someone who’s “running from” something and one who’s “running toward” something.

Someone who’s running from something often has had a bad experience where they are or were.  Maybe they had a run in with their boss, or they’re tired of traveling, or they got laid off… yet again.  Maybe they simply feel unappreciated where they are.  The point is that none of these reasons has anything to do with your opportunity.  They’re all about what they DON’T want as opposed to what they DO want.

Here’s some advice about how to uncover whether they are running from or running towards something.  If you ask them what they’re looking for in an opportunity and their answers are what they don’t want, then they’re running from instead of running to.  Let me give you some examples.  If they answer, “I want to be appreciated for my work,” and being unappreciated was a past issue for them, then they’re running from.  If they answer that they don’t want to answer to a boss, then they’re running from.  If they answer that they want an opportunity where they don’t have to travel, then they’re running from.

Basically, they’re telling you what they don’t want.  Often the reality is that they really don’t know what they want as much as they know what they don’t want.  They’re most often suffering from “the grass is always greener” syndrome, and don’t have an appreciation for the realities of your opportunity.

Obviously it’s critical to discern whether you’re dealing with someone who’s looking for the right opportunity or someone who’s simply dissatisfied with their latest situation.  The way to accomplish that is to become a good listener, learn to ask good questions, and practice discovering a person’s motivations.  As you improve your listening and question-asking abilities, you’ll learn to quickly uncover what’s really going on with a candidate.

Once you avoid these three common mistakes, you’ll improve both the quality of your team and the level of their production.

If you’re frustrated by trying to motivate people, work instead to develop a company where people are self-motivated – where they do things because they want to. When we’re inspired, we enjoy our work, we’re productive, and we’re proud of our efforts. We remain focused and committed to the task at hand. In short, we put forth out best effort.

An organization will attract and retain a team of people dedicated to the success of the organization and its goals when it has a Purpose, a Mission, and a set of Values that it lives by, effectively communicates them throughout the organization, and measures its actions and decisions against them. Let’s define what Purpose, Mission and Values are and talk about the implications of having them clearly defined and embodied in the organization.

Purpose:

Purpose is the “WHY” of the equation. Purpose defines why we do what we do. It defines why we go to work each day. Without purpose, people just go through the motions and as most of us know, there’s a great difference between activity and achievement. Having a purpose creates a yardstick, so to speak, to measure our decisions against. It helps us become passionate, helps us to select among the many options presented to us, helps us make better hiring decisions, and keeps us on track. It’s possible to succeed without a clear purpose, but having one speeds and magnifies the results.

When a company has a clearly defined purpose it begins to act as a magnet, attracting the kind of people who will further the purpose; people who are like-minded. Not only will having a purpose retain the right people, but it will also act to attract them. This is the power behind the success of many not-for-profit organizations. Although they often are unable to pay their staff great sums of money, they continue to attract and retain people who are dedicated and who work hard to achieve the purpose of the organization. While your organization’s purpose may not be as altruistic as a not-for-profit’s purpose, it definitely plays an important, almost critical, role.

How you develop a meaningful purpose? Involve people throughout the organization in order to develop and distill the essence of why your organization exists. Don’t simply rely on the executive team to develop and then dictate the purpose to the group. And certainly don’t rely on an outside company to create your purpose for you! It has been my experience that a well-defined statement of purpose is a single sentence, crafted to capture the essence of “why” the organization exists using as few words as possible and resonating when read or spoken. This brings clarity and energy to it, and makes it much easier to keep in mind when making decisions and policies.

Mission:

Mission is the “WHAT” of the equation. Mission defines what the company does to achieve its Purpose. The better defined a company’s mission is, the easier it is to choose among the many opportunities that will present themselves. A mission – the means to achieve the Purpose – can be fairly narrow or be somewhat broad. However, one that is too narrow can unduly restrict an organization from considering opportunities that would otherwise be an excellent fit, and one that is too broad offers no guidance at all and may cause an organization to spread itself too thin, do a poor job at everything, and essentially dilute its effectiveness.

How do you determine an appropriate mission? Again, remember to involve people throughout the organization to develop and distill the essence of what your organization is about. Don’t simply rely on the executive level to develop and then dictate the mission to the group. Work to strike that balance between clarity and confinement – not too broad, yet not overly restrictive.

Values:

Values are the “HOW” of the equation. Values define how the Mission will be carried out in an effort to achieve the Purpose. They define the “rules of the game”. Some of these values will come to mind quite easily, things like honesty, courtesy, kindness, and ethics. But some other important values will only surface when brainstorming takes place – when different perspectives and voices are heard. Values like authenticity and vulnerability may be placed on the table for consideration. (Which, by the way, are two essential qualities of an exceptional leader.) It doesn’t matter which values are decided upon as being important to the company. What is important however, is that whatever they are, everyone in the company lives by and supports them. It’s important that the policies and decisions of the company are in alignment with them. If the company has an acknowledged list of values it purports to live by and then chooses to ignore them, the list becomes a sore point and acts as a negative reflection of what kind of organization you really lead.

When a company has clearly defined its Purpose, Mission, and Values, then all decisions, policies, and actions will have a measuring stick to keep them on course and you will have an organization which attracts and keeps the best! You’ll create an organizational culture which naturally acts as a magnet to attract and retain like-minded people. And you’ll also have the framework to interview about the things that matter most to you and your organization. No longer will people be hired based solely on technical abilities or simply to fill seats.

Exceptional leadership inspires the best effort in others!

Effective recruiting is an ongoing effort.  If you’ve been following me and my philosophies on recruiting, you already know that I’m a big advocate of “Active” recruiting and a basher of “Passive” recruiting.  In discussing these methods with managers around the country, there is universal agreement that candidates found through Active methods have far better potential than those found through Passive methods.  They generally tend to be better-suited to the life of an independent agent/advisor, they learn faster, produce more, are more responsive and are more loyal.  Regardless of how a candidate comes to us however, we need to decide whether this person is a good fit for this business, as well as a fit for us and our operation.  This effort turns out to be harder than it seems.

Think about it.  How often have we selected someone who we “knew” would become a superstar, only to have them end up in mediocrity or worse – drop out of the program?  Or conversely, how often have you decided to bring someone on board “against your better judgment”, only to find them out-pacing the rest of your team?  The truth is that identifying a candidate that has the “ability” to succeed besides having the “potential” to succeed is a bit of a challenge.  And I believe that most managers go about this selection process wrong.  Most managers “interview” their candidates and that just doesn’t work.

When a manager “interviews” a candidate, they typically conduct a variation of a “JOB INTERVIEW”!  When someone interviews a potential agent or advisor, they review their resume as if they were considering them for a job and they ask the typical job-oriented questions.  The problem with this approach is fairly obvious.  We’re not looking for employees; we’re looking for potential business owners!  When we select a potential agent as if we were selecting a new employee, guess what we end up with?  A new employee!  The key then is to stop interviewing potential agents and to start evaluating potential business owners.

Think about how you review a person’s resume.  Most people look over a candidate’s resume with the eye of an employer.  They look for job stability, positions held, and accomplishments.  While these considerations do provide valid information, they miss the point of reviewing the resume.  For example, one might feel that job stability is a reflection of the candidate’s loyalty and persistence.  You might conclude that if a person has a stable job history they themselves will be stable.  And those conclusions may be true.  However, I could easily make the argument that if a person has regularly changed jobs, it demonstrates that he or she has been dissatisfied in the job world and would flourish in the world of the entrepreneur.  Or conversely, if a person shows strong stability in his or her work history, it could suggest that they make a better employee than they do a business owner.  How do you decide which is the reality for this person?  How can you determine whether job stability is a good thing or a bad thing with respect to this candidate?  That is an art in and of itself.  It requires mastery of the art of asking questions as well as mastering the art of listening.  A good portion of these arts lies in understanding the motivations behind an individual’s actions and decisions.

Let’s examine the pitfalls of the typical interview question process.  Think of the questions a person asks during a job interview.  They might ask about why they left a particular job.  They might ask about what goals a person has.  They might ask the candidate to describe their present job.  Maybe an interviewer will even ask what they liked best about each of their positions.  They might ask why the candidate is considering this new position or opportunity.  These are all good questions, but not very useful for our purposes.  Think about it.  When someone goes for a job interview, they are (or should be) prepared to effectively answer those questions.  Everyone knows the kinds of questions they’ll be asked in a job interview and they prepare answers for them.  People can pretty well guess what kind of answer you’re looking for in an interview.  The key then, is to approach question-asking from a different perspective; a perspective which helps you uncover a person’s motivations and their true nature.  One of the challenges to uncovering who a person really is, is that often they don’t really know who they are themselves.  To reveal a person often requires reading between the lines and seeing what isn’t there.  Again, there is an art to this process.

Although we aren’t able to delve into the details of what to look for when evaluating a candidate within the scope of this article, suffice it to say that it begins with an understanding of exactly what traits and competencies a successful agent/advisor should possess.  Once we have a clear picture of what those traits and competencies are, we need to understand how to determine whether a candidate has them.  Some of them can be determined from properly reviewing a resume.  Some of them can only be determined from interacting with them.  But there are a number of traits and competencies which can’t be determined from a resume nor by spending time with them.  Certain traits can only be demonstrated.

The bottom line is that if you are in the mode of “interviewing” candidate agents or advisors, then you’re missing the boat in the selection process.  You won’t have determined whether they have the traits and competencies necessary for success in our business, and you’ll unintentionally have recruited an employee.

Stop interviewing candidates and start evaluating business owners.

Many organizations approach this task from the wrong perspective.  They feel that their agent force works for them and accordingly should be motivated to produce for them.  In truth, it’s the other way around.  We work for them and should be working hard to help them succeed.

In order to improve your agent retention, it helps to put yourself in the shoes of your agents.  You need to ask yourself, “What would cause an agent to move on to another opportunity?”  While there can be many answers to this question, two reasons stand out above the others.  Either the agent isn’t making the money they want, or they’re making good money but find doing business with you to be a challenge.  The problem is that we sometimes don’t even know they’ve been contemplating a move until they actually make the move.  Therefore, the best way to improve agent retention is to be proactive rather than reactive.

Let’s first talk about the issues related to ease of doing business.  A good place to start is to find out what works and what doesn’t.  Obviously, since you’re already doing business, everything “works”.  But we’re talking about the ease of making things work.  If the process is too cumbersome, you’ll lose agents – especially in this economy.  With the challenges and frustrations that a slow economy brings, people have a much lower tolerance for frustration.

Ease of doing business is essential.  Every frustrating inefficiency, “speed-bump”, or road block tends to get blown out of proportion.  Already frustrated agents will throw up their hands and say, “Enough!”  The problem as I just mentioned, is that we generally don’t know about a simmering issue until it boils over and an agent leaves.

How do you go about finding out what works for your agents and what doesn’t?  Ask.  OK, that may be fairly self-evident, but honestly, most organizations don’t.  On top of that, many people will ask their struggling agents what works and what doesn’t, but that never provides an accurate and complete picture.  You need to ask your successful agents as well.  Let me explain…

In my experience, people who are struggling tend to defend themselves, their traits and their habits.  They tend to find fault with everything else before examining themselves.  In contrast, people who are succeeding tend to acknowledge both their strengths and weaknesses, and will tend to provide a more balanced view of things.  Additionally, people who are struggling tend to be more negative than those who are succeeding.

Of course, my observations are generalizations, but on the whole they hold true.  Therefore, it is important to hear the good and bad of your business from both kinds of agents.  If a pattern emerges, then you’ve identified a problem.  And when you eliminate problems causing frustration and make it even easier to do business, you and your organization become the solution of choice.

Let’s move on to the issue of your agents not making enough money.  Human nature is such that we’ll defend ourselves and look for external causes and external solutions.  In other words, if you can’t help your agents earn more money, you’ll become the victim of the “grass is always greener” syndrome.  Granted, some people should move on to other kinds of opportunities, but many others could be helped to succeed in your opportunity.

Some organizations are in a position to offer one-on-one training and mentoring, while others find it impractical.  There are many effective ways to offer training to groups, including webinars, teleclasses, and live workshops.  Not only can offering training make a difference to an agent’s success, but taking an interest their success and doing something for them will set up a feeling of obligation and reciprocation towards you.  And these feelings cause agents to be more responsive and more loyal.

What should this training be about?  That’s easy.  Offer training on things that will boost their bottom line – marketing, prospecting, lead generation, referrals, sales presentations, overcoming objections, and how to read people.  Offering technical training (like information on new products or services) is important, but won’t really help them as much or have the same impact.  The most widely requested training topics pertain to improving marketing.

Additionally, it’s not sufficient to help them with “passive” marketing strategies like providing leads or cooperative advertising dollars.  If you really want to make a difference, help them master relationship marketing.  Help them become better communicators and better presenters.  Conduct or sponsor programs on how to find prospects by going out and talking to people.  Teach effective strategies for generating referrals (and I don’t mean asking every client, “Who do you know?”).  Put on a program teaching them how to build an effective presentation for your products/services.  Educate your agent force on how to determine a person’s “Social Style” and how to modify their presentations to be best received.

In conclusion, shift your role to one of “servant leadership”.  Find ways to make your agents’ job easier and more productive.  Serving them – just as you would a customer or client – will make your organization stronger.  After all, your agent force is your customer base.  Look for ways to make it as easy as possible for your “customers” to do business with you.  Look for ways to add value to the relationship.  Demonstrate to your agent force that you care about them and their success.

Not only will your agent retention improve, but so will your bottom line…

Pretty much everyone I speak with about recruiting is using the internet to recruit.  When it comes to recruiting locally (as opposed to nationally), some use it as a tool, but most use it as a crutch.  The ones who use it as a tool understand that it is extremely expensive, intensely time consuming, relatively inefficient (yes,… INEFFICIENT!), and for the most part, yields only marginal results.  They use results from the internet to supplement their recruiting efforts.  The other group, (made up of those who RELY on the internet for all their recruiting, except for the occasional agent referral), either doesn’t get it or doesn’t know what else to do.  The consequence is that many managers work hard, struggle to grow, run out of cash, and then go away.  It’s a shame.  It doesn’t have to be that way.

In order to break out of the internet recruiting rut, it’s necessary to understand why internet recruiting makes so little sense and then, once that understanding is in place, introduce more effective recruiting strategies.  In this article, we’re going to delve into why internet recruiting really makes no sense.  (I offer a free program on “Power Recruiting & Prospecting” when you subscribe to my free newsletter.)

INTERNET RECRUITING MYTH #1:
The internet is filled with loads of people looking for a new opportunity.

TRUTH: This sounds true, but it’s not.  It’s not that hard to expose this myth for what it is.  Just answer two simple questions.  The first question is: “What kind of people post their resumes on sites like Monster, CareerBuilder, and HotJobs?”  You might be tempted to answer with something like, “People looking for new opportunities,” or “People who are dissatisfied where they are.”  But you’re over-thinking things.  Those are answers to justify why you’re using the internet.  The simple, really obvious answer is that those websites are JOB sites.  The people who post their resumes on those sites are looking for a JOB!  We, on the other hand, are looking for potential BUSINESS OWNERS.  When you look for potential business owners in a pool of potential employees, you’re fishing in the wrong pond.  It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

INTERNET RECRUITING MYTH #2:
The internet is an efficient way to recruit.

TRUTH: On the surface, recruiting on the internet seems like it would be one of the most efficient means of finding people.  So many prospects, so little time!  But except for very few instances, it’s just not true.  In fact, it turns out that it’s one of the LEAST efficient ways to recruit.  Here’s why…

To start with, as we just discussed above, we’re fishing in the wrong pond.  It requires an extraordinary amount of sifting, filtering, contacting, and turning-over of stones to find someone who has even a modest interest in our opportunity.  Next, you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find that “prince” or “princess”.  My informal survey of managers across the country over a number of years confirms that on average, you need to interview about 20 of those mildly interested candidates to find one who wants to start with you and who you want as well.  Most of these candidates are “suspects” rather than prospects.  And finally, as if interviewing all those suspects wasn’t bad enough, you have to deal with all the “no-shows!”  Managers consistently report no-show rates of 50%-75%!
Internet recruiting efficiency?  Now THAT’S an oxymoron.

INTERNET RECRUITING MYTH #3:
Internet recruiting is cost effective.

TRUTH: OK,… I don’t really think that anyone believes that, but I’ll at least drive the point home with some important observations.  The first observation is that pretty much every manager who relies on the internet to meet their recruiting needs is struggling to be profitable.  Besides having a hard time meeting their company’s growth goals, they end up going further and further into debt.  The second observation explains why this is.  Over the years, I’ve asked managers to calculate the cost of bringing on a new internet-generated agent compared to the cost of bringing on an agent from a referral.  Here are the results.  On average, an internet-generated agent will cost between $20,000 and $25,000, compared to the cost of an “actively recruited” agent, which runs about $4,000-$5,000.  No wonder profitability is so elusive.

INTERNET RECRUITING MYTH #4:
Even though internet recruiting is inefficient and expensive, at least the production is worth it.

TRUTH: I think that by answering a few simple questions, the reality of this will become painfully apparent.  Ever have a new agent start and then, a month or two into the program quit?  They end up taking that job they were waiting for.  (See: “fishing in wrong pond” above)  No production there.  Ever had an agent work really hard simply to meet the minimum production requirements, and then once attained, start to coast?  (I call this “striving for mediocrity.”)  Wimpy production there…  And finally, which agents typically have bigger businesses – those who were internet-recruited or those who were “actively” recruited?  If you’re like most managers, “active recruiting” always yields better production.  And at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is production, right?

So now that we have a clear understanding of why internet recruiting makes no sense, what does?  Although we don’t have time to develop that answer here, I can offer you a clue…
How were YOU recruited into the business?

The answer is that you can’t motivate agents.  It’s not that your agents are a peculiar breed or that they’re an apathetic bunch.  The fact is that you can’t motivate anyone!  Motivation only comes from within.  Agents are only self-motivated.  Think of it this way:  If you get someone to do something they don’t want to do, its coercion.  Agents will only do what they choose to do.  Don’t take my word for it.  Use your own experience with agents as your best example.  Agents will generally perform only to a level that matters to them.  No amount of threatening, pleading or rewarding will motivate them into action.

Is that, then, the end of the story?  Is there no hope for moving agents beyond their current state?  Not at all.  There is a way to make a difference.  And it’s not a theory.  I’ve seen it work on a regular basis.  The key to getting agents to rise above their present level of performance is to 1) develop a district/agency culture, 2) recruit to a purpose, and then 3) appeal to that purpose to bring out the best in your agents’ performance and drive.

1) Developing a Culture
Most properties have policies and procedures, employee manuals and guidelines, effective marketing messages, and beautiful statements of mission/vision/etc. mounted on the wall.  All of those are well and good, but they don’t address the matter which has the greatest impact on their business and their teams.  They don’t address the Purpose of the organization and as such, have no yardstick against which to measure decisions, policies and strategies.

In the absence of a clear Purpose – the “WHY” of the organization – agents are simply hired to fill vacancies, policies are developed which are unclear and don’t further the attainment of a purpose, systems are lacking, actions are taken which would otherwise be in direct conflict with the Purpose of the organization, and decisions are made inconsistently, without regard to the culture of the organization.

In contrast, a property which has a clear Purpose (“Why”), a Mission (“What”), and a set of Values (“How”), hires smarter, has a consistent set of policies that support its Purpose, has a yardstick to measure its decisions against, has an easier time attracting and retaining the right agents, and has the means to develop and deliver a clear marketing message.

Let’s define and discuss the implications of having Purpose, Mission and Values in your organization.

Purpose is the “WHY” of the equation.  It defines why we do what we do.  Each decision and policy should take the district/agency closer to achieving its “WHY”.
Mission is the “WHAT” of the equation.  It defines what the district/agency will be doing to achieve its Purpose.  Staying true to the broad “WHAT” will allow the district/agency to focus on its core activities and strengths.
Values are the “HOW” of the equation.  Values define how the Mission will be carried out in an effort to achieve the Purpose.

Purpose:
Purpose defines why we do what we do.  It defines why we go to work each day.  Without purpose, agents just go through the motions and as most of us know, there’s a great difference between activity and achievement.  Having a clear purpose creates a yardstick, so to speak, to measure our decisions against.  It helps us become passionate, helps us to select among the many options presented to us, helps us make better hiring decisions, and keeps us on track.  It’s possible to succeed without a clear purpose, but having one speeds and magnifies the results.

When a district/agency has a clearly defined purpose it begins to act as a magnet, attracting the kind of agents who will further the purpose; agents who are like-minded.  Not only will having a purpose attract the right agents, but it will also act to retain them.  This is the power behind the success of many not-for-profit organizations.  Although they often are unable to pay their agents great sums of money, they continue to attract and retain agents who are dedicated and who work hard to achieve the purpose of the organization.  While your organization’s purpose may not be as altruistic as a not-for-profit’s purpose, it definitely plays an important, almost critical, role.

Create a clear, worthwhile purpose for your organization.  How you develop a meaningful purpose?  Involve agents throughout the organization to develop and distill the essence of why your organization exists.  Don’t simply rely on the executive team to develop and then dictate the purpose to the group.  And certainly don’t rely on an outside district/agency to create your purpose for you!  It has been my experience that a well-defined statement of purpose is a single sentence, crafted to capture the essence of “why” the organization exists using as few words as possible and resonating when read or spoken.  This brings clarity and energy to it, and makes it much easier to keep in mind when making decisions and policies.  A clear Purpose is the driving force behind all successful organizations.

Mission:
Mission defines what the district/agency does to achieve its Purpose.  The better defined a district/agency’s mission is, the easier it is to choose among the many opportunities that will present themselves.  A mission – the means to achieve the Purpose – can be fairly narrow or be somewhat broad.  However, one that is too narrow can unduly restrict an organization from considering opportunities that would otherwise be an excellent fit, and one that is too broad offers no guidance at all and may cause an organization to spread itself too thin, do a poor job at everything, and essentially dilute its effectiveness.

Values:
Values define how the Mission will be carried out in an effort to achieve the Purpose.  They define the “rules of the game”.  Some of them will come to mind quite easily – things like honesty, courtesy, kindness, and ethics.  But some other important values will only surface when brainstorming takes place – when different perspectives and voices are heard.  Values like authenticity and vulnerability may be placed on the table for consideration. (Which, by the way, are two essential qualities of an exceptional leader.)  It doesn’t matter which values are decided upon as being important to the district/agency.  What is important, however, is that whatever they are, everyone in the district/agency lives by them and supports them.  It’s important that the policies and decisions of the district/agency are in alignment with them.  If the district/agency has an acknowledged list of values it purports to live by and then chooses to ignore them, the list becomes a sore point and acts as a negative reflection of what kind of organization you really lead.

2) Recruit to a Purpose
When we try to motivate someone it either doesn’t work or at best simply gets them to go through the motions.  The key therefore, is getting the right agents on board in the first place; agents who are self-motivated.  What’s the best way to achieve this goal?  Recruit to a Purpose.  By recruiting to your purpose, you attract candidates that believe in what you believe in.  They join you not only to make a great living, but to accomplish something more – something meaningful.  They decide to make a living by helping agents in some way.  Conversely, agents that come on board without some driving purpose will work to just to get the job done and no more.  They tend to lack the self-motivation you want.  Work on developing a way to screen candidates to best determine whether they are aligned to your office’s/district’s/agency’s culture.  Once you’re clear on your overriding Purpose, this process becomes fairly apparent.

3) Appeal to the Purpose
Once you have a clear Purpose developed (along with the associated Mission and set of Values), over-communicate it!  Starting with your new-employee orientation, drive the message home.  Make sure you live and breathe your Purpose.  Don’t make the message trite by putting up posters around the office and the property; instead speak it (sincerely) at every opportunity.  Make certain your performance reviews take into account how well the person lived up to the Purpose.  Ask yourself whether each business decision, system and policy will take you closer to or further from your Purpose.

When an office/district/agency has clearly defined its Purpose, Mission, and Values, then all decisions, policies, and actions will have a means to keep them on course and you will have an organization which attracts and keeps the best!

Have you ever brought someone on as an agent, only to have them act like an employee?  You told him he was an independent businessman.  You explained to her that there were no benefits.  You made it clear that their success depended on their own efforts.  Yet,…

They begin to act as if someone else will be there to pick up the slack or cover them when they act irresponsibly.  They will be casual with funds.  They don’t file license renewal paperwork in a timely fashion.  They don’t do what they say they will do and then complain about their finances.  You know the kind I’m talking about.

Let’s discuss some ideas on how to better weed out candidates with an “employee” mindset and more effectively identify candidates with an “owner” mindset.  What we’re talking about here is an art rather than a science.

Clues can be picked up from their past as well as through effective questioning.  Obviously, a red flag ought to go up when you hear certain “employee” types of questions:

•    What kind of benefits are provided?
(after knowing that they would be a “1099er”)
•    What kind of hours would I be working?
•    Are there any paid vacations?

Usually we’re sensitive to the kinds of questions that are plainly employee-oriented.  But I find that in the absence of these blatantly employee-oriented questions, many District Managers, General Agents, etc. have difficulty in getting a clear sense of whether their candidate has an entrepreneurial perspective.  Keep in mind that most candidates, naturally, will provide answers that they believe you want to hear or that they think they should give.  If you ask whether they’re prepared to work whatever hours it takes to succeed, the answer will almost always be “Yes”.  If you ask whether they have the self-discipline to be their own boss, the answer will almost always be “Yes”.  If you ask whether they’d be willing to work some evenings and weekends to succeed, the answer will almost always be “Yes”.  Understand that while some people will feel differently but give you the answer they think you want, many people truly don’t know themselves well enough to give an honest answer about themselves.  It’s up to you to read between the lines and ask effective questions.

Using Their Background for Clues
Clearly, many people who consider a career in insurance come from a background of employment.  Never having owned a business before isn’t really an indication of their ability to succeed as an independent business person.  However, in looking over their history, there are several things you can look for that can lead to clarifying questions:

•    Have they stayed in jobs for extended periods?  If they have, it may demonstrate loyalty and perseverance.  While these are good traits, the job stability may also indicate a preference for employment rather than independence.  Asking good clarification questions (below) can uncover their true feelings.
•    Have they changed jobs frequently?  If they have, it can show instability, poor self-discipline, and a tendency to have problems.  On the other hand, it may reflect frustration with the employment environment and a desire to be self-directed and independent.  Again, asking good clarification questions (below) can help you decide which it is.
•    Have they ever owned a business before?  If they have, it demonstrates an entrepreneurial spark.  Of course the question remains as to what happened to that business?  Again, clarifying will help in evaluating its significance.

Clarifying Questions
The facts surrounding someone’s past give us an idea of where they’re coming from.  However, their feelings and thoughts about their past experiences can offer a better insight into their make up.  Some questions will be oriented towards clarifying past experiences and decisions; others are directed towards revealing their entrepreneurial thinking capacity.  Here is a sampling of questions for your consideration.  Clearly the full list is endless and varies with each situation.  Use this list as a starting point in developing meaningful clarifying questions.

•    You’ve had a great career in the xxxxxxx industry, why would you want to leave it?
•    Why wouldn’t you want to find another position in the xxxxxxxx industry?
•    How important is having benefits to your spouse?
•    How would you market if you couldn’t cold/warm call?
•    How long do you think it will take to build this business up to the level of income you were making at your last job?
•    How would you handle a policyholder who was unhappy about their new rates?
•    Why do you think/feel you’ve changed jobs so often?
•    What would you do differently in building that business (the prior one from their resume), if you had it to do all over again?
•    What are the biggest advantages of being employed?
•    What are the biggest advantages of being self-employed?
•    What are the greatest drawbacks to being employed?  Do you think you’ll be free from those in this opportunity?
•    What are the greatest challenges in building a business like this one?

You get the idea.  Ask open-ended questions, which naturally lead to further questions.  Try to determine whether they are running from something or going to something.  In other words, are they just fed up with their current or recent employment experience, or have they been planning to find a good business opportunity for some time?  Are they becoming their own boss to show their former boss they don’t need him, or are they really committed to being an entrepreneur?  Do their answers reflect feelings of being limited in a job environment?  Do their answers reflect good insight into themselves?  Do they display anger and frustration from their past/present situation, and do those feelings represent a temporary condition until a new job comes along or are they really entrepreneur material?

As you become proficient at questioning, you’ll be able to reveal a candidate’s motivation for considering this career.  You’ll make better recruiting decisions and as a consequence have more time to devote to the candidates that will succeed.  Having more agents who are likely to succeed will lead to better time management and faster growth.

It’s true that internet recruiting occasionally turns up a great producer – even a super producer.  But the vast majority of the time the results are mediocre at best.  The proof is all around.  If recruiting via the internet worked well, then the majority of managers or agency builders would easily meet their recruiting goals or quotas.  The truth is that as many as two-thirds of the managers in a company fail to even meet the minimum quotas set by their company.  These folks are otherwise sharp, hard-working professionals.  They possess good people skills, demonstrate good judgment, and have a good sense of business success.  Nevertheless, for the most part they fall short of their growth requirements.  I say “growth” goals because relying on internet recruiting not only limits one’s ability to bring in quality candidates, but also causes production growth to ultimately diminish.  It’s good to have a strong pace of recruiting, but at the end of the day, the thing that matters most is increased production.  If the agents on a team don’t produce, not only will the business suffer, but the agents and their families suffer.  It’s a lose-lose situation.

Trying to recruit on the internet is damaging on so many different levels.  I’m going to explain how this effort is so damaging, but first let me clarify some things.  I am not a traditionalist.  I love to embrace new ways of doing things.  I virtually live on the internet.  I am one of the more computer-savvy people I know.  However, I also understand that sometimes the best solution to a problem is a piece of paper and a pen.  There are many ways to leverage technology, but recruiting via the internet is not one of them.

To understand why internet recruiting should be put to sleep, let’s start by examining some of the logistics and demographics of the process.  Typically, insurance and financial recruiters start by visiting the websites we’ve all come to know – Monster®, HotJobs®, CareerBuilder.com™, etc.  The first question to ask is this:  What kind of websites are these?  The answer is that these are EMPLOYMENT SITES.  And what kind of people search these sites or post their resume on these sites?  PEOPLE LOOKING FOR JOBS!  We are in an industry of independent business people.  There is a fundamental problem with looking for independent business people on employment sites!  By that I mean that we are looking for business owners in a pool of potential employees.  The industry needs to identify people who are entrepreneurial and are self-starters.  We need to find people who have a business owner’s mindset rather than an employee’s mindset.  We are looking for people who want an opportunity rather than a steady paycheck or full benefit program.  When we look for candidates on the internet, we are choosing from an adverse pool of candidates.  What’s the consequence of this process?  We have to turn over an extraordinary number of stones to find a candidate who’s even acceptable and who has an interest in our business opportunity.  In an informal study that I’ve been conducting over the last five years, the consensus is that it takes an average of 20 internet-generated interviews to find one good candidate!  When you compare that with the 2 or 3 interviews it takes to find a good candidate from, for example, agent referrals, it’s no wonder that managers/recruiters feel overworked and have only weak results to show for their efforts.

Adding insult to injury, not only does it cost a fair amount of money to “play” in the internet recruiting world, but because of the sheer volume of activity generated, a manager can’t possibly handle the task without help.  So they hire a “recruiter” to assist them.  This person generally has the responsibility of identifying potential internet candidates, contacting them, and handling the first screening.  Some managers even take it a step further in an effort to become more efficient.  They have their “recruiter” do the first and even second interviews.  (Wasn’t this internet recruiting approach supposed to be efficient to begin with?)  What happens when this “recruiter” conducts the screening interviews with a candidate?  The “recruiter” makes the decision as to which candidates would become good agents and which ones wouldn’t.  The “recruiter” makes the decision!  You probably have noticed that I keep putting the term “recruiter” in quotes.  That’s because, except for a few rare exceptions, the person being called a “recruiter” is nothing more than an administrative person.  No only that, but this administrative person all too often makes the call as to who moves on and who doesn’t.  Without exception, every manager I’ve talked to about this has regretted relying on a “recruiter” to find good candidates.  They admit that their recruiting has been a disaster when they relied on this “recruiter”.  The really sad part is that when a manager is relying on the internet to recruit, there’s really no way to avoid needing a “recruiter” to sift through the sheer volume of activity.  It’s a vicious cycle.  Oh,… and the other irony of this is that besides having to pay to play on the internet, the manager has to pay this “recruiter” to help sift through the scores of employees looking for jobs.
Another interesting statistic from my informal study on recruiting is the cost of bringing on a full-time agent/advisor.  Because of the high cost of playing on the internet and the cost of this admin/“recruiter”, the investment required to bring on a full-time agent via the internet – a “passive” method – is about 4-5 times greater than the cost to bring on an agent from “Active” methods!  No wonder it’s been so difficult to build a profitable business.

The nature of the dynamics of internet recruiting ultimately causes agent production to be poor.  If we take a step back and examine the differences between an agent brought on via the internet and one brought on by one of the “Active” methods, it becomes easy to see why  internet recruited agents are generally weaker producers, are less responsive, and are less loyal.  When a candidate is recruited through an active method, the dynamics are such that the leadership, character and reputation of the manager as leader play a large role in attracting him or her.  In contrast, when a candidate is pursued via the internet (understanding the nature of the pool you’re fishing in), pretty much the only thing they’re looking for is income.  They’re often either “tire-kickers” or job-seekers enticed by the idea of flexible hours and unlimited income potential.  Neither relationship nor connection/rapport plays a part in the recruiting process.  The consequence is that the manager ends up with a candidate who is on board predominantly due to financial reasons – and not very motivated.  To make matters even worse, besides ending up with poor producers you end up with lots of team members who require excessive amounts of hand-holding, and who are whiners and complainers.  Talk about a waste of an executive’s time, and a blow to personal attitude and energy!

If internet recruiting is so ineffective and expensive with regard to time and money, then why do so many managers still insist on relying on it?  Generally there are three main reasons.  One reason is that their corporate office encourages it. The second reason is that they don’t know what else to do.  And the third reason is that everyone around them is doing it.  The solution?  Get out from behind your desk and recruit “actively”.  If you want to achieve great recruiting results and generate increased production, then stop recruiting passively and start recruiting actively.  Here’s the best part.  The managers that are recruiting actively are not only getting better recruiting and production results, but they’re working less hard and enjoying their work more.  How much better could it get?!

In summary, although internet recruiting is a great corporate office pleaser and appeaser, for the most part it’s an expensive, inefficient process that produces mediocre results at best.  The dynamics are all wrong, the pool of candidates is made up of people who are NOT ideal agents/advisors, and the process is conducive to inappropriate delegation of recruiting responsibilities.  Do yourself and the success of your business a favor – unplug your reliance on internet recruiting and take it off life support.  Internet recruiting is dead.

Most of us, when we think of investing, think of investing money.  The truth is that we have two types of assets to invest in our marketing.  It’s true that one of the assets is our money, but the other asset we have is our time – and there is a time and place for investing each of these assets.  Problems arise when money is invested in marketing when in fact, time should be invested.  Deciding which asset to invest is really pretty straightforward.  There are two basic factors which determine the appropriate course of action.  The first is to decide which asset you have more of and the second is to decide whether there is a fundamental difference in the quality of prospects gained from each marketing approach.

Start by simply asking yourself which you have more of – time or money?  Although this seems pretty basic and pretty obvious, I’m always amazed at the number of people who, although they have more time than money, choose to invest their limited financial resources.  I regularly come across professionals who invest their financial capital in finding prospects on the internet, buying leads, direct mail campaigns, and purchasing advertising in local papers, on billboards, or in the yellow pages.  More often than not, they don’t receive the return on investment they anticipated (read that as: “the return they really, really need!”) and end up being put in the position of deciding whether or not to quit.

Why is it that when someone has more time than money, they still choose to invest their money?  Typically the decision stems from two reasons.  The first reason is that everyone else is doing it.  All those around them are building their business – or at least attempting to build their business – by investing in what I call “passive” methods of marketing.  And although they complain about the poor results and/or poor quality of prospects, they still continue to do it.

The second reason that people choose to invest their money rather than their time, is that many people don’t know what else to do.  How else can you find leads if you don’t advertise, buy leads or use the internet?  The alternate means of finding quality leads and prospects is by investing your time – or what I call “active” marketing.  It is “active” because you actually have to get out from behind your desk to conduct your marketing.  The key, of course, is to “invest” your time rather than “spend” it, and the way to invest your time is to meet as many people as possible.  I’ve identified five proven marketing methods for successfully investing time.  These are the very methods I promote in my popular Booster Programs.  Here they are:

1)    Personal Observation Conversations (success relies on not only having these conversations, but in conducting them effectively – an art.)
2)    Effective Networking (how DO you make networking effective?)
3)    Properly Leveraging Centers of Influence (do your COI’s send referrals your way?)
4)    Consistently Generating Clients Referrals (most people stop asking because they don’t get results, because they don’t know how to do it effectively)
5)    Finding Prospects through Public Speaking (it’s not speaking about insurance)

By regularly investing your time, you will generate a steady stream of prospects at no or low cost.  Does this mean that if you have more money than time that you should invest your money into generating new business?  No, not necessarily.

This brings us to the second determining factor.  There is a fundamental difference in the quality of results between those generated by time and those generated by money.  In many, many situations, the quality of prospects generated as a result of investing money is inferior to those gained via personal effort (creating relationships).  Let me explain why.  When you attract prospects through investing your money (passive methods), they don’t come to you based on your relationship with them.  For example, if you’re looking for new clients, you’ll attract mostly price shoppers (customers) rather than true clients.  If you’re looking for new agents, you’ll attract mostly candidates looking for a job rather than a business opportunity.  In contrast, if you seek out prospects through investing your time (active methods), you’ll attract people to you because of you.  You’ll find prospective clients who want to do business with you because they like YOU.  You’ll find prospective agents who want to work with someone like YOU.  Because the dynamics of finding prospects is so different with active methods, a much higher percentage of your interviews and presentations will lead to success.

Bottom line:  Just because you may have more money than time doesn’t mean that investing money is the best marketing avenue to go down.  I know many successful professionals (and I’m guessing you do, too) who don’t advertise for their business.  Instead, their new business comes from a variety of referral sources.  My recommendation for marketing success is to take a step back and evaluate the quality of your business.  In addition, examine how you’re going about generating new business.  If your quality of business isn’t what you’d like it to be – if you have poor retention, a high lapse rate, or small purchases – consider the source of your business.  Consider changing your business model to one where new business is generated through personal action rather than impersonal methods.  You’ll be glad you did.