I've worked with countless managers, and so I know that we've raised the intellectual and financial expectations of the role faster than we've developed the way to develop people for it. Many strong managers were trained to manage operations, solve problems and lead their people in real time. They were not trained to interpret complex financial data, translate owner-level metrics, or think strategically about long-term asset performance.

Yet-for many-that's now part of the job.

When someone struggles under those expectations, we're quick to label it a performance issue, without asking whether we adequately trained and equipped them for the job. 

Tech was supposed to make things easier. But, I know this will tick off the tech-forward folks here, but for many property managers tech is just "one more thing" they have to manage. New platforms, different dashboards, lots more data, and passwords for all.

Oh, and they often have to do this with smaller teams, higher owner scrutiny and a lot more expectations. While the tech has definitely brought many positives, we didn't remove operational work, we added higher level strategic and analytical work on top of it. And this has led to a feeling of overwhelm and being buried in data and numbers, with little time to connect, coach or lead.  

If the role has effectively shifted from day to day ops to that of an operator–strategist–financial steward, it's fair to ask whether the pay is commensurate with the new reality. In other words, if we're demanding more, is the pay equal to the task?

Here's the tension in the industry right now

We view community managers the way we always have, but want/expect them to perform like financial experts, strategists, along with managing the day to day operations. That gap, between how the role is perceived (and in some cases compensated), and the expectations around it today, creates confusion, burnout, resentment, and turnover. 

We know the industry isn't going back to how things were done 30 years ago.But we hurt our industry and ourselves if we don't do some examination. At some point, we have to ask whether the way we've expanded the role (and the way we prepare people) is sustainable, not just for the asset, but for the people we charge to carry it out. 

When expectations and demands continue to rise, without the right level of investment in support, clarity, and development, something eventually gives. 

Too often, it's the people that "give." 

Call me old fashioned,  but I think people still matter and make the difference.