The commercial real estate brokerage industry relies on a flawed agent development model, according to Jamie Maniscalco, President and Managing Broker at The Alpha Commercial in Miami. Maniscalco contends that the difference between training and mentorship determines whether agents succeed or leave the industry.
“Companies say that they offer training, but it’s really more, hey, let’s tell you information once, and then you’re expected to sort of know how to apply it moving forward,” Maniscalco says.
Maniscalco argues the problem extends beyond superficial training. She points to a lack of early intervention for underperforming agents. “They don’t try to intervene, if at all, until it’s too late, until the agent is struggling or just has gone months and months without production,” she explains. “Now they’re like, hey, what’s wrong? Why are you not producing? Let’s try to turn it around.”
The Structural Flaw in Agent Development
Maniscalco’s critique highlights a central flaw in brokerages’ approach to agent development. Traditional firms often assume that exposing agents to training materials will automatically translate into production. In practice, Maniscalco says, this approach fails to build the real-world skills agents need to succeed.
“The model that I think actually works is really not so much the training, it’s like mentorship and coaching,” she says.
She draws a clear distinction between the two approaches. Training is often a one-time or periodic delivery of information, while mentorship provides ongoing, hands-on guidance tailored to each agent’s challenges. Training tends to be passive and classroom-based; mentorship is active and field-based.
“I think that people need structure. They need performance goals. They need rules,” Maniscalco argues. “They need to be held accountable for their production, and they need to be shown the way in a very hands-on manner.”
Why Traditional Brokerages Maintain the Broken Model
Despite the shortcomings of traditional training, most brokerages continue to rely on it. Maniscalco suggests this is because genuine mentorship requires significantly more resources. A training session can be delivered to dozens of agents simultaneously, but mentorship requires personalized attention, regular check-ins, and early support—before agents reach a crisis point.
Brokerages that claim to offer training but provide little more than information dumps may be prioritizing cost savings over agent outcomes. The reactive model—waiting until agents are already failing before intervening—minimizes the time brokers spend on agents who may not last. However, Maniscalco contends that this approach directly contributes to high failure rates.
This structural difference has competitive consequences. As agents gain more options for affiliation, brokerages that provide real mentorship and accountability may be better positioned to attract and retain talent, especially among newer agents who recognize that information alone is insufficient.
The Alpha Commercial’s Approach as One Alternative
Maniscalco’s firm illustrates how brokerages can restructure agent development. The Alpha Commercial has built its business around mentorship, accountability, and early intervention.
The firm sets clear performance expectations, implements structured accountability systems, and provides hands-on guidance to address challenges before agents experience extended periods without production. “We put a lot of preparation into thinking of things from all different sorts of angles,” Maniscalco says, describing the firm’s approach to both agent development and client service.
The company’s branding also signals a departure from industry norms. As a female-led firm in a male-dominated sector, Maniscalco intentionally chose the name The Alpha Commercial to challenge assumptions. “The phrase ‘the alpha male’ is typically what people associate that word with, and so it’s been fun to leverage the words for something different,” she explains.
The Future of Brokerage Agent Development
Whether mentorship-focused models like The Alpha Commercial’s will spread depends on whether traditional brokerages confront the costs of their current approach. High agent turnover and low production rates persist across the industry, but few firms have overhauled their development strategies to prioritize hands-on guidance and early support.
For now, Maniscalco’s model stands as an alternative framework—one that claims to deliver better retention and production outcomes by treating agent development as an ongoing, resource-intensive process rather than a one-time training event. The growing awareness of these differences, especially among new agents seeking meaningful support, may force more brokerages to reconsider how they invest in their teams.
