Sole agency vs multi-agency: An investigation of agency practice across England and Wales

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of different agency practice on agency fees, business efficiency, and housing market liquidity. Design/methodology/approach: The paper studies the effect of sole and multiple agency practices on estate agent efficiency, housing market liquidity, and commission fee levels. The analysis uses the survey data from 2000 to 2006 to investigate the different agency practices across England and Wales and their effect on estate agency business efficiency, housing market liquidity, selling price, and fee levels. Findings: The empirical analysis confirms that agency practice has a locality bias, that is, some regions are more likely to adopt sole agency practice than other regions. The estate agents with a sole agency practice charge a lower agency fee, help clients to achieve better selling price and are more efficient; whereas multiple agency practice facilitates liquidity in the housing market, but experiences higher fall-through rate. Research limitations/implications: The research focuses on estate agent rather than consumers due to the limitation of the data based on a research project concerning transaction costs designed prior to this analysis. Originality/value: There is little other research that investigates the residential estate agency practice and its impact on housing market in the past three decades in England and Wales. The findings are a useful guide for practitioners to better understand the issues associated with different agency practices and should enhance business efficiency and performance.

Bridging the gap with teamwork: collaborative leadership for communities of practice in the learning and skills sector

Collaborative approaches in leadership and management are increasingly acknowledged to play a key role in successful institutions in the learning and skills sector (LSS) (Ofsted, 2004). Such approaches may be important in bridging the potential 'distance' (psychological, cultural, interactional and geographical) (Collinson, 2005) that may exist between 'leaders' and 'followers', fostering more democratic communal solidarity. This paper reports on a 2006-07 research project funded by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) that aimed to collect and analyse data on 'collaborative leadership' (CL) in the learning and skills sector. The project investigated collaborative leadership and its potential for benefiting staff through trust and knowledge-sharing in communities of practice (CoPs). The project forms part of longer-term educational research investigating leadership in a collaborative inquiry process (Jameson et al., 2006). The research examined the potential for CL to benefit institutions, analysing respondents' understanding of and resistance to collaborative practices. Quantitative and qualitative data from senior managers and lecturers was analysed using electronic data in SPSS and Tropes Zoom. The project aimed to recommend systems and practices for more inclusive, diverse leadership (Lumby et al., 2005). Collaborative leadership has increasingly gained international prominence as emphasis shifted towards team leadership beyond zero-sum 'leadership'/ 'followership' polarities into more mature conceptions of shared leadership spaces, within which synergistic leadership spaces can be mediated. The relevance of collaboration within the LSS has been highlighted following a spate of recent government-driven policy developments in FE. The promotion of CL addresses concerns about the apparent 'remoteness' of some senior managers, and the 'neo-management' control of professionals which can increase 'distance' between leaders and 'followers' and may de-professionalise staff in an already disempowered sector. Positive benefit from 'collaborative advantage' tends to be assumed in idealistic interpretations of CL, but potential 'collaborative inertia' may be problematic in a sector characterised by rapid top-down policy changes and continuous external audit and surveillance. Constant pressure for achievement against goals leaves little time for democratic group negotiations, despite the desires of leaders to create a more collaborative ethos. Yet prior models of intentional communities of practice potentially offer promise for CL practice to improve group performance despite multiple constraints. The CAMEL CoP model (JISC infoNet, 2006) was linked to the project, providing one practical way of implementing CL within situated professional networks.The project found that a good understanding of CL was demonstrated by most respondents, who thought it could enable staff to share power and work in partnership to build trust and conjoin skills, abilities and experience to achieve common goals for the good of the sector. However, although most respondents expressed agreement with the concept and ideals of CL, many thought this was currently an idealistically democratic, unachievable pipe dream in the LSS. Many respondents expressed concerns with the 'audit culture' and authoritarian management structures in FE. While there was a strong desire to see greater levels of implementation of CL, and 'collaborative advantage' from the 'knowledge sharing benefit potential' of team leadership, respondents also strongly advised against the pitfalls of 'collaborative inertia'. A 'distance' between senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding aspects of leadership performance in the sector was reported. Finally, the project found that more research is needed to investigate CL and develop innovative methods of practical implementation within autonomous communities of professional practice.