SURVEY SAYS!
By Julie Adamen

Two months ago, we asked our readers if the industry is “too deep in the box” to see out. We asked you to respond with your comments, and to take the survey on our website. The response to the survey wasn’t enough for appropriate scientific (!) extrapolation, but the comments made, and by whom they were made, were fascinating, and very telling.

Full Service Contracts

Managers say: They are costly – in terms of manpower and attitude. Those working as managers – as opposed to a managing owner – felt more strongly about the detriments of full service management contracts. As one manager put it, “Management companies are losing money with all inclusive contracts…I spend more time on my little associations than I do on my large ones… This is what sucks the life out of me.” Pretty strong stuff.” Another said “If you don’t give it all at a low price… they (the Boards) realize the value when they have to pay for it as additional service. They don’t take it (the service provided) for granted and they don’t waste your time.”

Owners and Principals say: They are ok, if everything were equal – and it wasn’t so easy to become a community manager. Not surprisingly, most of the management company owners and principals who responded felt that it wasn’t the full service contract itself that devalued the industry, but the “one low price” aspect that their competitors bid the contracts for.  Or as one respondent put it, “…there’s always someone bottom feeding who will take the management from you for less than what (it’s) worth.”

Those management company principals also felt that, as a whole, the next largest detriments were a) the lack of qualifications required to be an association manager (in California), and the general lack of knowledge of Boards of Directors.

Overall: The juxtaposition of opinions was fascinating, and tells the story of our industry: Those who are in the trenches managing feel as if the (full service contract) system is one in which they are powerless to achieve a higher quality of service to their associations and a higher remuneration from their employer/associations. The employers felt, for the most part, the contracts were fine and the system would be ok if only 1) their competitors would just bid contracts higher, 2) the boards were better educated, and 3) there were more mandated requirements to be community manager.

Total Mediocre Management (not to be confused with Total Quality Management, or TQM).  Can it change?

Yes! You think so! Almost all respondents were long-term community management professionals, so it’s not surprising (and very admirable) they continually search for the light at the end of the tunnel, that TMM CAN change.  But they all felt TMM was a serious presence in the business. This feeling applied to owners and managers alike. You also thought money was a huge factor. Said one respondent, (Total Mediocre Management) will “…not change until they (the Boards) are willing to pay for better service.” Another, however, said, the problem is “…management is often viewed as a commodity – something to be got (sic) for the lowest price – than as a profession.”

What’s one remedy for changing TMM? Managers should educate their Boards. Management company owners placed a premium on managers educating Board members. They felt the system can change for the better – that communities, if they would be shown the way by managers they would demand more excellence “Many (Boards) are simply ignorant and don’t realize how vulnerable they are from many fronts. It is the manager’s job to be fully educated and to help educate the client,” stated one management company owner (who also manages). “If the communities are shown the value of the service we provide then they are willing to pay the higher rates…” was another comment.

Many respondents indicated that Board education should be mandatory (but whom or what entity should be responsible for that education was not directly addressed by anyone); as an interim remedy, one manager respondent suggested a more pro-active approach by managers to engage a better quality of homeowner to run for the Board.

Conclusion: Although almost all the respondents felt TMM could change, we found the discussions bringing us back to the same place: The Boards of Directors are the issue, are the challenge, and the object to be educated.

Manager Apathy.

“I don’t think that they’re apathetic, but I think the job  can at times wear down their enthusiasm.”

To no one’s shock, managers said they are so busy managing accounts they don’t have time to deal with anything else – and every hour they spend at a professional function had to be made up somewhere along the line.  One said he felt it was the associations that were apathetic, not the managers (hard to disagree with that!). A management company owner stated the managers were so busy providing their services that they cannot see any end result to professional involvement that “benefits them or their company. It is just a job.”

Professional Organizations – Are They Relevant?

YES - for networking. In very specific regional pockets, respondents were likely to feel positively about their professional organizations. Those in other areas were much more likely to indicate they really didn’t feel the organizations met their needs, despite their attendance at meetings and functions.  Why do they attend? Networking and gleaning even a small amount of information that is useful. Those networking opportunities, overall, got high marks: One said “it recharges my batteries to rub shoulders with other professionals.” Another said, “When you are going through a situation, you will meet up with somebody who has just gone through the exact (same) thing.”

NO – when it comes to education.  On the educational front, professional organizations did have more than a few detractors. More comments were made on education later in the survey/questionnaire. One said the organizations were, at times, unintentionally educational by presenting a contrast between “what a board of directors wants and the ‘professional standards’ seem to demand.”

Do They Meet Your Needs?

Yes, sort of. There was an entire camp who felt the professional organizations did what they could, for, as one put it “one size fit all” organization(s). These were the same people who felt about 50% of the meetings or functions met their needs.

Nope. One respondent indicated he hadn’t attended any functions of seminars in years because he “hadn’t received anything useful from them.” Another felt the only reason the organizations existed was to “separate me from my money.” Or to “(Professional Organizations want to) micromanage (the) industry by seeking to require designations that only they will have the approval to provide.”  Another felt that other than the basic educational courses, most of the information was redundant. Point of interest: All three comments were made by management company owners or principals.

If you want to make it better, do something about it. One respondent laid it all on the shoulders of the managers: “If the managers don’t get up and say what they need or want out of an organization, they have no one to complain to, or to blame, except themselves.”

Lastly: Food for thought.   “No, they (the organizations) do nothing to outwardly enhance the perception by the community of the worth of association managers.”

And what can they (professional organizations) do to better meet your needs?

Better education. Most everyone responded by indicating educational courses needed some help. Many felt the programs were presented poorly or in sequences that made no sense, and were far too easy to pass.  “Good thing airlines require more of their pilots (than a 70% passing grade)!” Someone also made the comment that no one should be “grandfathered” in – the clear impetus in the statement being it devalues what we are trying to covet (and promote) – our education.  Others thought the classes themselves almost irrelevant: “The information they present is outdated. “ Another respondent from an outlying region stated,  “…the information is from outside of our region and does not pertain to us.”

Tackle more aggressively the Board “issues”: 1) Education. Many felt the Boards needed to be educated by the professional organizations: One manager said, “The ultimate would be to make it mandatory for a Board member from each association to attend (professional organization meetings). Once they see the inside, they understand the time, sweat and costs involved in the industry.”  2) Take a public stance aimed at the Boards of Directors: “I would like to see them work to positively inform the communities…of their obligations and duties, and the benefits this information will help them realize. They need to start addressing the real problem – those majorities that demand TMM.”

Conclusion

What an interesting exercise!  Not only did we run the gamut of answers to our questions, but also those answers were not provided by the “usual suspects” you read about in the industry trades. Was our little survey meaningful?  Well, maybe, maybe not. But I think what the respondents did was strengthen my resolve to (as one management company owner put it to me at a recent cocktail party) continue to poke at “the soft underbelly of the industry.” Why? Because we are getting somewhere. We are talking about things we have never talked about before in a public forum, before our peers. Stay tuned. It’s going to get better.