I am 30 years in real estate and currently operate a real estate school in Ohio.

I am a broker and trainer

Why is it that most brokers fail to hire agents on a consistant basis? It is just like an agent prospecting for new listings... if you don't list you don't last!
If you don't recruit you'll get the boot!

That sort of assumes constant growth... doe's it not?

I could see a situation where an office works to maintain it's agent roster at a specific level. In the interests of being able to support all the agents needs.

My goal is to recruit agents who meet my desired profile and retain them. If I have the number I want, they are all happy and productive, why would I want to continuously recruit and potentially damage the ability of the existing infrastructure to deal with the additional agents? That would only serve to undermine my current roster and possibly give them reasons to look elsewhere to hang their license.

Of course, growth is all part of the plan too - but instead of being constant, I project it as a series of plateaus.


R

Interesting... I am a Broker Associate/Manager for my family's small company here in Northern California. We only have two agents, myself and my dad actively working at the moment (no store front). I have been debating whether or not to start recuiting more agents, especially since we have seen the market start to cycle down a bit here. I have heard the argument go both ways. I have only been a broker/manager for two years now, so as you can imagine, I have only managed through the "good times".

Any thoughts??

Not constant growth... constant attrition.
In real estate it is ideal to have and maintain an infrastructure, however, the reality is that at any given point in time you will have 1/3 of you staff coming into the business, 1/3 truely a part of the producing infrastructure and 1/3 leaving. The problem with the last 1/3 is they don't always tel you they are leaving. The just grow listless.

Ok, I see where you are going. Given the circumstances you lay out, constant recruiting would be mandatory.

I think that my point tho, is that if your doing the support and infrastructure parts right, your not going to always have 1/3 of your team looking to leave.

In all fairness I have worked for offices that fit perfectly into what you describe. Maybe even bigger chunks coming and going. This was an office with over 110 agents at any one time.

But then I have also been in offices where there were only 10-15 of us and there was really no turn over. I was there for the creation of the office when there was just 4 of us. We grew to 15, and stayed there till I left because of relocation two years later. So literally, there was a period of at least 2 years where no recruiting was required at all.

When I left, there were top producers pestering the brokers to give them my old seat. So recruiting was not even needed then, they had their pick of some of the areas best.

My point is that if you have an office that focuses on making agents successful and maintains an effective infrastructure and policy program, your going to get far less turn over. Furthermore, as a result of your efforts, word is going to get around and when someone does leave, your going to have lots of eager, experienced agents clammoring for the spot.

Even in the case of the office I was with that had 110 agents, they did not need to recruit either. They had folks walking in the door all the time wanting to get their license (they offered classes at my old office) and then work there as an agent. Granted, your getting fresh nugget agents instead of seasoned experts, but that offices strategy seemed more geared toward quantity rather than quality. A more active recruiting policy would probably earn them some more experienced agents.

If your just focused on the profit, I cannot say that this technique did not work for the two broker/partners who run the place. They both seem to be doing quite well for themselves.

I am still open to all the options here. I have this (probably idealized) vision of what I want my brokerage to be, but I have seen different models and systems work. As long as we define "work" as being profitable for the broker involved.

I guess my thinking is that if I create a place where agents want to be, get what they need and keep a big enough piece of the pie, they will stick around.

R

They fail to hire agents on a regular basis because they don't recruit regularly- you are correct. It is the same as an agent prospecting for business. You can implement recruiting on a regular basis & still be selective about who you bring on. IMO, it's good to have an ongoing recruiting program even if your turnover is low.

Once you hit a target # of agents your time may be better spent on retention but you should still have a recruiting campaign

Exactly! Just like an agent prospecting for listings or buyers.. if they do not do it regularly eventually the well runs dry.

jwillson