Has anyone here ever fired an agent? I certainly don't want anyone representing my company poorly. Would I be out of line to consider letting someone go for missing appointments (2 in the last month) with buyers or sellers? I figure that the clients may forget the agent, but they will remember which company he or she is with. I don't want any of my agents to potentially loose business because someone else was a flake.

I've not had to do this yet, but I've come darn close. If the agent is poorly representing the company (you) then you have every right to jettison them. Your agents will usually let you know if you've got a bad apple among the bunch, too.

I don't know that you can technically "fire" an egent since they have independant contractor status, but you can tell them to "hang their license" somewhere else, or send it back to your state's RE commission / dep't of commerce, etc.

2 missed in that short a period requires some type of action on your part. A warning is reasonable. Other factors may be at play, but bottom line means bringing home the bacon. Back when I was a sub-contractor I had to fire a beligerent, big ex-Marine. It was not pretty. Since then I have participated in numerous terminations. Some things in this type of business are unfortunate but necessary in order to maintain expectations. It never gets any easier.

Important to know all the issues. We have let a couple agents go that had bad attitudes around the office and were complaining about just about anything they could think of. These were pretty high producers but it is not worth keeping them around if they are hurting morale.

Fire, nah, lower commision on 2 deals.

I think there are more brokers who should be 'fired' than sales reps. Especially the ones that have no guts to back their agents or take action when they have done something unethical. I've been in the business for 16 yrs. and luckily have had 2 broker/owners who knew how to run a business and deal with the personalities of Realtors. Too many gutless broker owners around. Have to admit that there are just as many unethical sales reps too.

Perry,

Your statement is equally true. I believe, however, that as our businesses and markets grow more competitive and challenging that these rougue brokers will be weeded out of the system. I could be wrong, but it seems like natural selection to me - only the strong ones survive...

Amen! I have seen more than one broker (mine included) let agents get by with anything unethical, as long as they are making the big bucks.

Ok.. so here is the problem I see with the "Fire" the broker train of thought.

The people primarily to blame for bad brokers in the business are agents. That is the bottom line.

If you KNOW your broker falls into the category of "Should Be Fired" then, FIRE THEM - leave, depart, exit. If you are staying with a broker of this type, it is frankly your own fault - there is NOTHING requiring you to stay. And in staying with them, you are earning them money.

There will always be another brokerage you can hang your license at. Just don't hang your license with the ones who should be fired and eventually - they will wither and die like the dead weight they are.

Just my 2 cents,
R

I think that one of the biggest myths in our industry is that big producers earn a brokerage big bucks.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

With today's high splits, high producing agents are often much less profitable that moderate producing agents ---- and not just on a percentage basis.

Futher, high producers tend to soak up resources. They demand office space. Require advertising. And, consume both broker & staff attention.

Yet, many brokers feel obligated to keep folks who are a liability. And, many agents think they are indispensable.

The theory seems to be that high producers bring in other business, mostly on the theory that their listings are an attraction for buyers. Some is generated but the questions is whether their cost is justified.

This is a hard issue. I love my own high producers. They are great people. But, they definetely do not put big dollars in the bank for the brokerage.

Maybe their contribution is less direct, but not any less significant.

They are also an attraction for your name brand and the perception of your firm around that brand, which attracts business and can be a source of advertising kudos.

And in many large firms, high producers tend to double-end, increasing the firm's overall production numbers, which they can then advertise, thereby attracting more business (clients, new agents, more seasoned agents).

I am kind of surprised that you look at it as just their split related to your yearly expenses. Is it not true that they help you grow your business?

As far as leaving a bad brokerage i understand in THEORY how easy it sounds for an agent to pack up and leave a brokerage and switch companies.

The TRUTH though is alot of brokerages make it very hard to leave.From the beginning they try to make everything centered around the brokerages business instead of yours so that if you think of leaving you would have to have all new signs,advertising material,business cards.
They also keep you listings,even though technically yes they are the brokers.
When i switched companies it was an act of congress to get the forms signed to switch brokers.You basically had to hunt the broker down,then they wanted to make you have a waiting period to think about it,there hop was to make it so hard most would give up and stay.They had one phone number that they made agents use and call in for a call center,they made it sound great for your business that is until you leave you can't take that number with you.

Also if someone called but couldn't rememeber who the agent was they pobably gave your hard earned lead to someone else.

Everything i do now is centered around my business so if i need to leave it's an easy switch.

_________________________________________________


Top Producers give a successfull image for the company and get more new agents to sign up with the fat splits for the broker on the hope that they too one day will have that level of success,so it does bring in business and revenue in that respect.

I am not demeaning top producers. Nor is it an attack on them (I have in my offices 4 of the top 10 agents in our mls).

I am just making the point that their contribution to the bottom line is far more modest than most think.

The intangibles of creating an aura of sucess is surely helpful.

But, my basis point is that if you were to sum up the revenue a high producer generates for the brokerage and compare that to the expenses incurred, the net difference is rather small.

The bottom line is that where brokerages make money is on moderate producers.

What about new agents? Lots of firms act as "puppy mills," and get huge amounts of revenue out of hiring masses of new agents who will give them one or two deals and pay some expenses before they bail out of the business.

changeagent,

Your point about new agents is extremely valid.

I believe an agency has a moral obligation to provide training, mentoring and support to new folks. To do otherwise is to risk individuals' life and future.