Saturday afternoon aside to the team concept -- virtual team

From Arizona to California to Florida to Alabama to Illinois and so forth virtual teams are being formed that may be the spiritual model for real local teams -- in the sense of creating a learning environment.

Team spirit is a hackneyed phrase but the internet is giving new meaning to this spirit by the enhanced communication and co-operative nature of online learning. Knowledge at the fingertips and all you have to be is a transparent player.

This spirit transported to real-team is the intangible I have been been trying to capture. This is the intangible that needs to be marketed through metaphor and simile to make visual the service consumers can't imagine (and scoff at) through a standard marketing campaign of "quality service".

Have a good weekend -- resting the mind and rekindling the spirit

Sometimes I wonder if there are others who crave learning as much as I do, then I look around, especially on the internet within our 2.0 community, and I realize there are lots of people dedicated to learning -- the recent Bloodhound Conference being an example. It's that kind of energy, whether it's perfectly realized in this conference or suggested as a model to build on, that turns me on. Finding the right people with a love for learning is the challenge as we go along considering a new kind of team. It's the main purpose for a team as far as I'm concerned -- to utilize a co-operative effort in the pursuit of more knowledge, skill and technological know-how than the competition.

As things quickly change in the 2.o business environment, a team focused on learning and dedicated to using the knowledge to gain market share and provide excellence in service will be light years ahead of agents fretting about down markets and lack of clients. But knowledge has to be packaged and delivered and marketing efforts have to exceed the traditional means that aren't reaching the serious consumers. A laser beam focus on these issues spearheaded by an inspired leader is not only a rational approach to business, it's a spiritual shift in the nature of doing business -- by "spiritual" I mean the spirit of achievement - the deep sense of being a part of something different and excellent.

This spirit is what has to be protected from cynicism and renewed on a daily basis -- being on a mission. Can this level of motivation be maintained over the long haul? Will cynicism, doubt and laziness creep in? Will personalities clash to create divisions and dim the vision? None of this is inevitable, but each member of the team has to buy in to the vision and committ to excellence and on-going learning.

I can foresee a team gathering every piece of pertinent information regarding real estate in an area and presenting it in a 2.0 fashion that creates a local buzz that is also transmitted across the net through viable social media conduits for business and capturing market share through sheer amazement. Consumers will learn that Company X has every possible real estate tool available to provide service that is comprehensive, quick, reliable, personalized and cutting edge.

The marketing of these services should be hype and pressure free, just a constant branding of excellence so that consumers come to believe as raving fans who shout the good news. "Poppycock! (or bullshit)" the naysayers will say -- "hell, we've seen this before -- it's all hotair, all you need is good ol' fashion service from a salesperson who sells houses, dammit!"  No, we're talking about more than selling houses, that's only part of it -- we'll sell more houses and sell them better -- no more hit and miss service -- a co-ordinated effort that covers every possible aspect of a transaction from first call to months and years after closing when past clients are still in the network as raving fans and ambassadors for Company X. It'll be a community of raving fans who are nurtured as lifelong members -- their grandchildren will be using Company X.

Okay, I've psyched myself up, now back to the tedious job of building the damn thing. The next few days, I will be reading some literature on teams and reading across the blogs -- but I'll also enjoy the weekend and get some rest -- Tuesday, I'll start in earnest with the little blocks to start building. Again, all input is needed -- alert me to articles if you know of any.

Learning

“The only significant competitive advantage is your organization’s ability to learn faster than the competition.” – Peter Senge

Real Estate Team 2.0: cross training and shared responsibility

Let's say a leader has been identified, and it's the originator -- this is the most likely scenario. Although, I still maintain the originator may have the idea and skills to put it together but not be a good leader. Let's also say a broker is chosen out of necessity, but not just anyone with a broker's license -- the broker's main responsibility is to be a fully functioning part of the team. Finding a broker who understands the original team concept will be difficult because of the broker mindset. Although the transaction must go through the broker, the most important aspects of the team are not necessarily broker-centered. The ideal situation is for the originator to get a broker's license so that originator/leader/broker is an all in one deal to minimize confusion of roles. It can be done differently, but the all-in-one makes more sense -- the idea is to place less emphasis on titles and more on individual skills and knowledge.

So far there is one team member consolidated in the leader. My suggestion to fill out the team is 2 buyer agents, 2 listing agents, one assistant and one social media/seo/2.0 "person". Everyone is crossed trained and everyone understands that at any given point they may have to fill a different role, assistant and social media included.

So what are the shared responsibilities and how does each team member understand "team"?

First, I'd like to see if anyone has a different idea about the make-up of the team. My idea of a learning organization, especially as it relates to a small team, is contant training for each memeber to learn every aspect of the business and to become as proficient as possible in different roles, although the main strength may be specialized. In real estate with different buyers and sellers with different personalities, it seems wise to carefully match service provider with client so that it's a good fit. The problems to be worked out are:

1. Is the whole team the service provider for a client, with one main contact?

2. Who decides who the main contact will be?

3. If an agent brings in a client throught his/her efforts, is the client automatically the "property" of the agent?

4. Compensation for team members -- how is it split up?

5. If the whole team IS the service provider for the client, how can each member be of value to the client?

As I slowly development the idea of team in my mind, the potential for the various services provided by each team member to the client is mind-boggling -- this WILL get tedious, and I see now where I need to break this down into very small parts, than glue it all together at the end. I see now where the definition of "team" will come out of the conclusion -- I don't think I can describe "team" fist, then apply it -- I'll have to look at each function separpately then allow the definition of team to be formed out that process. This could take a months. LOL

Building a real estate business 2.0: team or company: part one

My business mind has been shaped mainly by two forces -- one through a book, the other through work experience. Peter Senge, who wrote The Fifth Discipline, greatly influenced me throough his writings. I have been in several management positions, managing up to 150 employees at one point. Senge's ideas were critical to understanding how to create a learning environment. Years ago, I was the second man under a CEO who was once vice-president of overseas operations for Ford Motor Company, and what he taught me had to do with objectivity, clear focus and experimentation. I've also been influenced by the writings of George Gilder which taught me openness to inspiration and how innovation and hard work are two powerful forces of progress.

All of these people have one thing in common -- active minds. They aren't bound by convention nor deluded by grandeur, they actively pursue ideas with reason and entrepreneurial spirit as their guides. I will write about these topics authoritatively because it's too cumbersome to put "in my opinion", "it seems", "to my way of thinking", etc. all throughout the writing -- suffice it to say I'm not an authority but what I write is what I believe, and it's open to challenge and change.

In the beginning there was the word and a big blank board to draw on. I drew a circle on the board and this was a real estate team. Brokers play a small role in this development, their importance is only established by lawful considerations -- as far as action and compensation, the team is equal. The team can be a part of a large company or a company itself --  Preference and, again, lawful considerations rule, plus the policies of the large company if a the team elects that route.

For my purposes I will assume the team is either a company or a part of a large company that doesn't interfere with its systems and make-up.

The number of team members on the team will depend on the size of the area covered, but I will choose 6 as a working model. Every team needs a leader so I will start with the leader -- the leader can be a broker, an owner or a salesperson, what matters is the skill, knowledge and leadership qualities the leader possesses. You can already see the difficulties, so we will start with the idea. Someone has an idea to form a team based on 2.0 concepts, and let's say this someone wants to be owner (or part owner -- we will call her the "originator") and start a company based on this team concept. Let's say this someone is a licensed salesperson, so she needs a broker -- just because she has to have one. The salesperson/orginator also needs a leader. In designing a team the orginator has to decide by what criteria the broker and leader will be selected. The best leader may be someone other than the originator and the broker.

We are building a team based on the best suited, not who orginates the idea or who has a broker license.Choosing the leader will be the most important decision, but the leader might not have the most power (power should be relative and unfixed) -- so who has the final say in decisions? This is where policies and procedures come into play and I will go into that in another post. At this point, we'll say the team needs a leader who everyone trusts and the team is chosen to work together toward the same purposes and goals.

What qualities must a leader possess? Everyone will have a different list, but a leader must be special, someone who can carry multiple concerns without shortcircuitng. There is no strawboss in a leader, the mental makeup must be larger than that -- the leader I'm thinking of would not see the position as higher, but as a vital, thinking part of a team process. Leaders are part coach, part player, committed to go forward when everyone is fretting, and strong enough to carry loads others can't or won't. I can pick out leaders and I assume others can, too, when they are honest about it.

But whatever criteria is used to select a leader, the importance of this decision can't be overstated -- here I draw from years playing sports and years in the business world. But even the best intentioned can attempt to grab power, so guidelines must be set to limit the power of any one member of the team, even the leader. At best, the leader inspires, at least the leader co-ordinates. A leader should take all ideas from the team that are decided will work and co-ordinate to implement them. Implementation is one of the most important actions of being a leader -- someone has to understand all the connections and make sure they are connected properly and consistently -- someone has to have vision and know how to make the vision happen -- this is the role I see for the leader. Yet, everyone must understand the role and the interactions -- this is where it all gets tedious, because I am talking about a different kind of set up than a hierarchical set-up -- it's been discussed before by business thinkers, but I want to go into detail to clarify my own thinking on this.

More tomorrow -- the idea of "team" as it relates to 2.0. A difficult (impossible?) task to bring clarity to something so vague, but, hell, I'll give it a shot.