With team per­for­mance of­ten re­flect­ing a leader's en­ergy and drive, Rose Kelly iden­ti­fies the best way to mea­sure how your lead­er­ship skills are im­pact­ing your real es­tate busi­ness – for bet­ter or worse.

Elite Agent - - FRONT PAGE - ROSE KELLY As the Di­rec­tor and Coach at Lead­ing Fo­cus, Rose Kelly lives out her pas­sion for ex­cel­lence and her de­sire to max­imise the po­ten­tial of all real es­tate in­dus­try pro­fes­sion­als. For more in­for­ma­tion visit lead­ing­fo­

Lead­er­ship in real es­tate is not just a busi­ness jour­ney; it's also a per­sonal one. To­gether they are like in­ter­sect­ing roller­coast­ers: do you strap your­self in, fuel up for the long haul, learn bet­ter nav­i­ga­tion, get your mind clear of dis­trac­tions, or stay fo­cused on the road ahead? In fact, you need to do all this and more. In every busi­ness there are mea­sur­able in­di­ca­tors, known as KPIs, that will de­ter­mine how well the de­sired re­sults are achieved. Along­side these are the be­hav­iour, mo­ti­va­tion and en­gage­ment of the em­ploy­ees. It seems that both the quan­tum re­sults and team en­gage­ment are sig­nif­i­cantly im­pacted by the leader, and how well that per­son per­forms in their lead­er­ship role.

It is lead­er­ship that un­der­pins how con­sis­tently, ef­fec­tively and ef­fi­ciently the re­sults are achieved. It cre­ates, stim­u­lates and sus­tains the en­gage­ment and there­fore the pro­duc­tiv­ity of team mem­bers.

That begs the ques­tion: what do high-per­form­ing lead­ers do to cham­pion the suc­cess of their teams to achieve re­sults, re­main en­gaged and de­liver the high­est lev­els of pro­duc­tiv­ity? How can we de­ter­mine whether some­one mea­sures up in their lead­er­ship role?

Lead­er­ship per­for­mance in real es­tate sales de­part­ments is com­monly mon­i­tored, al­beit mostly through the re­sults achieved. There is of­ten less em­pha­sis on mon­i­tor­ing lead­er­ship for the rest of the team – usu­ally a mix­ture of prop­erty man­agers and ad­min­is­tra­tive staff.

There are some ob­vi­ous ra­tio­nales around mea­sur­ing lead­ers' per­for­mance based on the per­for­mance of their team or in­di­vid­u­als within it. How­ever, to go more deeply into why some peo­ple per­form bet­ter than oth­ers and how their leader is im­pact­ing on that, we need to look at their en­gage­ment in the work­place.

Em­ployee en­gage­ment can be mea­sured us­ing a tool such as Gallup's Q12 Em­ployee Sur­vey, which rates in­di­vid­u­als ac­cord­ing to their con­nec­tion and com­mit­ment to the goals and vi­sion of their com­pany. Gallup main­tain that when em­ploy­ees are ac­tively en­gaged they are emo­tion­ally in­vested and fo­cused on cre­at­ing value for their em­ployer. The re­search shows a di­rect link be­tween em­ployee en­gage­ment and pro­duc­tiv­ity.

Gallup's own sur­vey ques­tions in­di­cate that em­ployee en­gage­ment has much to do with the be­hav­iour of their leader: how well em­ploy­ees feel they are un­der­stood and cared about, how well they know what is ex­pected of them, how of­ten this is re­viewed and whether they re­ceive reg­u­lar feed­back. These are some of the core em­ployee needs de­scribed by Gallup.

Em­ploy­ees who are highly en­gaged are more likely to give ‘dis­cre­tionary ef­fort' to their work, fea­tur­ing along­side a re­duc­tion in ab­sen­teeism, staff turnover, theft and cus­tomer com­plaints, and a cor­re­spond­ing in­crease in sales and pro­duc­tiv­ity.

This re­search shows there are some very real met­rics for mon­i­tor­ing lead­er­ship per­for­mance. At a high level one might be sat­is­fied with tak­ing a snap­shot of team and in­di­vid­ual per­for­mance, but drilling down deeper it is clear that in­di­vid­ual en­gage­ment is also a good met­ric. Some of the fall­out be­hav­iours of team mem­bers who are not ac­tively en­gaged, or worse still dis­en­gaged, pro­vide fur­ther in­sight into the per­for­mance of the leader.

We can there­fore mea­sure the spe­cific ac­tions that lead­ers take to main­tain en­gage­ment and pro­duc­tiv­ity, such as how of­ten they con­duct one-onone meet­ings, what ac­tions they take to hold em­ploy­ees ac­count­able for their re­sults and give feed­back on per­for­mance, how of­ten they meet with the whole team in en­gag­ing ways, and how and when they re­view in­di­vid­ual per­for­mance goals


and ac­tion plans.

In sum­mary, it seems that a hy­brid model of mea­sur­ing lead­er­ship per­for­mance makes the most sense. Lead­er­ship per­for­mance can be mea­sured against both the re­sults the team de­liver and their em­ployee en­gage­ment score, giv­ing lead­ers more im­pe­tus to de­velop and ap­ply the full range of skills they need to be a high per­former.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.