The real reason it's so hard to find great staff – Flavin

Are we struggling to find great staff – or struggling to create the conditions where they can thrive?

I often find myself having the same conversation with different mortgage firm owners, with identical frustrations, saying: “We just can’t find good people.”

The details change. The emotion doesn’t.

Across the firms I support, recruitment has quietly become one of the most emotionally draining parts of running a mortgage business. It frustrates owners because it feels out of their control. It distracts them because it consumes time they would rather spend growing the business. Over time, it chips away at leadership confidence.

Yet one recurring leadership pattern I observe is this: the issue is rarely the quality of people available. It is usually the clarity of the business trying to hire them.

The mortgage industry doesn’t suffer from a talent shortage; it suffers from a clarity shortage.

Sponsored

£2.5m paid to help broker clients benefit from greener homes

Sponsored by Halifax Intermediaries

 

When urgency replaces thinking

Most mortgage firms don’t recruit badly because they lack intent. They recruit badly because they are under pressure.

Growth accelerates, workloads spike, service levels wobble and suddenly recruitment becomes urgent rather than strategic. The goal quietly shifts from finding the right person to finding someone – anyone – who can relieve the pressure.

Many principals don’t realise they are unintentionally setting the hire up to fail before the interview process even begins.

When urgency drives recruitment, these predictable patterns follow:

• Job roles are loosely defined
• Interviews become conversational rather than evaluative
• Experience is prioritised over behaviour
• Cultural fit is assumed rather than tested

Are we solving the right problem when we recruit – or simply trying to remove immediate operational discomfort?

The commercial consequence of this approach is rarely visible straight away. It emerges months later through inconsistent performance, increased management time, declining morale and frustrated clients. One rushed recruitment decision can easily cost more in distraction and lost momentum than the salary itself.

 

Why experience still feels safer than it is

Experience does matter – but far less than most firms think, and far later than they expect.

Many mortgage businesses recruit skills but manage behaviour. CVs feel tangible. Years in the industry feel reassuring. Behavioural capability, by contrast, feels harder to measure – so it is often ignored.

In practice, performance within mortgage firms is shaped far more by how individuals respond under pressure, take ownership and adapt to change than by what they already know on day one.

I regularly see technically strong hires struggle, not because they lack competence, but because their working assumptions clash with the environment they enter. Pace, accountability, autonomy and resilience are rarely discussed explicitly – yet they determine success.

What behaviour are you unintentionally rewarding during your recruitment process?

 

The expectation gap no one talks about

The Expectation Gap Theory explains why recruitment frustration often appears long after the hire is made.

Leaders believe expectations are clear. Staff experience ambiguity.

New starters are usually motivated. They want to do well. But without clear success definitions, performance becomes subjective. Leaders believe standards are obvious. Staff believe they are doing what is required – until told otherwise.

Most business performance problems are clarity problems disguised as people problems.

Job descriptions describe tasks, not outcomes. KPIs measure activity, not understanding. Feedback arrives late, often only when something goes wrong.

Is this a skills gap – or a leadership clarity gap?

If that new employee doesn’t have absolute clarity on ‘what a good day looks like’, then why are we surprised when expectations aren’t achieved?

 

Why onboarding ends far too early

Another leadership assumption I frequently challenge is the belief that onboarding finishes once systems and compliance processes are understood.

Mortgage firms often expect contribution before confidence has had time to develop. Productivity targets are introduced early, with little space for behavioural coaching or prioritisation guidance.

A brokerage I worked with struggled with persistent turnover in its case management team. Leadership blamed salary competition and candidate quality. But when we reviewed the onboarding process, the issue became clear.

New hires were technically trained but culturally unsupported. Productivity expectations were identical to those of experienced staff within weeks. Mistakes were corrected, but behaviours were rarely coached.

After redesigning onboarding to include mentoring, staged expectations and regular coaching conversations, retention improved markedly within a year. Client processing times stabilised. Leadership pressure reduced. The people had not changed. The leadership structure had.

And this is a company that actually had an onboarding process. How many of you act surprised when the new starter arrives for work on day one, or scramble to order basic equipment for them on the Friday before they are due to start? How many of you treat onboarding as: “sit and shadow [name of surprised employee] for a week, you’ll soon pick things up”?

And we wonder why they were so much better at the interview stage.

 

Why performance conversations start in the wrong place

The Performance Pyramid highlights another common leadership error.

Sustainable performance is built in layers:

1. Role clarity
2. Behaviour expectations
3. Skills training
4. Measurement and KPIs
5. Coaching and reinforcement

Mortgage firms often start at layer four. KPIs are introduced early, with the belief that measurement will drive improvement. In reality, measurement without shared understanding creates compliance, not commitment.

Activity is often mistaken for progress.

If staff are unclear on priorities, KPIs simply direct effort – not effectiveness.

Is your performance framework designed for speed, or for sustainability?

 

The uncomfortable truth about motivation

One of the most persistent myths in mortgage recruitment is that staff leave because they lack motivation or loyalty.

Staff rarely lack motivation. They lack direction, visibility of progress and meaningful feedback.

Inconsistent leadership behaviours, unclear expectations and reactive management create disengagement far faster than workload or targets. When standards shift depending on pressure, staff protect themselves rather than stretch performance.

Many principals don’t realise how closely staff motivation mirrors leadership consistency.

 

The missing recruitment blueprint

The 4C Performance Clarity Model offers a more realistic recruitment lens.

Performance is shaped by:

• Character – mindset, attitude and accountability
• Capability – skill and technical competence
• Clarity – defined expectations and outcomes
• Consistency – leadership behaviour and reinforcement

Most recruitment processes focus almost entirely on capability. Character is assumed. Clarity is postponed. Consistency is improvised.

Underperformance rarely stems from skill shortage alone. It emerges where clarity and leadership consistency are absent.

What does success genuinely look like in this role beyond experience?

 

Why some firms stop struggling

Mortgage firms that consistently recruit and retain stronger staff rarely describe recruitment as easy. They describe it as intentional.

• They define behavioural expectations early.
• They test decision-making, not just experience.
• They treat onboarding as integration, not induction.
• They use KPIs as coaching tools, not pressure devices.
• They make progression visible, not implied.

As a result, recruitment becomes more predictable – and far less emotionally draining.

 

The commercial reality leaders can’t ignore

Recruitment is not an HR issue. It is a leadership growth constraint.

Clarity improves profitability by reducing turnover costs, consistency improves productivity and service delivery, and better leadership structures stabilise teams and client experience.

Performance problems rarely begin with staff. They begin with leadership assumptions.

 

Rethinking the question

Perhaps the better question is not, ‘why is it so hard to find great staff?’ but, ‘how clearly have we defined what ‘great’ looks like inside our business?’

Great people are drawn to environments where expectations are visible, development is supported and leadership behaviour is predictable.

If job titles, targets and pay structures disappeared overnight, would your business still know how to perform?

Those that do rarely struggle to attract – or retain – great staff.