Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

Why consumers don’t care about dual agency in real estate

The real estate consuming public wants results. In the last half century they’ve simply not made even a small deal out of dual agency.

Published

on

dual agency

dual agency

Dual agency in real estate

Buyer representation? Dual agency? NAR for heaven’s sake? Give me a break. Until I became a blogger I was both ignorant and apathetic about what opinions were held by others in the industry on those subjects. The only thing that has changed is the entertainment I sometimes enjoy while reading about them.

Keep in mind that most of these opinions are offered by agents who’ve never put together consecutive years of income equal to the national median. In fact, the vast majority of these pillars of agent ethics, according to their own association, earn far less than the national median.

In the 1960s and early 1970s I worked for a real estate firm sporting six offices and give or take 40 agents. About 65-75% of the agents were full time. In the two years I was the janitor and printer (mimeograph) of new listings, they closed over 1,000 transactions — over 2,000 ‘sides’ — 100% of which were dual agency sales. That same firm also escrowed the sales. Oh, the humanity! Furthermore, if one of their agents was caught showing another broker’s listings, he/she was fired on the spot. The company’s broker/owner didn’t cooperate with outside brokers – as policy. He refused to join the local board or the MLS. How could that work you ask? Simple, his company always had more listings under $20,000 (the magic number back then) than the entire MLS. He didn’t need them. They needed him.

And everyone knew it.

(Note: For the record, this broker didn’t employ nepotism very well either. Starting your son in the family business as the janitor for two years sends a pretty clear message, don’t you think? Dad was one of a kind.)

When inevitably the green monster of envy showed up in the form of an anonymous complaint to the DRE — bullies are almost always cowards too — he was unceremoniously audited within an inch of his life. It took three days. The auditor handed his card to the broker when he’d concluded his work, and said, “Mr. Brown, if you are contacted by the DRE about any broker’s complaint ever again, give me a call. Your files are the cleanest I’ve ever seen. If I ever decide to move, you will get my listing.”

It seems when the smoke cleared, integrity was what mattered. Integrity is the ultimate trump card.

I find it silly to even have to debate this subject, since most of the time it revolves around perception, not reality. Marketing deals with perception. Our behavior in the service of our clients must be more valuable than that. It must be real. Our clients must have faith in us and our integrity, not merely an ambiguous, often amorphous perception.

I work in the investment side of real estate. My clients invest to improve their retirement. A large part of my business is tax deferred exchanges. The consequences of a failed exchange can be ruinous in terms of capital gains taxes unintentionally caused.

Without boring you with tax law details, there are times in an exchange in which investors can be put at risk of owing capital gains taxes. If a transaction falls through at a critical point in the exchange, it can result in huge tax consequences, regardless of whose fault it was. In my experience this usually comes up when I’ve sold a client’s income property as the first stage of an exchange. There is a 45 day window from the time that sale closes in which the seller must ‘identify’ the property they will be exchanging into, using the equity/proceeds from the recently closed sale. If that property is listed by an outside broker who somehow causes the escrow to fall out, and the 45 days has passed – my client is rendered helpless. He can no longer take advantage of a tax deferred exchange, and will now owe whatever capital gains tax applies to that property.

The common denominator of these failures is the listing agent, virtually always a specialist in owner occupied housing.

This is why my clients PREFER to purchase properties I’ve listed. They know the other client is likely also exchanging for tax reasons and therefore equally motivated to perform. They also like that I’m in control of both sides.

Wait, it gets better.

I tell my clients, in writing, that if I sell their property myself it’s virtually guaranteed to be at a lower price than if another broker from the MLS brought their buyer to the table. Now this is where the chorus chimes in – “That’s at least the perception of evil! This is why dual agency is so wrong.” Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. The next question is why sell for a little less, right? I’m glad you asked.

90% of the properties I sell for my clients are 1-4 unit rentals. Most of the buyers are represented by agents who couldn’t find their backsides with two guides, a map, and a GPS when it comes to income property. Their agents allow them to pay more than my clients would. (I’m with this when there’s no exchange involved, as who doesn’t like a higher price.) My clients make the decision to sell for a tad less, (usually 1-3%) because of the peace of mind they have knowing the sale, and therefore the tax deferred excchange is going to conclude successfully. Paying $50-100,000 in capital gains taxes because some house agent wannabe decides to dabble in investments isn’t worth getting $10,000 more for their property.

And for the record, I charge six percent — period. Of course, all this is disclosed to the max. I usually end up introducing the clients to each other, and some have become friends. They all have a signed, written disclosure by me on my letterhead, making my relationship with all parties nakedly transparent. One of the common denominators that makes this attractive to my clients is the knowledge that they’re buying property that hasn’t been broadcast to the public. They don’t have to compete with other buyers, making it even more of a seamless transaction. And the sellers prefer this approach for the above mentioned reasons. (I’ve always been told repetition is the best teacher.)

When I’ve given ‘mini-seminars’ in their homes, attended by their friends, neighbors, and family, it’s more likely than not that they’ve actually invited another client of mine to attend. It’s pretty effective when investors hear from satisfied clients that dual agency is sometimes the way to go. This is especially true when some of the attendees have experienced exchanges gone sideways due to an outside house broker’s poor performance.

However, now that my operation is national, not local in scope, I hafta deal with these wannabes regularly. The silver lining is that even if the sale of the original property in the exchange falls through, they’ve not yet incurred tax consequences. Since I advise/consult with the sellers of the properties they’ll eventually acquire, their safety remains assured.

Ultimately the reasons my clients do business with me is the same reason your clients do business with you: You offer solid value, expertise, and results. You operate with INTEGRITY. My clients come to me because they want to increase net worth, retire as soon as possible, and with as much tax sheltered or tax free income as they can possibly create. I strive to give them just that.

Dual agency is a non-issue debated by folks who are either jealous or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, afraid of what others might think of them. I have no problem with those who disagree with me and avoid dual agency as policy. In fact I admire them for walking their talk. I think most of them are sincere in their beliefs.

I just think they’re sincerely mistaken. Integrity should always triumph over perception. When perception wins, we all lose. Perception is too often a bully who doesn’t have anything else to say, so the issue is framed by how it might appear. To those who are on the fence, I say, grow a pair. Look others in the eye and stand on the platform of your integrity.

Dual agency is simply not an issue worth of all this drama. Here are the usual 4 arguments brought forward.

 1. The client has the potential to be injured by an agent who isn’t an angel.

If this is accepted universally then we must repeal the law of gravity. It also is employed daily by those not possessing either wings or a halo. This belief requires all agency to be eliminated due to the potential for abuse.

2. If he is the listing agent he can’t compose a low ball offer.

What, your forms software won’t work? There is no ethical prohibition to making low ball offers if the buyer insists on it, even if you’re also the listing agent. That offer doesn’t make you unethical, it makes you an agent. A seller can turn it down as he pleases, just as if he was represented by another agent. In fact, I’d be telling my client that his low ball offer will be turned down — due to my advice to the seller. 🙂 The seller’s already been told by me, verbally and in writing, that the ultimate sales price WILL BE lower than the buyer wasn’t also my client. They’ve made a totally informed decision to go with that scenario. (Just not low ball.) They know I won’t allow a stoopid low sales price, AS DOES MY BUYER CLIENT. They both know the story from beginning to end, and have opted in voluntarily.

3. If dual agency can ever be abused via bad agent intent, then it is universally a bad idea.

By that definition all agency is a bad idea as it can all be abused by bad intent. Using that approach, marriage is a bad idea. Government is a bad idea. Baby sitting is a bad idea. Only those unable to think for themselves buy into that school of thought.

4. The perception of the public favors an agent who refuses to participate in dual agency.

I’ve been hearing this since Nixon was in office, and apparently missed that tsunami of negative public opinion. Yet how many past clients refuse to do business with huge teams whose volume each year consists of 10-25% dual agency? I personally know a highly successful team leader in another state who listed and sold an attorney’s home himself. The attorney came to him to list the property with full knowledge it could result in a dual agency sale. The final false premise is that I must ‘persuade’ you that dual agency is universally good rather than evil. Shame on me for accepting that in the first place.

Nobody’s ever proved to me that dual agency is inherently injurious to our clients. What folks have said is it has the potential to be. I have the potential to be an escrow officer but haven chosen to eschew that path. An argument against dual agency based on the potential for agent abuse, or the public’s perception, or that it sometimes results in unethical behavior, is doomed to failure. We all choose to behave and conduct business ethically and with OldSchool integrity, or we don’t. The real laugher is that an agent behaves ethically during single agency deals, but misbehaves during dual agency. Really? You’re hangin’ your hat on that? You’re embarrassing yourself.

As for the public’s outcry on this subject, I’m deafened by the silence. 

This coming October will mark my 44th anniversary in the business. I’ve heard this dual agency ‘debate’ since I was 18. Yet, the public hasn’t cared a whit. It’s almost always the PC bully crowd makin’ most of the noise.

Please put forward an argument which logically stands alone. As you have noticed by now, I won’t defend my position based upon the potential for evil. Angelic behavior is not a requirement to make a living in real estate. Integrity and ethically based behavior is. Bad behavior is punished. The drunk driver is punished, but you and I aren’t prohibited from drinking because of the drunk driver’s sin.

Ayn Rand said it best: If the results you wish continually fail to materialize – check your premises.

The public simply never has, isn’t, and likely won’t buy your irrational reasoning. They’re far more interested in getting results.

Jeff Brown specializes in real estate investment for retirement, has practiced real estate for over 40 years and is a veteran of over 200 tax deferred exchanges, many multi-state. Brown is a second generation broker and works daily with the third generation. With CCIM training and decades of hands on experience, Brown's expertise is highly sought after, some of which he shares on his real estate investing blog.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. Miriam Bernstein

    July 15, 2013 at 8:35 am

    The correct title for this piece should be “why old timers in real estate don’t care about dual agency” because some consumers do care. That is not to say in your particular business it doesn’t work perfectly; more like commercial transaction which are strictly business – emotion removed. Dual agency laws are different state to state and what is and isn’t allowable can make a difference…In New York for example the Broker designates a buyer’s agent and a seller’s agent who can “advocate” for their consumers also works….I personally don’t like it because I prefer that each party have an advocate who can advise them as issues come up which can’t be done in Dual Agency….not so simple.

    • BawldGuy

      July 15, 2013 at 5:37 pm

      Sorry you felt it necessary to get personal, Miriam. Try this out. Since the 21st century began, clearly in the internet era, my firm has closed 8 figures of dual agency transactions. The median age of my clients is under 45. Fully 20% of them are in their 20s and 30s. Guess they didn’t get your memo.

      • Miriam Bernstein

        July 16, 2013 at 9:55 am

        I’m an old timer too, so didn’t think it was “personal” in a negative way. I started working as a sub agent and we knew nothing of dual agency. I have found that us “old timers” have a different view about dual agency at times than agents who haven’t experienced the way it was. I sometimes think they should just go back 20 years as this is all so complicated for consumers –

        • BawldGuy

          July 16, 2013 at 2:04 pm

          I apologize, Miriam. I, maybe as you do at times, get tired of folks sayin’ that something in principle has changed. Principles simply don’t change. I think Ms. Lussier said it best. When there is no slight of hand, everything is open to sunlight, trust is created. Once trust exists, I’ve not seen them care. Oh, and for the record, my first 7 years were listing and selling owner occupied homes. Never had a complaint about dual agency in those years either.

          Again, I’m sorry for taking your comment the wrong way. My bad.

  2. Hank Miller

    July 15, 2013 at 9:59 am

    A few good points but Miriam makes a very good one regarding emotion. I’ve been doing this since ’89 and every agent worth their salt has an example or one hundred of where a client removed the data and common sense from a transaction and acted solely on emotion. With the availability of data over the last several years, everyone is an “expert” and I’ve seen many instances where good, ethical agents have been skewered in dual agency. Unreliable data (most any public site), emotion, suspicion, the home buying process in general and angst make dual agency a potential disaster. I much prefer to hand an unrepresented client to my managing broker for assignment, the risk of an issue isn’t worth it to me – perception is reality in many minds when things “go wrong” for someone.

    Commercial and income properties tend to be more data centric, I don’t see the risk/reward equation being favorable in the current environment. I’m just fine representing one client in a transaction. Now as far as the bully and extortion tactics of the MLS organizations, don’t even get me started.

  3. Jonathan Dalton

    July 15, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    * watches BawldGuy drop the mike and leave *

    • BawldGuy

      July 15, 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Exactamundo.

  4. Jonathan Dalton

    July 15, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    > With the availability of data over the last several years, everyone is an “expert” and I’ve seen many instances where good, ethical agents have been skewered in dual agency. Unreliable data (most any public site) … make dual agency a potential disaster.

    If the agent’s data is correct, then why would they be skewered?

    Jeff works the investment side so emotion ain’t part of the deal. Having said that, arguments about the emotion go back to the perception. If I have even the slightest concern that one side or the other is concerned about me working both sides, I don’t do it. Call it common sense. Call it CYA to the max. Whatever it is, it works. So far, though, it’s been raised as an issue by less than 1 percent of my clients in my nine years in.

    If you’re that worries about perception, given what most of the public thinks, you’re in the wrong business. Me and the man in the mirror, however, rest east because we know what we’re doing.

  5. franklyrealty

    July 15, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Was my comment removed?

  6. franklyrealty

    July 16, 2013 at 11:42 am

    Thank you for an example where Dual Agency might work. I have also heard it from a horse expert that said that being a specialist in Horse Farms makes things go more smoothly, whereas a random agent will guarantee problems.

    The post was confusing however since it isn’t clear which “client” you are referring to at times. Maybe edit the post and always say “buyer client” or “seller client.”

    That being said, there was one thing I was looking for in your in your post. And that is advice and how it is given when both sides are your client. And I found it when you said “I’d be telling my [buyer] client that his low ball offer will be turned down — due to my advice to the seller [client].”

    Exactly what advice are you giving? The drawback of dual agency that you didn’t discuss (and most articles miss) and is my main gripe is that the agent becomes an overpaid paperpusher. They can’t give advice to either side (for most negotiation matters).

    So when the listing is $500k and your buyer offers $490k, do you give advice? To go higher or lower? And when you take that offer over to the seller, do you say “I think you should hold out for more, or this is good, you should take it.”

    My understanding of dual agency, and I could be wrong, is that you have to work the contract, not the clients. You can’t give advice to either side that might in the slightest effect the other side. Hence a glorified paper pusher.

    Do you give offer and counter offer advice?

    Frank LL0SA Esq
    Broker Md VA DC
    Attorney only in NJ

  7. Theresa Lussier

    July 16, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    I don’t believe they don’t “care”. I do think they don’t mind.

    >>They all have a signed, written disclosure by me on my letterhead, making my relationship with all parties nakedly transparent.

    Which makes it their decision, Jeff, and that is the difference. As long as they know upfront what is going on, they are okay with it, but if it’s not disclosed upfront, they do not like it one bit. I’ve had buyers come from other agents who showed them their own listings and never once brought up dual agency. Believe me, they care, they just want it disclosed at the beginning. It’s about trust…

  8. BawldGuy

    July 16, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    I think that statement is accurate, Mark. On the other hand, who has more on the line, emotions aside? Again, I agree with your statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion Editorials

How to find the sweet spot between procrastination and desperation

(EDITORIAL) Many intelligent people find themselves stuck in analysis paralysis (procrastination) and missing their window of opportunity. Others make decisions without enough information. How do you find the sweet spot between the two?

Published

on

procrastination

I need to confess something to you

So, a little confession’s good for the soul, right? I feel like I need to confess something to you, dear reader, before we jump right into this article. What follows is an article that I pitched to our editor some months back, and was approved then, but I’ve had the hardest time getting started. It’s not writer’s block, per se; I’ve written scores of other articles here since then, so I can’t use that as an excuse.

It’s become a bit of a punch line around the office, too; I was asked if I was delaying the article about knowing the sweet spot in decision making between procrastination and desperation as some sort of hipster meta joke.

Which would be funny, were it to be true, but it’s not. I just became wrapped up in thinking about where this article was headed, and didn’t put words to paper. Until now.

Analysis by paralysis

“Thinking about something—thinking and thinking and thinking—without having an answer is when you get analysis by paralysis,” said St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Matt Bowman, speaking to Fangraphs.

“That’s what happened… I was trying to figure out what I was doing wrong, or if I was doing anything wrong. I had no idea.” It happens to us all: the decisions we have to make in business loom so large over us, that we delay making them until it’s absolutely necessary.

bar
Worse still are the times that we delay them until after such a time as when making the decision no longer matters because the opportunity or market’s already moved on. So we try to find the avenues for ourselves that will give us the answers we seek, and try to use those answers in a timely fashion. Jim Kaat, the former All-Star pitcher said it well: “If you think long, you think wrong.”

Dumpster Diving in Data

In making a decision, we’re provided an opportunity to answer three basic questions: What? So what? And now what?

The data that you use to inform your decision making process should ideally help you answer the first two of those three questions. But where do you get it from, and how much is enough?

Like many of us, I’m a collector when it comes to decision making. The more data I get to inform my decision, and the sufficient time that I invest to analyze that data, I feel helps me make a better decision.

And while that sounds prudent, and no one would suggest the other alternative of making a decision without data or analysis would be better, it can lead to the pitfall of knowing how much is enough. When looking for data sources to inform your decision making, it’s not necessarily quantity, but an appropriate blend between quantity and quality that will be most useful.

You don’t get brownie points for wading through a ton of data of marginal quality or from the most arcane places you can find them when you’re trying to make an informed decision. The results of your ultimate decision will speak for themselves.

“Effective people,” said Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, “know when to stop assessing and make a tough call, even without total information.”

Great. How do I do that?

So, by what factors should you include (and more importantly, exclude) data in your decision making?

Your specific business sector will tell you which data sources most of your competitors use already, as well as the ones that your industry disruptors use to try to gain the edge on you.

Ideally, your data sources should be timely and meaningful to you. Using overly historical data, unless you’re needing that level of support for a trend line prediction, often falls into “That’s neat, but…” land. Also, if you’re wading into data sets that you don’t understand, find ways to either improve (and thus speed) your analysis of them, or find better data sources.

While you should be aware of outliers in the data sets, don’t become so enamored of them and the stories that they may tell that you base your decision making process around the outlier, rather than the most likely scenarios.

And don’t fall into this trap

Another trap with data analysis is the temptation to find meaning where it may not exist. Anyone who’s been through a statistics class is familiar with the axiom correlation doesn’t imply causation. But it’s oh so tempting, isn’t it? To find those patterns where no one saw them before?

There’s nothing wrong with doing your homework and finding real connections, but relying on two data points and then creating the story of their interconnectedness in the vacuum will lead you astray.

Such artificial causations are humorous to see; Tyler Vigen’s work highlights many of them.

My personal favorite is the “correlation” between the U.S. per capita consumption of cheese and people who died after becoming entangled in their bed sheets. Funny, but unrelated.

So, as you gather information, be certain that you can support your action or non-action with recent, accurate, and relevant data, and gather enough to be thorough, but not so enamored of the details that you start to drown in the collection phase.

Trust issues

For many of us, delegation is an opportunity for growth. General Robert E. Lee had many generals under his command during the American Civil War, but none was so beloved to him as Stonewall Jackson.

Upon Jackson’s death in 1863, Lee commented that Jackson had lost his left arm, but that he, Lee, had lost his right. Part of this affection for Jackson was the ability to trust that Jackson would faithfully carry out Lee’s orders. In preparing for the Battle of Chancellorsville, Jackson approached Lee with a plan for battle:

Lee, Jackson’s boss, opened the conversation: “What do you propose to do?”

Jackson, who was well prepared for the conversation based on his scout’s reports, replied. “I propose to go right around there,” tracing the line on the map between them.

“How many troops will you take?,” Lee queried.

“My whole command,” said Jackson.

“What will you leave me here with?,” asked Lee.

Jackson responded with the names of the divisions he was leaving behind. Lee paused for a moment, but just a moment, before replying, “Well, go ahead.”

And after three questions in the span of less than five minutes, over 30,000 men were moved towards battle.

The takeaway is that Lee trusted Jackson implicitly. It wasn’t a blind trust that Lee had; Jackson had earned it by his preparation and execution, time after time. Lee didn’t see Jackson as perfect, either. He knew the shortcomings that he had, and worked to hone his talents towards making sure those shortcomings were minimized.

Making trust pay off for you

We all deserve to have people around us in the workplace that we can develop into such a trust. When making decisions, large or small, having colleagues that you can rely on to let you know the reality of the situation, provide a valuable alternative perspective, or ask questions that let you know the idea needs more deliberation are invaluable assets.

Finding and cultivating those relationships is a deliberate choice and one that needs considerable and constant investments in your human capital to keep.Click To Tweet

Chris Oberbeck at Entrepreneur identifies five keys to making that investment in trust pay off for you: make authentic connections with those in your employ and on your team, make promises to your staff sparingly, and keep every one of them that you make, set clear expectations about behaviors, communication and output, be vulnerable enough to say “I don’t know” and professional enough to then find the right answers, and invest your trust in your employees first, so that they feel comfortable reciprocating.

Beyond developing a relationship of trust between those who work alongside you, let’s talk about trusting yourself.

For many, the paralysis of analysis comes not from their perceived lack of data, but their lack of confidence in themselves to make the right decision. “If I choose incorrectly,” they think, “it’s possible that I might ________.” Everyone’s blank is different.

For some, it’s a fear of criticism, either due or undue. For others, it’s a fear of failure and what that may mean. Even in the face of compelling research about the power of a growth mindset, in which mistakes and shortcomings can be seen as opportunities for improvement rather than labels of failure, it’s not uncommon for many of us to have those “tapes” in our head, set to auto play upon a miscue, that remind us that we’ve failed and how that labels us.

“Risk” isn’t just a board game

An uncomfortable fact of life is that, in business, you can do everything right, and yet still fail. All of the research can come back, the trend lines of data suggest the appropriate course of action, your team can bless the decision, and you feel comfortable with it, so action is taken! And it doesn’t work at all. A perfect example of this is the abject failure of New Coke to be accepted by the consumer in 1985.

Not only was it a failure to revive lagging sales, but public outrage was so vehement that the company was forced to backtrack and recall the product from the market. Sometimes things just don’t work out the way they’re supposed to.

You have to be comfortable with your corporate and individual levels of risk when making a decision and taking action. How much risk and how much failure costs you, both in fiscal and emotional terms, is a uniquely personal decision, suited to your circumstances and your predilections. It’s also likely a varying level, too; some decisions are more critical to success and the perceptions of success than others, and will likely cause you more pause than the small decisions we make day-to-day.

In the end, success and failure hinge on the smallest of factors at times, and the temptation is to slow down the decision making process to ensure that nothing’s left to chance.

Go too slowly, however, and you’ve become the captain of a rudderless ship, left aimlessly to float, with decisions never coming, or coming far too late to meet the needs of the market, much less be innovative. Collect the information, work with your team to figure out what it means, and answer the third question of the series (the “what”) by taking action.

#TakeAction

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Study says women need to be seen as “warm” to be considered confident

(EDITORIAL) A new study reveals that despite progress, women are still successful when they fall into a stereotype. Let’s discuss.

Published

on

selflessness hard working entrepreneur

About 15 years ago, I took a part-time job in a mental health clinic handling bookkeeping and billing. I had absolutely no idea what I was doing, but I attacked the job with what I felt was confidence. For the first few days, I simply felt as if I was an imposter. I kept asking questions and pushing forward, even though I didn’t make much progress. Within just a few days, I felt the hostility of the office manager.

It got progressively worse, and I couldn’t figure out what the heck I’d done to make her so confrontational with me. I thought I was pleasant and respectful of her position, and I was getting along with the other employees. When I talked to our boss, I was told that I intimidated the office manager. HUH? Me? Intimidating? I was a complete mess at the time. I could barely put together a business casual wardrobe. My emotional health was so fragile that I rarely went anywhere new. And she found me intimidating?

Researchers have been studying how people judge others. Susan Fiske, researcher out of Princeton, found that competence and warmth are two of the dimensions used to judge others. Based on that research, Laura Guillén, Margarita Mayo, and Natalia Karelaia studied the competence and warmth at a software company with 236 engineers.  Guillén and her team collected data at two separate times about these engineers and their confidence and influence within the organization.

They found that “men are seen as confident if they are seen as competent, but women are seen as confident only if they come across as both competent and warm.

Women must be seen as warm in order to capitalize on their competence and be seen as confident and influential at work; competent men are seen as confident and influential whether they are warm or not.”

We encourage women to be confident, but based on current research, it may not be enough to close the gender gap in the workplace. A woman must be seen as helpful and dedicated to others to have the same influence as a man. As a woman, it’s easy to be seen as the #bossbitch when you have to make tough decisions. Those same decisions, when made by a man might be considered just “business as normal.”

I guess the lesson is that women still have to work twice as hard as men just to be seen as equals. I know that I have to work on empathy when I’m in an office environment. That office manager isn’t the only person who has thought I’m intimidating. I’ve heard it from it others, but you know what?  As a self-employed writer, I’d rather be seen as undeterred and daunting than submissive and meek.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

“Starting a business is easy,” said only one guy ever

(OPNION EDITORIAL) Between following rules, finding funding, and gathering research, no business succeeds without lifting a finger.

Published

on

finger college companies apprenticeship grad college

While browsing business articles this week, I came across this one, “Top 10 Business Ideas You Can Start for Free With Barely Lifting a Finger.” These types of articles make me mad. I can’t think of many successful freelancers or entrepreneurs who don’t put in hours of blood, sweat and tears to get a business going.

The author of the article is Murray Newlands, a “VIP Contributor.” Essentially, he’s a freelancer because he also contributes to Forbes, HuffPro and others. He’s the founder of ChattyPeople.com, which is important, because it’s the first business idea he promotes in the article.

But when I pull up his other articles on Entrepreneur.com, I see others like “How to Get Famous and Make Money on YouTube,” “Win Like A Targaryen: 10 Businesses You Can Start for Free,” and “10 Ventures Young Entrepreneurs Can Start for Cheap or Free.”

I seriously cannot believe that Entrepreneur.com keeps paying for the same ideas over and over.

The business ideas that are suggested are pretty varied. One suggestion is to offer online classes. I wonder if Newlands considered how long it takes to put together a worthy curriculum and how much effort goes into marketing said course.

Then, you have to work out the bugs, because users will have problems. How do you keep someone from stealing your work? What happens when you have a dispute?

Newlands suggests that you could start a blog. It’s pretty competitive these days. The most successful bloggers are ones that really work on their blog, every day. The bloggers have a brand, offer relevant content and are ethical in how they get traffic.

Think it’s easy? Better try again.

I could go on. Every idea he puts up there is a decent idea, but if he thinks it will increase your bottom line without a lot of hard work and effort, he’s delusional.

Today’s entrepreneurs need a plan. They need to work that plan, rethink it and keep working. They have to worry about liability, marketing and keeping up with technologies.

Being an entrepreneur is rewarding, but it’s hard work. It is incredibly inappropriate and grossly negligent to encourage someone to risk everything they have and are on the premise of not lifting a finger.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!