Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

Technology still not the answer to a successful real estate practice



Closing in on half a century in real estate

Earlier this month I quietly acknowledged my 42nd year as a licensee. All but just over six of those years have been spent as a designated broker. Read: where the buck stops. The first nearly six years were spent as an agent listing/selling homes to owner users, not investors. High tech in those days meant your car didn’t sport a carburetor. The MLS was housed in a small phone book, with thrice weekly ‘Hot Sheets’ delivered in the form of stapled pages directly to each office. On my first day as a licensee there were no ‘For Sale’ signs made of anything but a steel stake with a sign screwed to it. No giant wood post type signs.

Today? Many are embarrassed if the computer they use is more than a couple years old. Put in context though, their smart phone has more computing power by far than what NASA used just 100 short days before I became licensed.

Ah, context. A wonderful thing, isn’t it?

The agents in Dad’s firm back in the mid to late 60’s, if they were good, and the vast majority were very good, might close 30 sides in a year. Based on today’s commission splits (A side = 3% of purchase price. Agent gets 80% of that.), those 1960’s agents, in a market with a median sales price of say, $200,000 would make $144,000. Contrast that with what they made back then. The math is simple — just divide by 10. Actually, they made less than 10% of today’s agent with the same number of closed sides due to the far lower commission rates paid back then. Think 20-40% of the 3% and you have the true picture.

The average full time agent in Dad’s firm generated over a couple dozen closed sides a year. Please, anyone, anywhere, show me a real estate brokerage whose full time agents number more than a couple dozen, and average two closed sides monthly. It might exist, but if so it’s definitely the exception proving the rule. For the record, if we use San Diego values now, those agents don’t make $144,00, they make $252,000.

More context

San Diego county’s population is roughly three times what it was back then. The percentage of agents producing excellent results are about the same too — we’ve not seen that change in over 40 years.

Wanna know the only real change in real estate brokerage in all those years? I mean change that matters a hill of beans? Teams. Aside from the advent of teams, nothing I’ve seen in the last 42 years has had any empirically discernible impact on a typical agent’s ability to earn. Measured in terms of transactions per period, and allowing for population/housing growth, things are pretty much the same.

But what about…?

But what about all the high tech help agents have at their fingertips now? What about it? If you’re reading this as an agent or broker, please, tell us about all the agents you know and/or work with who’re closing 24 sides a year or more — and not part of a team. You can’t cuz those you know are but an embarrassingly small slice of the pie out there.

Technology? There’s little or no real evidence demonstrating, again, empirically, that it’s impacted real production a whit. Sure, there are agents here and there who’ve figured out how to leverage technology to generate leads. That part doesn’t make ’em special. It’s those even rarer agents who figure out how to convert those leads at an impressive rate. No, even with the massive onset of high tech that has made itself part of the everyday brokerage existence, real production hasn’t been affected when it comes to the foot soldiers of the industry.

Agents are doing the same business they were a couple generations ago, but with shinier objects. They’re not producing any more than their predecessors when productivity is measured the only way it matters — the bank account.

Ultimately it’s like Grandma said — The more things change, the more they stay the same. What really makes an agent/broker successful today is exactly the same things that made Dad’s crew flourish.

The equation hasn’t changed in the last 1,000 years. Be more knowledgeable and skilled than the next guy, while talkin’ to and gettin’ belly to belly with as many as possible. High tech when I started was a telephone. Then came the first computers. Then cell phones. Then all the magic software guaranteed to triple the business of the agent who bought it. Among all that was the IDX which was and still is, heralded as second only to turning water into wine.

Wrong, high tech breath.

The same level of business is being done by the same kinds of agents/brokers as was the case nearly half a century ago. They might be taking a different route to get belly to belly, but the bottom line results are virtually identical.

Nothing’s changed. We’re mowing the same lawns as our dads did and not a blade of grass more.

The moral of the story?

You have three choices: Either retain your status quo — Create a team — or, stay solo, but with the ‘assistant’ business model.

High tech ain’t the answer — at least not so far.

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


  1. Cindy Allen

    October 27, 2011 at 10:11 am

    I got into the business in 1989, and the fax machine (with thermal paper) arrived at my chosen brokers office about a week after I did. While I agree that technology hasn't increased the number of homes an agent sells, I do think it has untethered agents from the office. I'm no longer stuck waiting by the phone for a counter, my phone goes with me. I don't have to run to the office to pick up a hard copy of an offer, it's delivered to my phone by email. And no more running to another broker to pick up keys… The "key" hangs on the front door.
    Those things alone would seem to free up agents to have more "face time" with prospects.
    So why do you suppose agents aren't using that "free" time to generate more leads? Perhaps it's more about human nature – a comfort level at an average income, that keeps agents from using the "free" time technology has allowed.
    Or maybe we're all so busy playing with the next "shiney" new technology we're too tied distracted to bother to get "face to face" with the prospects we now have time to generate.

  2. Matt Nowak

    October 27, 2011 at 10:39 am

    While nothing will ever replace traditional face-to-face time, technology has made the customer more educated about the real estate process. In turn, they expect more responsive and personal contact from agents.

    Instead of making customers wait, I have been able to access MLS on my smartphone and do a multitude of tasks that would have been impossible if I didn't have my smartphone with me. Mind you, I am doing such taskes WHILE I am face-to-face with customers. I am giving them the information they seek instead of me saying, "I'll get back to you."

    I believe some agents are not using technology properly. They are using it in an attempt to replace other modes of communication. Technology should be used to enhance communication and engage customers more effectively.

  3. Bruce Lemieux

    October 27, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Great article. To be successful in this business, you need prospects, know your market and be good at sales. Technology may help some on the first two, but does nothing to help you close.

    I do think that technology allows us to be much more productive. Without it, I would have to have at least one more fulltime assistant (copy, fax, schedule, etc). And, technology has changed the nature of how we spend our time.

    On the other side of the coin, technology has introduced a whole slew of distractions that may easily be eating-up any productivity gains (as I comment on a blog post which does absolutely nothing to help acquire new clients or close deals).

  4. Jeff Brown

    October 27, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Hey guys — I think your comments hit the nail on the head. Even with all the technology available, and all the time it saves, the production needle for the industry simply hasn't moved. I like the observation wondering what use agents are making of all this 'saved' time.

    My view is the takeaway is this: Most agents should be W2 employees in another industry. They're pretty much not worth the space they take in a serious brokerage office. Harsh — or plain truth?

    • Matt Nowak

      October 28, 2011 at 11:12 am

      That's quite harsh, especially since I don't understand the correlation between this article and the opinion that some agents shouldn't be agents. With that mindset, it could be just as easy to say that any agent that doesn't understand the importance of technology & social media and how they relate to engaging customers is going to get left behind if they believe that "traditional" forms of communication are the ONLY way of doing business.

      We shouldn't eschew technology because we fear shiny new objects. We should utilize what works best for us and remove the rest. For example, I have a colleague that has received many leads that have ended in closings by using Facebook. Yet that medium doesn't work for me, so I don't use it.

      The important thing to take away from the use of technology by agents is that it is a necessary tool to connect with customers. Isn't that why agents have blogs, Twitter accounts, and use Facebook in their marketing plan? How much money is wasted by agents by creating glossy direct mailers that they hope customers will read? Are open houses not working as well as they once did because consumers can now go online to view homes?

      By the way, my computer is 6 years old.

  5. Bruce Lemieux

    October 27, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    As long as brokerages are 100% commission based, and the barriers to entry are so low, we'll always have a large number of low performers in the industry — regardless of what happens in technology. I do think that proper adoption of the right technology can enable (not make) great agents do very well in this business — something that would be much harder to do without it.

  6. Matthew Rathbun

    October 27, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    I want my jet pack!

  7. Jeff Brown

    October 28, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Me too, Matthew. 🙂

  8. Jeff Brown

    October 28, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Hey Matt — I do see where you're coming from on this, but have a different view. Maybe cuz I'm second generation and have seen firsthand since the 1960s, plus had mentors from even earlier days, I have a different perspective. Also, I may have a somewhat richer context from which to see changes — or things having never changed.

    ". . . I don’t understand the correlation between this article and the opinion that some agents shouldn’t be agents."

    The correlation, the crucial point of the post, is that though technology has indeed done wonders for our business, the per agent production is still a joke. It's not changed in any meaningful way since my first day in the office back in the fall of 1969. I think this empirically 'harsh' fact is a fact nevertheless. Most agents, as in the vast majority, should be working 9-5 W2 jobs in another industry. They're simply not cut out to be truly effective, productive real estate agents. This was true two generations ago, and is the factual reality today.

    Yes, agents use social media, blah blah blah. They use it to connect. So what? So in 1964 they only had the telephone. So what? The common denominator is CONNECTING. Yet with all the magic powers of high tech, social media, and IDX, the production remains the same. That fact isn't debatable on any level, period. Since that's both the historical and current empirical truth, how today's mediocre to failing agent is 'connecting' with folks is completely irrelevant.

    Again, it's about results, and nothing's changed in the last half century.

    I agree with you: It's moronic to say that if agents don't adopt this or that technology or strategy that they should be doing something else. I'm saying that even if the Lord Himself came down and whispered how they could make $100,000 a year, most agents would STILL be workin' a 9-5 W2 job 1-2 years later.

    I'm not making predictions here, Matt. I'm reporting both history and our current status quo. The 'harsh' realities of past/current real estate brokerage is that a dominating majority of agents are a waste of space.

    Now THAT's harsh. 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion Editorials

Follow these steps to change a negative mindset into something of value

(EDITORIAL) Once you’re an expert, it’s easy to get caught in the know-it-all-trap, but expertise and cynicism age like fine wine, and can actually benefit you/others if communicated effectively.



Man on couch drawing on ipad representative of change to the negative mindset.

In conversation with our friend John Steinmetz, he shared some thoughts with me that have really stuck with us.

He has expanded on these thoughts for you below, in his own words, and we truly believe that any individual can benefit from this perspective:

Over the last few years I have realized a few things about myself. I used to be trouble, always the dissenting opinion, always had to be on the opposite side of everyone else.

Then, I started reading everything I could get my hands on dealing with “how to change your attitude,” “how to be a better team player,” etc.

Over the course of that time I realized something. I realized that there was nothing wrong with me, only something wrong with how I communicate.

Unfortunately, once someone sets the context of who you are, they will never see you as anything else. I was labeled a troublemaker by those who didn’t want to “rock the boat” and that was that.

In my readings of books and articles by some of the most prominent technical leaders, they all had something in common. Paraphrasing of course, they all said “you can’t innovate and change the world by doing the same thing as everyone else.” So, in actuality, it wasn’t me, it was my communication style. For that reason, you have to say it out loud – “I will make waves.”


There are two things I reference in physics about making waves.

  • “A ship moving over the surface of undisturbed water sets up waves emanating from the bow and stern of the ship.”
  • “The steady transmission of a localized disturbance through an elastic medium is common to many forms of wave motion.”

You need motion to create waves. How big were the waves when the internet was created? Facebook? Just think about the natural world and there are examples everywhere that follow the innovation pattern.

You see it in the slow evolution of DNA and then, BAM, mutations disrupt the natural order and profoundly impact that change.


Where I was going wrong was, ironically, the focus of my career which is now Data. For those who do not know me, I am a product director, primarily in the analytics and data space.

More simply: For the data generated or consumed by an organization, I build products and services that leverage that data to generate revenue, directly or indirectly through the effectiveness of the same.

I was making the mistake of arguing without data because “I knew everything.” Sound familiar?

Another ironic thing about what I do is that if you work with data long enough, you realize you know nothing. You have educated guesses based on data that, if applied, give you a greater chance of determining the next step in the path.

To bring this full circle, arguing without data is like not knowing how to swim. You make waves, go nowhere, and eventually sink. But add data to your arguments and you create inertia in some direction and you move forward (or backward, we will get to this in a min).

So, how do you argue effectively?

First, make sure that you actually care about the subject. Don’t get involved or create discussions if you don’t care about the impact or change.

As a product manager, when I speak to engineering, one of my favorite questions is “Why do I care?” That one question alone can have the most impact on an organization. If I am told there are business reasons for a certain decision and I don’t agree with the decision, let’s argue it out. Wait, what? You want to argue?

So, back to communication and understanding. “Argue” is one of those words with a negative connotation. When quite simply it could be defined as giving reasons or citing evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view.

Words matter

As many times as I have persuaded others to my point of view, I have been persuaded to change mine.

That is where my biggest change has occurred.

I now come into these situations with an open mind and data. If someone has a persuasive argument, I’m sold. It is now about the decision, not me. No pride.

Moving forward or backward is still progress (failure IS an option).

The common thought is that you have to always be perfect and always be moving forward. “Failure is not an option.”

When I hear that, I laugh inside because I consider myself a master of controlled failure. I have had the pleasure to work in some larger, more tech-savvy companies and they all used controlled experimentation to make better, faster decisions.

Making waves is a way of engaging the business to step out of their comfort zone and some of the most impactful decisions are born from dissenting opinions. There is nothing wrong with going with the flow but the occasional idea that goes against the mainstream opinion can be enough to create innovation and understand your business.

And it is okay to be wrong.

I am sure many of you have heard Thomas Edison’s take on the effort to create the first lightbulb. He learned so much more from the failures than he did from success.

”I didn’t fail. I just found 2,000 ways not to make a lightbulb; I only needed to find one way to make it work.” – Thomas Edison

It is important to test what you think will not work. Those small failures can be more insightful, especially when you are dealing with human behaviors. Humans are unpredictable at the individual level but groups of humans can be great tools for understanding.

Don’t be afraid

Turn your negative behavior into something of value. Follow these steps and you will benefit.

    1. Reset the context of your behavior (apologize for previous interactions, miscommunications) and for the love of all that is holy, be positive.
    2. State your intentions to move forward and turn interactions into safe places of discussion.
    3. Learn to communicate alternative opinions and engage in conversation.
    4. Listen to alternative opinions with an open mind.
    5. Always be sure to provide evidence to back up your thoughts and suggestions.
    6. Rock the boat. Talk to more people. Be happy.

A special thank you to John Steinmetz for sharing these thoughts with The American Genius audience.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Millennial jokes they let slide, but ‘Ok Boomer’ can get you fired

(EDITORIAL) The law says age-based clapbacks are illegal when aimed at some groups but not others. Pfft. Okay, Boomer.



Boomer sad

A brand new meme is out and about, and it’s looking like it’ll have the staying power of ‘Fleek’ and ‘Yeet!’

Yessiree, ‘Okay, Boomer’ as related to exiting a go-nowhere conversation with out-of-pocket elders has legitimate sticky potential, but not everyone is as elated as I am. Yes, the Boomer generation themselves (and the pick-me’s in my age group who must have a CRAZY good Werther’s Original hookup), are pushing back against the latest multi-use hashtag, which was to be expected.

The same people happy to lump anyone born after 1975 in with kids born in 2005 as lazy, tech-obsessed, and entitled, were awfully quick to yell ‘SLUR’ at the latest turn of phrase, and I was happy to laugh at it.

But it turns out federal law is on their side when it comes to the workplace.

Because “Boomer” applies to folks now in their mid 50’s and up, workplace discrimination laws based on age can allow anyone feeling slighted by being referred to as such to retaliate with serious consequences.

However for “You Millenials…” no such protections exist. Age-based discrimination laws protect people over 40, not the other way around. That means all the ‘Whatever, kid’s a fresh 23-year-old graduate hire’ can expect from an office of folks in their 40s doesn’t carry any legal weight at the federal level.

And what’s really got my eyes rolling is the fact that the law here is so easy to skirt!

You’ve heard the sentiment behind #okayboomer before.

It’s the same one in: ‘Alright, sweetheart’ or ‘Okay hun’ or ‘Bless your heart.’

You could get across the same point by subbing in literally anything.

‘Okay, Boomer’ is now “Okay, Cheryl” or “Okay, khakis” or “Okay, Dad.”

You can’t do that with the n-word, the g-word (either of them), the c-word (any of them), and so on through the alphabet of horrible things you’re absolutely not to call people—despite the aunt you no longer speak to saying there’s a 1:1 comparison to be made.

Look, I’m not blind to age-based discrimination. It absolutely can be a problem on your team. Just because there aren’t a bunch of 30-somethings bullying a 65 year old in your immediate sphere doesn’t mean it isn’t happening somewhere, or that you can afford to discount it if that somewhere is right under your nose.

But dangit, if it’s between pulling out a PowerPoint to showcase how ‘pounding the pavement’ isn’t how you find digital jobs in large cities, dumping stacks of books showing how inflation, wages, and rents didn’t all rise at the same rate or defending not wanting or needing the latest Dr. Oz detox… don’t blame anyone for pulling a “classic lazy snowflake” move, dropping two words, and seeing their way out of being dumped on.

The short solution here is – don’t hire jerks – and it won’t be an issue. The longer-term solution is… just wait until we’re your age.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Decision-making when between procrastination and desperation

(EDITORIAL) Sometimes making a decision in business can loom so large over us that we delay making them until it’s absolutely necessary. Why?



decision-making between procrastination and desperation

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.

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 autoplay 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.


Continue Reading

Our Great Partners

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!