Drive and real estate II

Dan Pink's book flows from the idea that there are 3 layers of motivation which he compares to operating systems. A primal motivational layer (Motivation 1) focused on survival. A somewhat more advanced and nuanced layer (Motivation 2) of more recent origin that embraces reward/punishment (AKA carrot and stick) motivation. A third layer (Motivation 3) is designed to accommodate the intrinsic motivational drive toward mastery of the known and exploration of the unknown-- regardless of the benefits and, to a certain extent, the costs.

Real estate is one of those antediluvian business processes still stuck in the Motivation 2 realm. It's largely driven by extrinsic rewards, ie commissions. The punishment phase arises from inadequate risk management or a broker not happy with the Gross Closed Commission figures. Carrot and stick in classic mode. Is there any hint of Motivation 3 present in real estate? Very little. Real estate runs on a very simple dinosaur brain, despite what your impression might be if you read an independent contractor agreement oh so carefully worded to imply that the agent has considerable latitude in creatively achieving the desired end. In the real world, the latitude may be there, but there aren't many explorers hiking down freshly blazed trails where no foot prints are visible ahead.

Why? Two main reasons. The measure of success in real estate is very simple---money. The business involves an incredible diversity of skills and knowledge, but the only manifestation of success is the commission check at the close of escrow. The spellbinding leaps of creativity that might have occurred on the way to close the escrow are never on the radar screen of success. All that matters to the industry is the sides and the money. Heaven forbid the escrow didn't close. If a wondrous new idea sprung forth during an ultimately failed escrow, it would very probably vanish forever by its association with a negative event. It's a superstition thing.

The other factor is the rampant standardization engineered by the state and national trade organizations to provide a one size fits all approach to business, politics and real estate life. The forms are standardized, the political views are standardized, the services provided to the public are largely standardized. The trade organizations set the standards of practice and to do business in any other way increases risk--or that's the impression conveyed. After creating this sweeping standardization the state association conveniently develops and sells products and services to assist their members as they engage in standardized activities.

There are 180,000+ captive (and largely standardized) consumers (AKA members) of state trade association products who are for the most part motivated (as in Motivation 2) by money, rather than an intrinsic urge to discover more effective ways to deliver service consistent with the best interests of their clients. If an agent did make such a discovery, fellow agents would casually ask "but does it increase money or decrease work?" Some Kool Aid Krowd agents would also ask, "isn't that discovery inconsistent with trade organization standardized recommendations".

This this pattern bad? Not necessarily. Like any "one size fits all" plan, it does fit a lot of the business pretty well, but it also discourages evolution of the standards to meet changing needs and also fails to accommodate any exceptional outliers that require a solution totally outside the box.

So here's the interesting part. Does the profession of real estate tend to attract and retain Motivation 2 type people, rather than Motivation 3 people? Alternatively, does the real estate profession change Motivation 3 people in ways that make them conform more closely to Motivation 2 behavior?

How might the real estate industry change into a more creative mode? Technology? Not likely because technology tends to provide the adopters with new ways of accomplishing old things. Technology seldom IS a new thing. Technology in the form of social networking, digital communications, information display etc hasn't really changed real estate basics, just offered new ways to address the basics. Those new ways are further and further from the real world and, as such, may not be in the best interests of the Buyers and Sellers. Of course if you ask the Buyers and Sellers, they'll say "sure I want more technology and I want it now!"