...is that they focus too much on information; not enough on application and synthesis of skills.
Those of you who know me know that my day job is as an instructional designer and course creator for real estate agent training courses. I've been a licensed agent myself and a card-carrying member of NAR. And what I can say is that, for all the bluster I've seen in training for some listing presentation courses I've attended, buyer consultations I've been coached on, and such, that advocate comparing compensation models of real estate professionals to counterparts in the law profession, I flinch.
I flinch because the fact is, we have different levels of skills. They're different.
Business Comp Models Should Be Commensurate With Demonstrated Skills.
The demands our industry places on real estate professionals doesn't even come close to the rigor of training and preparation the law profession requires for practicing lawyers. Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't command a similar degree of respect. But, what I am saying is that the respect you earn, and the compensation models you aspire to, should be commensurate with your skills.
I don't mean skills and training just in terms of hours of education, rather I mean also in terms of having practiced--actually having demonstrated, in a "safe environment" the mechanics of, and decisions associated with, representing a client.
These might include: demonstrating the ability to properly write a contract, demonstrating the actions and communications in negotiating a contract, showing how you devise and act-out decisions about transaction variables and allowing their consequences to play out, and so on.
In short, we don't have the equivalent of lab practice, as we used to call it in school; or "mock trials," as they have in the law profession.
My Wish List For Training Design.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit in on day 2 of a negotiations training course for real estate agents. My company is creating a video-based version of the program and I was there to capture some role-playing exercises.
While I was observing the exercises, my wish list for design of training for real estate professionals resurfaced. I remember thinking that these types of learning activities (roleplays) are exactly what's missing in many real estate training programs. The lab work. The practical application of book knowledge.
To offer my own comparison, would you want a lawyer representing you in a half-million-dollar civil suit without ever having navigated the court system? Or, perhaps a pilot stepping into the cockpit of your aircraft for the first time after having passed only the written test?
In a previous three-part series, I wrote about the six levels of learning. (That is, from an intelligence-type angle, as opposed to learning in the physical sense or in an emotional sense.) I listed the six levels:
-
Level 1: Knowledge,
-
Level 2: Comprehension,
-
Level 3: Application,
-
Level 4: Synthesis,
-
Level 5: Analysis,
-
Level 6: Evaluation.
Tell me if you think differently or not, but much of the training for real estate professionals is informational in nature--the kind to be found in Levels 1 and 2 above, Knowledge and Comprehension, respectively.
That is, we may read about a topic, or attend a class where someone lectures about the things to know in a 1031 exchange or a short sale. Or, we might even take a test to "demonstrate" comprehension. But, rarely do classes for real estate agents demand that they show competence as a condition of passing.
I propose demonstrations of competence might take the form of acting out a prescribed solution in a non-scripted way, or in the manner of solving some given problem with progressive outcomes. These are situations found at Levels 3 and 4 in the list above: Application and Synthesis, respectively.
Until the real estate industry holds itself accountable to more rigorous demands of demonstrated competency, I guess the practicum falls to private hands for execution: brokerages, training vendors, coaches, and so on.
But, here's the deal. I think another group to which the responsibility should rightly fall is on you, the real estate agent spending the dollars for your own training. On the one hand I complement a lot of those in this profession. You have a thirst for knowledge. You make investements to help service your clients in the best way you can.
But, on the other hand, are you getting the value for your dollars? (I'd wager that some of you who are reading this mouthed a silent "no," just now.)
Here's what you can do to maximize your training dollars.
Before paying another cent for a course or a seminar, find out:
-
Scenario-based learning activities. Does the program include interactive group or individual activities such as scenario-based problem solving? This, in my opinion, is ideal (but rare and expensive) because it demands a competency level equivalent to Level 4 (Synthesis). Synthesis basically means combining knowledge you may have gained from other training programs, or from your past experiences, to create a novel solution for a given problem. Quite often, an open-ended problem with no clear paths to a single "correct" solution.
A quick example that comes to mind might be to imagine a training program in "Client Facilitation" (a real course I attended once, btw) that immerses you in a fully-staged office environment, complete with instructional staff members acting in the role of client. The degree of complexity might also be enhanced by having others playing in the role of various third parties such as: agents, brokers, escrow officer, lending officer, other clients, other agents, etc.
After attending the lecture portion of the course, you might then be given the "problem" of facilitating a challenging client through an entire real estate transaction. Along the way, you'll interact with each of the scenario players during a progression of stages; you're given instructional feedback at the end of each stage before proceeding to the next.
-
Roleplay activities. Scenario-based programs are hard to come by. They're understandably expensive--in both production and tuition. So another activity to ask about that carries some bang for the buck is whether or not the program includes interactive group or individual roleplay activities.
Roleplays at least get you to Level 3. That's defined above as Application.
This means you get to actually practice what you learned from the book or a lecturer. If you've ever conducted a "mock listing presentation" and had the benefit of objective/constructive feedback afterwards, then you've experienced a roleplay-type learning activity.
-
Internship or apprenticeships. In the absence of the kinds of learning reinforcement activities defined above, you might ask how else would the program have students demonstrate understanding of course knowledge?
A concept that has generated some controversy is requiring a period of internship or apprenticeship after the initial lecture/written test format. For example, real estate appraisers and contractors use this approach for their licensing. While the jury's still out about this requirement for agent licensing standards, the training program you buy in to doesn't have to be so strict.
Some training programs, for example, may opt to certify you only after you have successfully closed "x" number of transactions of a particular type. One luxury home certification program that comes to mind certifies its students only after they have attended all course curricula, passed a written comprehension test and subsequently contracted and closed each transaction as the listing agent.
These activities can reasonably get you to a Level 3 degree of competency (Application). But an additional key question to ask is whether or not you're given feedback during the period in which you're closing those "x" additional transactions.
From a learning perspective, it's important to have that feedback on actions and decisions you make so that there is an objective evaluator who assesses your behaviors and new found skills to let you know if you're on the right track and what more you need to learn to pull you back on course.
Should All Training Be At Level 3 and Above?
I'm certainly not advocating that all training programs deliver Level 3 competencies or higher. The fact is, often Level 1 and Level 2 (Knowledge and Comprehension) is sufficient. For example, when you want to know what the ground-level impact is of some new legislation; or, when you simply need to become aware of new contract addendums or new disclosures that just hit the street, for these Knowledge and/or Comprehension is sufficient.
But, by the same token, I am advocating that certain foundational skills need to be bumped up to ensure higher degrees of competency. Especially when consumers are entrusting to you what, for most of them, will likely be the biggest investment of their entire life. When that happens, I would hope you're not "practicing" on their dime.
So, and I say this with all due respect, for those who would compare your preferred compensation model to other professionals who have undergone much more rigor in Knowledge, Comprehension, Application and Synthesis, ask yourself first have you practiced what someone preached?
Ask the questions above before buying your next training course. By getting those answers up front you'll at least be more aware of what the training program will deliver relative to the dollars you put out.
