"I'll pay you 65% of your fee for diagnosing the patient and 35% for performing the operation and managing the recovery."
Most people would immediately recognise the flaw in that arrangement.
Yet last week, we encountered a remarkably similar situation in the property industry.
A landlord with a small portfolio instructed several agents to compete to find tenants, while a separate company was appointed to manage the tenancy once agreed.
We successfully marketed the property, secured excellent tenants, negotiated favourable terms and guided the transaction through to completion. References were strong, the tenants were delighted and the landlord was equally pleased.
At that point, responsibility transferred to the managing agent.
Despite having weeks to prepare for the tenancy, the property was not ready for occupation.
Essential works had not been completed. Cleaning arrangements had not been properly coordinated. Decoration remained unfinished and several important details had been overlooked.
The consequences were predictable.
The tenants lost confidence before they had even moved in. Relationships became strained. Eventually, the tenancy collapsed altogether, leaving the landlord facing a potentially significant rental void and additional costs.
While disappointing, what struck me most was not the failure itself.
It was the incentive structure behind it.
The majority of the landlord's budget had been spent on finding a tenant.
A far smaller proportion was allocated to the party responsible for preparing the property, managing the tenancy, protecting the asset and delivering the ongoing service that would ultimately determine whether the tenancy succeeded or failed.
Finding the right tenant is undoubtedly important.
However, successful property ownership is rarely determined by the day the tenancy agreement is signed.
The real work begins afterwards.
As landlords, it is worth asking an important question:
Would your agent be willing to have the difficult conversation and advise against proceeding with a tenant they originally introduced if circumstances changed?
True accountability often comes from having responsibility for both the introduction and the management of the tenancy.
When the same team remains involved throughout the process, interests are aligned and outcomes tend to improve.
This principle extends far beyond property.
Businesses generally achieve the outcomes their incentive structures encourage.
If acquisition is rewarded more heavily than delivery, acquisition will naturally receive most of the attention.
If short-term wins are prioritised, short-term thinking often follows.
The quality of any outcome is influenced not only by the people involved but also by the incentives surrounding them.
When incentives are aligned with long-term success, better decisions are made, stronger relationships are built and better results tend to follow.
In property, as in business, success is rarely about the transaction itself.
It is about what happens afterwards.
The most effective arrangements are those where responsibility, accountability and incentives remain aligned from beginning to end.