Latest / The Perfect RIA / Fire Them Already!

Transcript

Fire Them Already! · The Perfect RIA

0:41
Jamie Shilanski: Intuition is the discriminative faculty that
0:44
enables you to decide which two lines of reasoning are correct.
0:50
Welcome back TPR Nation. This is Jamie Shilanski, an episode of
0:53
Worlds to Conquer. And today we are going to talk about how
0:57
intuition plays into the decisions that we make as
1:00
business owners running team members. So you probably already
1:03
know that there are two types of reasoning when it comes to
1:10
logic, and that is deductive and inductive. So deductive logic is
1:15
top down reasoning, and that means that we're going to start
1:18
with a general idea, and then we're going to move to very
1:20
specific conclusions, and it's based on two logical
1:24
assumptions, and the logical assumptions that go back to two
1:28
statements of reasoning that turn into fact. So for example,
1:32
all women are mortal. Jamie is a woman, therefore Jamie is also
1:37
mortal. So it's two supportive statements that turn our
1:40
thoughts into fact by this deductive reasoning, and then we
1:43
have inductive reasoning. And inductive reasoning is also
1:47
known as a bottom up reasoning, but this method starts with more
1:50
specific observations and general conclusion, and it's
1:55
based on our experiences, our facts, our observations and our
1:59
ability to evaluate a situation and or make some general
2:03
assumptions, like a theory. So we could use this for example,
2:07
Jamie is hardworking, intelligent person, therefore
2:10
Jamie wants to work for me our inductive reasonings. And so
2:13
when we talk about, you know, our intuition, we're most often
2:17
talking about our inductive reasoning. And I'm a big, big
2:21
fan of listening to your intuition. When I listen to my
2:24
intuition, I'm almost never wrong in my assumptions, and
2:28
I've never made some catastrophic conclusion from
2:30
listening to my my intuition that has resulted negatively in
2:34
my life. But when I go against my intuition, then I have those
2:38
haunting feelings, those feelings of, gosh darn it. I
2:42
knew better. Gosh darn it. I had a feeling. I should have trusted
2:45
my gut. I should have showed up. Should have especially for women
2:49
out there, when we talk about, you know, women's intuition,
2:52
this really goes back. I think it's Jordan Peterson. He talks
2:54
about women, and then sleep patterns at night, and the
2:57
amount of like electricity that we have running through our
3:00
bodies. For women when they're sleeping is something in the 90
3:03
percentile, and men is somewhere around the 30 percentile. That
3:08
is why women more often, because we are we're meant to be alert
3:11
during the evening. We are meant to be alert for the safety and
3:14
protection of our family, where men sleep more soundly, because
3:18
they don't need that level of alertness to be cognizant that
3:21
the baby is crying, that there's a problem with the children,
3:24
that something is happening, they need to rather, be alerted
3:28
to get up if somebody was in danger or necessary. That's why,
3:30
oftentimes, in a heterosexual relationship, and the child is
3:33
screaming or crying, the man continues to sleep, and the
3:36
woman must nudge the man to get him up. Now, once he's up, he
3:40
has a shorter time of being groggy than than a female,
3:43
necessarily, because he'll respond what is needed and help
3:46
jump into
3:49
threat, but because our electricity is constantly going
3:53
within our body, and we are constantly aware. That's why we
3:56
see people we're like, Gosh, I really like that person. And we
3:59
just chit chat with them and say, Man, I think we could be
4:02
friends, or we meet somebody and say, Man, that guy gives me the
4:04
creeps. He gives me the absolute creeps. I get the heebie
4:07
jeebies. I don't like working with that person. And then we
4:10
remove ourselves from those situations whenever possible.
4:13
We're probably the only species that forces ourselves to go
4:16
against our intuition for the sake of being nice to others. So
4:21
not that I have any idea what goes on the brains of other
4:24
species, but often think about the scenario where you have this
4:28
deserted building and you have to go up to the top floor for
4:31
whatever reason, and the elevator comes down, and the
4:35
elevator doors open up, and there is a man in there that
4:38
looks very predatory, looks very intimidating, and you still
4:42
decide as a person to get in that elevator and telling him,
4:45
instead of hurting his feelings or being rude or jumping to
4:48
conclusions or judging a book by its cover, you still get in the
4:51
elevator so that way you don't hurt that person's feelings,
4:54
even though your intuition is telling you not to. And when you
4:57
watch animal kingdom, that doesn't seem to happen. Gazelles
5:01
are run away from lions, not walking towards them. So, you
5:06
know, we don't, oftentimes, listen to our intuition when we
5:09
should, when we should. We don't use that inductive reasoning.
5:12
And sometimes that inductive reasoning is just because, you
5:15
know, I love the brain. I think it's amazing. I love, you know,
5:18
mapping it, learning about neuroscience and and studying
5:22
these different impacts. But really, the brain is lazy. It's
5:25
going to take the easiest course of action every single time it
5:27
can, because it works dog, Vint Lee, all the other times. So
5:31
when it gets a break, it's going to take it. And so when it comes
5:36
to this inductive reasoning, a lot of times, what we do is we
5:39
we jump on our former conclusions. We look on our
5:42
experiences of the past to say, Hmm, I've been down this road
5:45
before. This is how it ends up. And what I find is that most
5:50
business owners, most managers, most leaders, we stop listening
5:55
to our inductive reasoning, and we allow people to continue to
5:59
work in our organizations that should no longer be there. Now,
6:04
it's been pretty trendy this last, you know, five years or
6:07
so, to use the word toxic, you know, so, oh, it's a toxic
6:10
employee, it's a toxic work environment. It's a toxic
6:13
culture. But if we really look back at like, what is toxicity?
6:18
Because it's not always easy to define, especially if you're the
6:22
entrepreneur, if you're the owner of that organization or
6:25
and I'm going to sound the alarm bell right now, if you have
6:29
somebody in your office who is your manager, who's your chief
6:33
operations officer, who is responsible for the rest of the
6:36
staff, forward this episode to them right Now, because they
6:41
need to hear it as well. They have somebody on their team,
6:44
most likely they know isn't going to cut it for one of two
6:48
reasons. One, their skill set doesn't match their pay. Oh,
6:52
it's hard to say it, isn't it. Their skill set doesn't match
6:55
their pay. And these are the people that always come back and
6:57
they ask for a pay raise, they ask for a little bit more money,
7:01
they ask for more compensation, and then that compensation hits
7:05
this point where you're like, oh my gosh, I cannot believe I'm
7:08
paying you this much. And here's what you're really paying for.
7:11
You're not paying for an increased skill set. You're not
7:14
paying because this person is absolutely smashing all of their
7:16
goals. You're paying for your convenience. You're paying more
7:22
for a person who is under qualified for their role,
7:25
because it is convenient for you to do that rather than looking
7:31
at replacing that person. Why? Because replacing people sucks.
7:36
It's never fun. It's not a great experience. I sit on hundreds of
7:42
interviews, and I got to tell you, I do not enjoy them.
7:45
They're not a great time for anyone, because you have to sift
7:48
through individuals. And here's the real tragic part about the
7:52
hiring process right now versus where it was 15 or 20 years ago,
7:57
is that we now live in a world of algorithms. And so if I post
8:01
a job on Indeed, let's say that's our number one platform.
8:04
Well, guess what? I'm going to get 1/3 of the responses. 1/3 of
8:08
the responses are people that are on unemployment and they
8:11
have to apply for jobs in order to continue to get their
8:15
benefits. So this is how they're showing the proof of how they're
8:17
employing. Then I'm going to get people that the algorithm thinks
8:22
are best candidates, but may or may not be the best candidates,
8:25
and then the ones that I think would actually be a good fit for
8:28
our organization, the computer's not even going to put the job in
8:32
front. I'm a huge, huge fan in finance of hiring people that
8:36
have medical industry experience. I feel most of that
8:39
translates, one, the willingness to help others. Two, the
8:43
compassion to take care of people. Three, the HIPAA and the
8:46
privacy four, charting and account records and regularly
8:50
seeing people. Five, continuity of care, making sure that we are
8:54
lining up with the CPAs and the state planning attorneys, and
8:57
we're coordinating all of the benefits in the care for the
9:00
individuals. I'm a big fan that I think there's a lot of
9:03
translation between finance and healthcare, so I love to find
9:07
people that are in those particular industries, but the
9:10
computer doesn't oftentimes, put my job in front of those
9:13
individuals, because it's not tied to their experience and
9:16
background and skill set and qualifications. Inside the
9:19
algorithms give me the days of posting a job and being
9:22
inundated with resumes that I as a functioning human being can
9:26
look at somebody's skill set and say, oh, you know what? Maybe
9:30
you would be a good applicant. I want to go ahead and get you in
9:32
for an interview and then have a conversation with somebody. This
9:36
is one of the most fascinating things I just had for the very
9:39
first time, our ra of the Anchorage Alaska, Shilanski and
9:42
Associates, and I had our COO. Normally, I do all of the most
9:47
I've been staging it so that she could get better and better at
9:49
this. But I used to do all of the hiring and therefore the
9:53
firing, because if you hire, you must be the one to fire as well
9:56
for the organization. And then I started bringing in our COO so
10:00
that I could replicate this message, can I show what we're
10:02
looking for we have in a total employment process? If you want
10:06
to learn more about who we're hiring for, and we are hiring
10:10
individuals, jump over to shilanski.com/careers. Amber
10:14
will link it here in the show notes, but you can see the
10:16
different roles that we have within our organization. And so
10:19
when I do that, and I'm going through the different
10:21
individuals. I know what I'm looking for. And so as as I
10:25
began to train the CEO for this, and in this last January, she
10:30
stepped it was December when she started the interview, but she
10:32
stepped in and she was hiring a new operations person, and for
10:35
20 years she she was the head of operations. So she knows this
10:38
role. She knows the candidate. Now what I found fascinating,
10:41
and I think this is beautiful and should probably more often,
10:44
I got to find a way to make it happen more often, is a resume I
10:48
would have dismissed she interviewed and really liked the
10:52
person and hired them, and they've been fantastic. I would
10:55
have totally passed this individual over, because I've
10:59
seen many applicants with her job history before, and they're
11:02
not great fits for our organization, and so my bias was
11:07
dismissing people that she found a super qualified individual
11:10
that was great has been sensational for our firm. So I
11:14
need to find a way that I make sure that my bias isn't always
11:17
in coming into play, so that I'm not missing out on a positive
11:21
candidate, but when we're doing this, because that is such a
11:25
troubling experience, because it takes so much time, so much
11:28
energy, so much effort to try to find somebody, it is easier for
11:32
us to keep somebody we know, we know isn't the right fit for the
11:37
organization, or can't handle the tasks that they've been
11:40
assigned. And so here's what we will do, because we like people,
11:44
because we are animals who like other animals. And we will say,
11:47
I like this person. I don't want to get rid of them. We will
11:50
start inventing jobs that that person can specifically do. Tell
11:54
me I'm wrong. We will give them tasks and create a job for that
11:58
individual because we like them as a person, not because they
12:02
have the skill set qualified to do the job for the work we need
12:06
to get done. And so what we'll do is we'll redistribute work to
12:09
other people, the ones that are more qualified, we'll get a
12:12
bigger share the ones that are less qualified, but we like them
12:14
so much, we'll take more and more off of their plate. We'll
12:18
be like, Hey, we gave it to them. They didn't exceed there,
12:21
and therefore we're going to remove it. And then here's what
12:23
we'll do to the people that are really, really good at their
12:25
jobs. When they're really, really good at their jobs, we're
12:29
going to keep giving them more and more, not because they
12:32
can't, not because they're unable to do those jobs. We're
12:35
going to give them more and more because all of a sudden, we're
12:38
going to try to find what they're not good at. We're going
12:41
to push them until they get to the point of breaking we're
12:44
going to promote them when they're doing excellent in a
12:47
particular position, until we get them to a place that they
12:50
were no longer be excellent at. That's what we do. That's how we
12:54
created corporate culture in America. We find somebody who's
12:58
really good, we give them a crap ton of tasks they continue to be
13:02
good at it, and we promote them until we can finally find
13:05
something that they are not good at. We promote them until they
13:09
fail us. And then when it comes to people that we know we should
13:13
get rid of, we keep them on board, because it's easier for
13:17
us. It is easier for us to keep the devil you know, then hire
13:21
somebody else you don't know. And I'm going to go through
13:24
after I talk to you a little bit about who these people are and
13:27
how they impact the rest of your team, I'm going to talk to you
13:29
about strategies and ways that you can avoid feeling that
13:34
hassle and that burden of having to hire someone and having it be
13:38
so much pain. It's still painful, but it won't be as
13:41
painful if you implement some of the solutions I'm going to give
13:43
you all right, so the people that we know that are toxic or
13:46
troublesome to our organization, we've got spidey sense about
13:50
them. But if you don't believe in your spidey sense and you
13:54
want to kind of dissect, what are these toxic behaviors? Now,
13:58
if somebody's just straight up, mean, disrespectful, rude, that
14:02
those people instantly get the way out, right? We don't have a
14:05
problem being getting rid of those. These are people that are
14:07
toxic, and toxic people don't walk around with signs on them
14:12
saying how toxic they are. In fact, what they do is they're
14:16
two sides of a coin. One part of them you really like. The other
14:20
part of them you really can't stand. And the problem is the
14:24
part that you really like is probably the end result of their
14:27
work product. They're probably really good with clients,
14:31
they're really good with prospects. They are really good
14:35
with vendors and third parties. But, man, they suck to work with
14:39
day in and day out, but you feel like you can't get rid of them
14:42
because of how many compliments you get from other people about
14:45
how much they like that individual. And so now we've
14:49
created this toxic environment. And by toxic, this is an
14:53
individual that has manipulation tendencies, manipulation
14:57
tendencies, and those are difficult because a really good
15:00
person, a person that is really, really capable of understanding
15:04
manipulation, can manipulate you without you know you're being
15:08
manipulated. You really don't know it until afterwards, when
15:11
you're reflecting on the situation, on the encounter,
15:14
when you're going through that conversation your mind, when
15:17
you're thinking of all the best comebacks that you should have
15:20
said and never did and will never have the opportunity to
15:22
say again, because the moment has passed and it's over. But
15:26
those feelings of manipulation, here's one way that I I get to
15:30
know when somebody I feel is manipulating me, when we have an
15:34
encounter, and then I leave that encounter and I'm feeling like,
15:38
gosh, that wasn't super positive. That was a great
15:40
experience. And then in my mind, I'm thinking, Well, you know
15:44
what, it's okay, because I like Bob. I like Bob a lot. So the
15:47
next time I see Bob, Bob's gonna apologize to me. I know he's
15:51
gonna apologize because he's gonna reflect on this situation.
15:54
He's gonna know it wasn't a good situation either, and then he's
15:56
gonna give me an apology. And the next team I see Bob, I'm
16:00
like, Hey, Bob, how's it going? He's like, Jamie, it's going
16:02
great. This is what's going on. And never apologizes. He never
16:07
addresses it. He never brings it back up. Now, where did I fail?
16:11
I failed because I didn't call Bob and say, Hey Bob, that
16:15
conversation left me a little disheartened. I don't like how
16:17
we left it. Can we go over a couple pieces of this? Can we,
16:20
you know, really grab the bull by the horns instead of later,
16:24
I'm gonna sit there and stew and think Bob owes me something. And
16:27
guess what? Bob is thinking he doesn't owe me anything. Bob is
16:31
thinking he doesn't owe me a thing. So those are little
16:35
intuitions of that spider sense. Now, one of those aspects is you
16:40
should grab the bull by the horns if you think somebody has
16:43
owes you an apology. Now, if you're part of the TPR nation,
16:46
you're listening to podcasts like this, I know that you're
16:48
not a snowflake. Why? Because we don't hold any punches around
16:51
here. So I know you're not going to easily melt because you feel
16:54
offended. Do you feel somebody owes you an apology for
16:57
something they probably really do. It was sincere, because your
17:01
feelings aren't just walking around waiting to get melted and
17:04
exposed, you know, if somebody has wronged you in some
17:07
capacity, all right, the second part of that is the self
17:10
responsibility of grabbing that person saying, Hey, I think this
17:12
is what happened. And when you grab that person and you tell
17:16
them, I think you owe me an apology, here's another great
17:19
filtering tactic, if that person turns the conversation and makes
17:24
everything your fault and makes you question everything you did
17:29
in that process, you are being manipulated. Because a normal
17:34
person, a person that is sincere in their efforts, is going to
17:38
have a substantial quality conversation with you. And if
17:41
somebody comes to me and says, Jamie and Honey, listen, I
17:45
offend a lot of people. I do, and sometimes I don't even
17:48
realize I did it. I'm a street shooter. I have, gosh, I speak
17:53
faster than I think. And so there are times people come back
17:56
to me and say, Hey, listen, this is what you said, and I'm super
18:00
offended diet and oh gosh, here's an example TPR nation,
18:03
this just,
18:06
this just happened. So one of my near and Dears, you know, a
18:09
great employee of mine, was listening to the podcast, and
18:12
the podcast they felt really was about them. Now my role in
18:16
podcast listening is, if you think the conversation applies
18:19
to you. Guess what? It probably does. It probably does. There's
18:23
probably an ounce of truth. You should self reflect and see how
18:26
much it applies to you. But in this particular episode, it
18:29
specifically by name, applied to them, and they knew it, because
18:33
they were the only ones working on this project. And so they
18:36
they got their feelers hurt, they got offended, and, you
18:40
know, called up, and I said, Hey, you know what's going on? I
18:43
hear we have a problem. And took the bull by the horns, right?
18:46
And they said, You know what? I was listening that episode, and
18:50
it really hurt my feelings. And I'm like, You know what? Thank
18:53
you. Thank you for sharing this with me. By no means was I
18:57
trying to hurt your feelings. Let's start looking at it and
19:00
and the next breath out of their mouth was, but you know what,
19:04
Jamie, you were right after, I got my feelings hurt, and I sat
19:07
with it, and I got kind of upset, and I went back and I
19:10
listened. There was so much truth to that conversation.
19:13
There were so many things I did get wrong and I should have been
19:17
better at and I said, Great, I think you're you're the bee's
19:20
knees, you're phenomenal. You're one of my favorite people. I
19:24
love working with you, and I consider you a friend, but that
19:27
doesn't mean I'm going to hold back my criticism because you
19:30
are somebody I enjoy working with, and because you are a
19:34
friend, I want to be able to criticize you, and we both grow
19:37
from this experience, and that is a normal good conversation,
19:40
somebody able to articulate their feelings, somebody able to
19:44
understand how that person felt that way, not defend their point
19:47
of view necessarily. I didn't blame faster and tell her all
19:51
the ways that she screwed up this one task. And said, I said,
19:54
Great, what? How can we both grow? And then she thanked me,
19:58
and I thanked her. That is a normal conversation. That is how
20:01
it should end up. So when you're talking to a super manipulative
20:05
person, and by the end of the conversation, they have
20:08
completely been exempt from any responsibility, and move the
20:11
conversation to being 100% your fault. Guess what? You're being
20:14
manipulated. That's a tactic, all right. What's the next one?
20:18
Self centeredness, the eyes I like a bunch of freaking
20:21
pirates. So I the person that only speaks for themselves, the
20:24
person that fails to see the rest of the team, the one that
20:28
doesn't understand cover and move. So we love Jocko. Micah,
20:31
my baby brother just went to jocko's event here in June. He
20:34
went to the Private Council and one of their four rules of
20:38
combat, one of them is cover and move. And so cover and move
20:41
means cover your teammate. Cover your teammate. This doesn't mean
20:45
lie and make excuses for them, but it means whatever decision
20:48
you're making, whatever choice you're choosing, you need to
20:51
make sure that you've covered your teammate. And we had this
20:55
come up even in finance. I mean, thank god nobody's shooting at
20:58
us. But we were talking to a bunch of our advisors, and we
21:02
were saying, you know about the operations and about how
21:05
sometimes, because operations in our office, they handle the
21:08
movement of money, so our financial advisors give
21:11
financial planning advice, and the operations personnel are
21:14
responsible for the movement of money, and so they do a lot of
21:18
administrative support, such as paperwork and transactions and
21:21
calling the client, etc. So our clients are talked to rather
21:25
frequently, but not always by the financial advisor. The
21:28
financial advisor steps in when there's financial planning
21:31
advice to be given. So we're talking about some of the
21:34
outstanding tasks that the operations team began to feel
21:37
outside of surge. So surges are committed time blocks in which
21:41
we are meeting with clients, but they started to feel outside a
21:44
surge that the financial advisor wasn't responsive. They weren't
21:48
getting client questions answered in a timely manner.
21:51
Now, Shilanski and Associates, we have a policy for 24 hour
21:54
turnaround. 24 hours client has a question, you're giving a
21:58
response within 24 hours. Now you might not have a definitive
22:01
answer within 24 hours, but that client will be responded to
22:04
within 24 hours. And so we are always striving for that. That's
22:08
our internal policy. We tell our clients 72 hours. Why do we tell
22:12
them 72 hours? Because we want to under promise and over
22:15
deliver every opportunity that we can, every opportunity that
22:18
we can. So our external policy is three days. Our internal
22:21
policy, one day, you better respond to clients within one
22:25
day, because clients reaching out to our firm are not a
22:28
burden. They are not a task that has to be check marked. They are
22:31
the reason each and every one of us has a job. There's a
22:35
heartbeat behind that person's name and the email. There's a
22:38
heartbeat behind the phone call that you receive. We welcome and
22:42
encourage clients to reach out to us every chance that they
22:45
can. So when my operations, people who have this incredibly
22:48
fierce self discipline about responding to clients, have a
22:52
question, and they ask the financial advisor, and the
22:55
financial advisors not getting back to them and what they have
22:58
defined as a timely period, then guess what? Now it's getting
23:01
escalated. Now they're failing at their job. So if we have a 24
23:05
hour internal policy and they reach out to the financial
23:08
advisor, and the financial advisor does not get back to
23:11
them until three
23:12
Unknown: days later, guess what? They feel. They feel they have
23:16
failed. They have failed. So
23:18
Jamie Shilanski: we have these rules of escalation in these
23:20
communication policies to help prevent that. And now this was
23:23
occurring outside of surge that we have the operations personnel
23:27
say, Hey, I can't get responses out of this financial advisor in
23:30
a timely manner, as she felt was timely. So we want to make sure
23:34
that we define these terms. Great. Define timely for me,
23:37
here's what's happening, blah, blah, blah. Well, this
23:40
particular financial advisor said, You know what? Why don't
23:43
they just create a running agenda and I'll pop in when it's
23:47
convenient for me and answer the questions. Now, did this person
23:50
perform cover and move cover and move to that person? Cover their
23:54
teammate and move the company forward? Effectively? No, they
23:57
did what was convenient for them. They did what was
24:00
convenient for them. They said, Oh, it's convenient for me when
24:04
I want to respond to client questions, for me to go into a
24:07
document and type my answers that's not covering your
24:10
teammates. Because here's what, you're going to fail in a
24:13
running agenda. You're going to fail to understand the human
24:16
connection part of it. You're going to fail to hear the rest
24:20
of the story. And then that personnel, that operations
24:23
person cannot also ask a follow up question inside of a running
24:26
agenda, unless they come back in and type it and then have to
24:30
wait again for your response. So let me give you an example of
24:33
that. Client calls in and says, Hey, you know, we're going to
24:37
put the down payment on a house. I need, you know, 100,000 out of
24:40
my retirement accounts. Which account should I take it from?
24:44
So the operation goes to the financial advisor. Says, client
24:47
is ready to put a down payment on their house. They need
24:50
$100,000 which retirement account do you want it from? Oh,
24:53
well, actually, see if they have RMDs, blah, blah, blah, and
24:57
you're going through that process, what you're failing to
25:00
hear is the rest of the story is the client has already signed
25:03
paperwork. The money needs to go out in the next 24 hours. The
25:07
client already took their RMDs for the year. The client also
25:10
needs some additional funds to move to the new home location.
25:14
You're not getting the rest of the picture. And yes, the
25:17
operations person can spend the rest of the day typing out this
25:20
long narrative memorandum, or you can have a standing 30
25:23
minute meeting with your operations person every single
25:26
week, consistently at the same time, and get those questions
25:30
answered. That's what we want to do. That's what we want to make
25:33
sure when we talk about cover and move, is that we are
25:36
covering our teammates so we can all move ahead effectively and
25:40
doing a running agenda for question answers. I don't think
25:43
it works effectively. I think you're always going to miss part
25:47
of the picture. You're going to miss part of the story. You're
25:50
not going to get to hear the other part of it, where you, as
25:53
a financial advisor, would make different decisions. It's just
25:57
not going to happen that way. That's not how written
26:00
communication works. So we want to look at that cover move and
26:03
that self centered attitude with the person saying, hey, the
26:07
running agenda works best for me, but doesn't work for the
26:10
rest of the team, then you're only thinking of you. And so
26:13
this is where, especially as entrepreneurs, you know, it has
26:17
to fit our schedule, it has to fit our time frames, but it also
26:20
has to take care of the benefit of the team that we're
26:23
entrusting to get these things done. And then there's just the
26:27
regular unpleasantness of a manipulative person, and that is
26:30
the person that when they are in the kitchen and you get up to go
26:34
get coffee, you're like, oh, I have to make small chat with
26:37
this person. I do not want to talk to them because you find
26:40
them generally unpleasant to be around. This goes back to my
26:44
client test. Would I go get a beer or glass of wine with you.
26:47
If the answer is no, then it's a hard no. Why are you? Person in
26:51
your office? Everyone who works for me at Shilanski and
26:54
Associates, I would welcome ly go get breakfast burritos,
26:57
lunches, drinks after work. I would be happy to do so. I enjoy
27:00
their company. I enjoy their dedication, I enjoy their
27:03
openness. And you need to be around people that aren't always
27:07
fun right then. And part of being a part of our firm at
27:10
Shilanski and Associates is you got to subscribe to the
27:13
intensity. We're super intentional, and that is really
27:16
intense for a lot of individuals. And we believe in
27:19
showing up at our absolute best. And so if you're a B level, C
27:22
level team member. It's you're not going to like that. You're
27:26
not going to buy into it. You're not going to drink the Kool Aid,
27:29
and you're going to come to work disdainfully every day. We dress
27:33
as professionals. I know there are some financial advisors,
27:36
though not many, that are making a lot of money and T shirts and
27:40
jeans. That's not That's not us. That's not how we show up for
27:43
our clients, we want them to have an exceptional experience,
27:47
and that means we dress professionally on all occasions,
27:50
so much so that when I'm outside of surge and I'm just running
27:53
errands, going to Costco and stuff like that, I don't even
27:56
like going into my office to pick up mail or packages or
28:00
anything or sign forms. When I'm not dressed professionally, I
28:03
don't want to set the wrong tone from the top down now occasions.
28:07
Or is that going to happen? Yes, of course. But when it happens,
28:10
guess what's going to be in my lobby? Guaranteed clients,
28:13
guaranteed clients or prospects, always sitting in the lobby the
28:17
day I come in and my jeans and hoodie because I went to Costco
28:20
for whatever reason. So we take that very seriously. We want to
28:24
show up, even if we have hybrid employees, cameras freaking on.
28:28
Turn your camera on drives me a nuts when cameras are off, and
28:31
the reason they're off is because you don't want to be on
28:34
camera. And ladies, ladies, I get it when we have to get on
28:37
camera. It's a 45 minute process to get ready for being on camera
28:41
versus not being on camera, I totally get it 100% but you know
28:45
what? If we were driving to an office or driving to a big
28:48
corporate building, I would have been 100% ready for that job,
28:51
and that's how I treat it, even when I'm working for my remote
28:55
office out in Wausau, Alaska, which is an hour north of
28:58
Anchorage, I am still camera ready and my video is on. People
29:01
need that connection. They need the activity. They need to know
29:05
that this is still a job. It drives me freaking nuts when
29:08
people are showing up in sweatpants, cameras off, hair
29:11
undone. You know, women's stress level, how high her knot bun is
29:15
on her head. So fellas, if you got ladies in your life and
29:18
you're ever wondering if they're stressed, just look at that knot
29:21
ball, and the more and more begins to resemble the horn of a
29:25
unicorn, the higher her stress level. That is our indication.
29:28
So these are good things to be thinking about if you don't feel
29:32
comfortable around somebody, if they just give you the heebie
29:35
jeebies, if they're just not somebody that you want to
29:38
socialize, if you are planning a company event and going, ugh, do
29:42
we have to invite so and so guess what? You have the wrong
29:45
employee. You have the wrong employee. You're just
29:48
conveniently waiting for it to become a problem, and before you
29:51
take another action and have them go somewhere else. So
29:54
really look at this all right. So now let's talk about, how do
29:58
we make that hiring process a little bit less laborious,
30:01
because a lot of us out here, like we have an empire office.
30:04
So we have, you know, 15 employees spread out throughout
30:08
the United States, primarily in Anchorage, Alaska. But we do
30:11
work. Half our clientele is in the lower 48 is how we refer to
30:14
the content is the United States. And so we do have people
30:18
in other locations. However, most of our heartbeat is here in
30:21
Anchorage Alaska, because there's no better place on earth
30:24
to be than in Alaska as a United States citizen. So as we start
30:28
going through, what is the process of having to replace an
30:31
employee, and why do we wait to fire someone until it's super,
30:34
super inconvenient, until that person resigns, and we're like,
30:38
Oh, thank God we didn't have to fire them. And then guess what?
30:41
We go and discover all of the problems they left us that
30:45
nobody was paying attention to because nobody wanted to work
30:48
intimately with that individual. And so all of a sudden we start
30:52
just uncovering everything else, everything else. And we're like,
30:55
Gosh darn it. We should have let them go six months ago. Gosh
30:59
darn. It should have been a year ago, three months ago, whatever.
31:02
When you are holding on to the wrong person, you are practicing
31:06
a cruelty to them, to your clients and to the rest of your
31:09
team members, because toxicity spreads, or the person's like,
31:12
Wow, I can't believe I'm at the same pay scale as that
31:15
individual. I could try a lot less, harder at work, and
31:18
probably make the same amount of money and money in this exchange
31:22
of value. When other team members see that B and C level
31:25
players are acceptable, why should they constantly be an A
31:28
player? Why? But if you throw an A player around a whole freaking
31:32
team of other A players, guess what's going to happen? Holy
31:35
smokes. Are they going to rise to the occasion? A players want
31:39
to be around other A players. That's how it works. Nobody
31:42
tries out for the WNBA and then goes, Yeah, you know what? I'll
31:46
just practice on this rec league instead. It doesn't happen. They
31:49
want to level up. They want to get better at their craft and
31:53
their skill. So when it comes to letting go that right person,
31:56
and you stop being a cruel human being that just allows this
31:59
person to have a job, even though they don't have the skill
32:03
or they're super toxic to the rest of your team members, then
32:06
you need to look at replacing them. How do you replace them?
32:09
Number one, did you create a job for a person and now that that
32:13
person is gone, you don't actually need the job? That's a
32:16
great self evaluation. We as financial professionals have a
32:20
terrible habit of throwing human capital at process problems. One
32:23
more time for the people in the back, we as financial advisors
32:27
have a terrible habit of throwing human capital at
32:29
process problems. We don't have the process outlined and
32:33
articulated in a way that is easy for others to understand.
32:36
So we think hiring an unskilled professional to come in is going
32:39
to magically solve our problems. No, it will complicate it. You
32:43
must have your processes in place before you add the
32:46
additional people. That's how it goes. That's how you scale.
32:49
That's the only way you get out of growth into freedom, into the
32:53
Empire categories, you cannot grow beyond that. You're going
32:56
to hit a pain point every single time. So when we have this
32:59
process outlined, we want to describe what is the role we are
33:03
looking for, what are the tasks that this person needs to do,
33:06
and even when I hire somebody that I wish I would have fired a
33:10
long time ago, or I'm sorry, even when I let somebody go
33:13
after I wish I'd been firing them for a long time, I still
33:16
find things that they were doing that I didn't realize that they
33:20
were doing, that now have to get done too. So it's not like they
33:23
provided zero value. They just weren't worth the value you were
33:27
either paying or the cost you were paying by keeping this B
33:30
level C level person on your team. So I want to make sure I
33:33
have a real good job description. What were they
33:36
doing? What needed to get done, and what would make me super,
33:40
super excited to pay this person X amount of dollars every year.
33:43
So for our support personnel, they make anywhere from 50 to
33:46
100,000 depending on their skill set. If you're tiptoeing into
33:50
the 100,000 you better be running a freaking team. You
33:53
better be running a whole team of people. And you better make
33:56
my job a hell a lot easier because you're capable of doing
34:00
so most most people are around that 50 to 65 marker. That's
34:03
where most administrative personnel sort of tap out. So
34:06
when you write down this role job description, you have to
34:09
think of yourself. Man, what would make me super excited to
34:12
be paying somebody 75,000 or $100,000 a year? What would make
34:16
me pumped to pay them that and think I got a bargain basement
34:19
deal, and write that out? And then what you need to do is you
34:23
need to develop an onboarding process for hiring someone. What
34:26
are the stages? What's the job ad look like? Who's doing the
34:30
interviewing? Are you running background checks? Especially
34:33
today in the hybrid world, I run background checks on every
34:36
single employee before they start. We were with a broker
34:39
dealer. The broker dealer did that when we left and came 100%
34:43
Ria. Guess what happened? Now, we had to do that internally. So
34:46
making sure we're using I use a checker. It's not it doesn't end
34:50
in ER, it just ends in regular R. But I do drug screenings, I
34:53
do the panel, I do the quality background check. Oh my gosh,
34:57
last year because remember, I told you, I was training my CEO
35:00
on how to interview people. And so she got all the way at the
35:03
end of the interview process, and she forgot to follow one.
35:07
She missed one step in my process, blueprint for how to
35:10
hire someone. And she really liked this person. She had me
35:13
with them. Said, Hey, I love you. Make a final decision. And
35:16
she was great. She was awesome. She interviewed so well, and my
35:20
heart went out to her. I could definitely see how much she
35:23
wanted it. And I said, Great. Well, what did her background
35:26
check come like? And she's like, well, I didn't run one because I
35:30
don't think it's necessary, because she grew up in Alaska,
35:33
and I went through court view, you know, because our records
35:37
are public here in the state. And I said, Well, you know what?
35:40
That's not our process. Our process is to run a background
35:43
check. So run the background check, and then we'll make the
35:47
job offer a contingent on that. And she said, Okay, great. So X
35:50
amount of days passed by, we get a background check. Holy smokes.
35:54
She could have been a true crime drama. I mean, she didn't do
35:57
anything here in Alaska, but she had a 10 year period where she
36:01
went on a mass drug spree and crime spree through Nevada,
36:04
Arizona, Florida. I mean, it was just, it was just all over on
36:07
her background check. So no, I don't hire somebody without
36:11
doing a background check. And doing a background check is not
36:14
a hey, have you ever committed a crime? Because if you're able to
36:18
commit a crime, you're probably pretty comfortable with lying
36:21
about it, too. I really do think this particular individual
36:24
turned their life around, or was trying to turn her life around.
36:28
And I think that's amazing. I also think it's a terrible
36:31
aspect of this system of rehabilitation. Is that great?
36:34
You're trying to get your life back in order. But now who's
36:38
going to hire you? But I can't pay that price at the expense of
36:41
my clients. I can't I can't have somebody who's committed crimes
36:45
involved in other people's money. Won't do it, cannot do
36:48
it. So we want to take that into account. And then we also run
36:51
the D, i, s, c profiles, disc profiles, a lot of people do
36:54
Colby as well. There are four basic areas of psychology.
36:58
Everyone's fitting into some category, but this, at least
37:01
tells me very, very quickly, and I've never made a hiring or
37:04
firing decision on somebody with their DISC profile, because it's
37:08
not that good. But I will tell you this, This speeds up six
37:11
months of getting to know someone. That's how I use this
37:14
the six months where somebody's revealing after, because the
37:18
first 90 days are going to give you the best part of them, and
37:21
then the next 90 days are really when you're going to start
37:24
seeing who they are. I feel that by running this disc report, I
37:28
get I get to speed up that timeline, and I get to see who
37:31
this person is within that six month period a lot faster. So I
37:35
like running it. I like having it. I like making sure this
37:38
person's in the right role. I use it as a communication
37:41
device. It's not a hiring firing decision for me at the firm.
37:44
It's just not it's just one of the tool sets I have as a leader
37:48
in our organization. And then we're going to go through the
37:51
rest of the onboarding. Now, once a person starts, that's the
37:55
interview process. Once a person starts outlining what that first
37:58
3060, and 90 days looks like for that person to be successful.
38:02
Very imperative, super imperative. Because a lot of
38:04
times the training, the oh gosh, I got to get them in, I got to
38:08
train them. I got to go through all these things with them. That
38:12
becomes the headache for most people in a manager role, it's
38:15
not just the hiring someone, it's who's going to sit with
38:18
them over the next X amount of time in order to get everything
38:22
done, to get them up to speed. And that means that now you're
38:25
paying two people to do one person's job, because they have
38:28
to hold hands during that whole process. So that's one of the
38:32
reasons that at Shilanski and Associates, we design an
38:35
onboarding learning management system. This is online video
38:38
tutorials. And so when you start with our firm, I often joke with
38:42
you. I say, Hey, listen, it's going to be death by tutorials.
38:45
The first two weeks that you start, you're going to go
38:48
through so many videos on how to do your job, and a lot of it's
38:52
going to be drinking from the fire hose. You're not going to
38:55
know your head from your feet for the first year that you have
38:58
this job, but I'm going to set you up for absolute success
39:02
within the first 30 days. And by the way, these learning
39:05
management videos that me and the rest of the team have
39:08
painstakingly put together in order to take you through, they
39:11
are available to you in an unlimited capacity. So if you
39:14
feel that you're neglecting or forgetting something, some
39:18
aspect of your job cool. Jump back in on any of your devices,
39:21
watch the videos and go through it. So my videos are set up as
39:25
different courses. And so the first course is for everyone
39:28
onboarding, and it doesn't matter what role you're going
39:31
into, and it's who we are, what we do, and who we serve. And
39:34
then we go through one of the three paths, financial advisor
39:38
operations or relationship management personnel. And then
39:41
we went through and we spent
39:43
Unknown: a hundreds of hours doing it, and we just did,
39:46
videos, and written content about.
39:59
Jamie Shilanski: With, who do we not work with? And we went
40:02
through all of these different aspects and did that type of
40:05
training. Now the other reason that I also did this is because
40:08
training was laborious for the person that had to hold a hand,
40:11
and so this allowed them an opportunity to spend half the
40:14
day with that person, working hand in hand, going over things
40:17
and doing hands on training. And then the other half the day,
40:20
they said, hey, you know these videos, why don't you go through
40:23
this content? And by the end of the day, I'd like you to have
40:27
completed X, Y and Z. And so now I took the burden of training
40:30
also off of the person that needed to do the training. And
40:33
so it allowed them to have a half a day, not a full day,
40:36
training. Somebody's very intense, and it can be very
40:38
frustrating. Not all people are great trainers. So that's
40:41
something that we look at making sure, those are my tips and
40:44
tricks on how to make sure that we are taking people who we know
40:48
that are bad for our company, getting rid of them, not because
40:51
we are afraid of who, who we don't know. Coming into that
40:54
role where we might hire somebody, people are going to be
40:57
transient. We might hire somebody and have them really
40:59
great for 60 days. We just hired somebody last year. Shinalski
41:03
and Associates
41:03
Unknown: really great gal.
41:05
Jamie Shilanski: She's been here 10 months, and you know what
41:08
she's like? Hey, I feel really called to be more involved in my
41:14
church, and that's where I'm going to head out to she was
41:19
lovely. We had a good goodbye. We said, You know what? That's
41:24
all right. Things that end don't have to end bad. You are great
41:29
love to keep you around, but you certainly understand that
41:34
calling, and want to make sure that we we end on a high note.
41:39
And so yeah, that means we spend a lot of time training a person
41:45
who just began to understand every aspect of their job, and
41:50
now has to move on to something else, but now we have a process
41:55
in place that makes that easier, not fun, but a little bit
42:00
better. All right. TPR nation. This is Jamie shilanski, an
42:05
episode of worlds to conquer. Go find people who share your
42:10
values and change the world.