I’ve been thinking recently about the delicate balance between professional staff and volunteer leadership, particularly as it relates to managing a technology-based business such as the MLS. It’s an interesting conundrum: technology by volunteer committee, and one that probably accounts for the sorry state of real estate technology in the US today.
Let’s look at this issue for a moment. First, at the helm of a real estate association or a multiple listing system, is usually a board of directors. The board is comprised of the audience for the technology product, in this case, an MLS. By definition, the users of an MLS are the salespeople and the brokers of real estate offices. Other functions, such as appraisers and brokerage company employees, are frequently excluded from the mix, or are minority voices in the decision-making process.
The board members, then, are most often salespeople or company managers. They are credible at what they do, which is sell real estate, and their time is dedicated to salesmanship. Their priorities for time and energy are not technology, research, forecasting, or company management—they are salespeople, good ones, and their interest in the products is utilitarian and personally passionate. Their function on the board of directors is really as a User Group, not as policy makers or visionaries. I’m not being critical here—but if I as a manager can’t sell a concept to them in sound bytes and immediate functionality, it’s probably not gonna happen.
And usually, there’s nobody else in the decision-making mix. In a corporate board, that’s not the case: people are selected for their knowledge and expertise and demonstrated management skill. In a real estate or MLS board, the decision-makers are the User Group, employing judgment criteria based on immediate impact of the product, and not necessarily on the Big Picture decision.
A case in point is RETS. RETS, for many in leadership positions, is a vague, geeky thing. In an MLS vendor selection, for instance, it’s not a criterion: long term compatibility issues are not in the horizon of the decision-makers of most organizations. It’s more important to have the property tax number in a specific location on the data grid, or alpha-numeric figures in the compensation fields. Whole MLS systems have been sold to organizations based on such minutiae.
The next issue is that of staffing. If the volunteer leaders aren’t experts in—or even well-suited to understand—technology, they must hire that expertise, right? -- Hopefully in the form of a competent and technology-conversant CEO or manager. And as a CEO of an association or manager of an MLS, it is incumbent on the person in that position to become the technology expert for everyone who is in leadership.
Good so far? Not really. A couple of problems crop up here. First, if the manager job is also to run the other functions of the association, then the manager must be a generalist with competencies in other areas, and like the leaders, doesn’t have a lot of time to spend keeping up on developments in the rapidly changing technology world. Or, if the manager can indeed be a technologian, he or she must have of communication skills and salesmanship of his or her own. Remember those ‘sound byte’ sales techniques?
Enter the vendor. Let’s say the vendor, in this case, is one who has an MLS software product. The vendor wants to sell the product to the MLS and, since acquiring new accounts is dreadfully expensive, keep the customers once they are signed on and paying support fees. That means the vendor will develop a product appealing to the buyer—that’s the free market way. Where a tax number goes, or what permissions are granted to the compensation field in the listing printout, are where a lot of development resources go. Compatibility with other applications is also a no-no for the vendor: it means a potential loss of customers, don’t you see?
The same observation can be made of lockbox systems, membership management systems, and other basic technology decisions an association must make.
So, how does this all relate to the balance between professional staff and volunteer leadership? I can only respond from the staff point of view (since the vendors have probably stomped off in a huff and the leaders are wondering what the hell I am talking about). But as staff we first have to admit the inevitable: neither of the other two parties in this ménage a trois shares our responsibility toward managing decisions for the long term good of the association as a whole. Again, that’s not a condemnation of anybody, it’s just a reality. But it means that as a staff person, I am going to have to spend an inordinate amount of time in sales and customer relationships with both leadership and vendors.
Secondly, as a staff manager I am going to have to work hard at creating credibility with leaders and vendors and others who participate in the industry (like brokers, and NAR, and the public, and…) My recommendations and management decisions need to be well-researched, knowledgeable, and fair. And this implies a lot of background work—reading, learning, experimenting—and the ability to take the long view, the dispassionate position, as issues are debated and decided. Going down in flames because you were ahead of your decision-makers is counter-productive heroism, and has resulted in a lot of underpaid consultants in the real estate industry.
Thirdly, it’s important for staff to foster a learning environment which is consistent over time—a long time, in reality. Directors and leaders will seldom be knowledgeable geeks, and they shouldn’t have to be. They do need to be comfortable and informed in their decision-making role, and that happens only when there is continuing information in a format which is can be assimilated by the decision-makers. It takes years, I think, of one-page management reports, leadership training retreats, and useful staff analyses of conventions and vendors to create this atmosphere.
And finally, staff managers must manage the process. They must streamline the information flow, and help decision-makers cut to the chase. I recently consulted for an association where the standard operating process was to make a decision in committee (and we all know how long THAT can take), vote on it, write the minutes, come back for another meeting, approve the minutes, and then send the recommended action to the board of directors which, presumably, followed the same timeline. That makes for a 6-month time line. Many new cellular telephone products don’t have a 6-month life span—and then there’s the XYZ MLS which is still trying to change the background color of the login page of its website.
So, we must set time-frames. In the corporate world, implementation plans are measured in days, and even hours and minutes. As a group of people trying to manage technology, we need to USE technology to make efficient and timely decisions about our product.
Again, if we were running an private information service we’d appoint a board with background in real estate, data management, technology, and finance. We’d hire a CEO whose job depended on producing a successful product with bottom-line results, and we’d fire her if she couldn’t make the grade. We’d pay careful attention to our product line because our customers vote with their pocketbooks, and we’d work real hard to deliver a product which is useful, attractive, easy to acquire, and cost competitive with other providers. We’d develop user groups, do our market research, and plan our advertising. We’d look at the future and anticipate direction in light of the long-term needs of the consumer and the overall health of the company.
Oh, hello, Google. Have a seat. |
RSS Blog Feed