The financial advisors surveyed for Investment Executive‘s 2013 Report Card series were asked for the first time in 2012 about how they rated their “firm’s receptiveness to advisor feedback”; this year, they let their firms have it. In large part, that’s because advisors said firms merely pay “lip service” to advisors’ feedback.

Regardless of the channel in which advisors work, most said their firms are open to receiving advisors’ suggestions, but then the advisors are left wondering what happens with their input – not only are the suggestions never put into place but the firms don’t follow up or give any response. In addition, some advisors said they have trouble getting management’s attention because of the size of their books of business, as only the top producers’ comments get heard.

Still, it’s worth noting that a few firms make their advisors feel that their input matters – and their approach may resonate throughout the financial services industry.

Advisors across the board, when asked to rate their firms’ receptiveness to advisor feedback, gave their firms an average overall performance rating of 7.9, down slightly from 8.1 in 2012. More significant, however, is that advisors gave the category an importance rating of 8.9, resulting in a satisfaction gap – the difference between the two ratings – of a full point. In fact, the category has the fourth-widest satisfaction gap in the Report Card series this year, behind “back office and administrative support,” “technology tools and advisor desktop” and “client account statements,” which have the largest such gaps year in, year out.

The sizable satisfaction gap for feedback is a sign that firms are failing to meet their advisors’ expectations, and there were a variety of reasons why the surveyed advisors felt this way. However, two common themes were that management never seems to welcome feedback, although it technically is accepted, and advisors’ ideas never get adopted.

“They’re open to listen,” says an advisor in Atlantic Canada with Toronto-based ScotiaMcleod Inc., “but reluctant to act.”

Adds an advisor in Ontario with Toronto-based TD Wealth Private Investment Advice: “They encourage us to give feedback but nothing gets done.”

An advisor in British Columbia with Toronto-based Raymond James Ltd. said that it becomes painfully obvious that no action is ever taken when the same suggestions from advisors come up each year at an annual dinner; yet, despite the strength of those suggestions, they never are acted upon.

Some advisors said that a certain level of stubbornness exists among executives, and it comes from a belief that they know better than their advisors; thus, advisors believe it’s difficult to change management’s opinion, no matter what ideas are brought to the table. Says a Raymond James advisor in Ontario: “They’re willing to listen, but they often have their minds made up.”

Notably, several advisors conceded that part of working for a large firm is the difficulty in having your voice heard above the masses. But even those advisors who have accepted that their feedback often will have little impact still expect their firms to acknowledge it, at least. In fact, these advisors complained that they have no idea what happens with their input – they never get a response. Says an advisor in Ontario with Toronto-based BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.: “I don’t know where my feedback goes, but it would be nice to know if they do anything with it.”

Adds an advisor in Alberta with Calgary-based Portfolio Strategies Corp.: “They send out a survey once in a blue moon, and I don’t know how much attention they pay to the responses.”

Another concern that advisors brought up was that meaningful, two-way dialogue with upper management is possible only for advisors with the largest books of business. The feedback obtained during the Report Card series lends credence to this claim, as many of the positive advisor comments for this category came from respondents with larger books. The majority of advisors, however, were less than satisfied with how their firms treat advisors’ feedback.

“They don’t care,” says a TD Wealth advisor based in Toronto. “There is no attention paid to the bottom broker; they only spend time on the top earners.”

Adds an advisor on the Prairies with Burlington, Ont.-based Manulife Securities: “In my experience, they listen to the larger producers. They don’t really focus on – or take feedback from – the average advisor.”

In fact, an advisor on the Prairies with London, Ont.-based Freedom 55 Financial gets a higher-producing colleague to submit feedback on his behalf: “I learned early on that my ideas would not be implemented unless I had another advisor introduce them.”

One way to give more attention to all advisors’ feedback and show them the value of their input is through decentralization of management, says Jim Virtue, president and CEO of Calgary-based PPI Solutions Inc. This approach allows advisors to give feedback and discuss those ideas with the managers they see on a regular basis.

“Our local offices each have someone who is the head of that office,” Virtue says. “That allows us to have senior people who live in that region and who work with advisors and talk to them constantly. So, we have a very good flow of information.”

As a result of this approach, PPI Solutions received a rating of 9.3 – tied for the highest score in the Report Card series.

“We get opportunities to give feedback quite regularly,” says a PPI Solutions advisor in B.C.

Adds a colleague in Atlantic Canada: “They hear me when I have something to say – and that’s important to me.

© 2013 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.