“Coach’s Forum” is a place in which you can ask your questions, tell your stories or give your opinions on any aspect of practice management. For each column, George selects the most interesting and relevant comments from readers and offers his advice. Our objective is to build a community of people with a common interest in making their financial advisory practices as effective as possible.
Advisor says: as a coach, you must encounter financial advisors all the time who are not meeting their potential – that’s why they hire you. So, I am wondering how you, first, go about determining what’s causing their underperformance and, second, deciding what to do about it.
My reason for asking is that my company has recently merged two branch offices and, as the surviving branch manager, I have inherited a couple of advisors who definitely are working below par. They are nice enough people and seem to be engaged in their businesses, but they definitely would not have lasted in my branch with their current level of production.
I have been manager of this combined office for only two months, so I don’t want to come off as a “hatchet man.” But I can’t permit them to continue at their present pace for very long. We’ve always had high standards in my branch, and I know the other advisors are watching me to see how long I will tolerate these below-average results.
I have tried talking to the advisors in question, and they admit they could do better. But they don’t seem to be willing to do the things necessary to advance themselves – which, in my view, really just comes down to working a little harder and a lot smarter. I am willing to work hard alongside them for a while, but if I don’t see more effort and improvement soon, I am going to have to cut them loose.
Any suggestions on how to make sure I have given them a fair chance?
Coach says: First off, congratulations on being the surviving manager. Your high standards and unwillingness to accept mediocre performance were key factors, I am sure, in the company’s decision to have you head up the combined branch.
Personally, I am very fortunate in that most of my coaching engagements are with advisors who already are successful in their businesses, yet recognize there is a higher level to which they aspire, whether that is a bigger practice, better work/life balance or some other personal goal.
These advisor-clients usually are motivated to do what is necessary to achieve their objective. What they hope to get from me is insight into industry best practices, guidance in developing their plan and accountability to getting it done. I have never met an advisor who does everything perfectly, so there is always scope for improvement in the business.
In some cases, it is the little things that are holding these advisors back. In others, a significant shift in thinking is required to help them break through the ceiling of complexity they have inadvertently created for themselves, which is limiting their ability to grow further or better manage their practice. In the first instance, we often can make quick changes that will have an almost immediate impact – for example, eliminating a process that is no longer required. In situations in which large-scale transformations are required – for example, from commissions to a fee-based compensation model – we need to allow time for the process to unfold.
From your comments, it appears that your patience is somewhat shortened, so here are a couple of easy-to-use coaching models that you might find helpful in quickly assessing how much effort will be required with the two advisors you referenced and whether you are willing to make that investment in your time.
– The mager approach
“They really oughta wanna” is a phrase popularized in Analyzing Performance Problems, a book written 30 years ago by Robert Mager. I use a simplified version of that author’s suggested approach as a shortcut in determining whether underperformance is the result of attitude or a lack of skill.
My approach:
1. What is the difference between current performance and what you expect or hope for? Be specific and quantify if possible – for example, activities, sales results, etc.
2. Does the underperformance really matter – to the advisors, to you and to the firm? If no, ignore. If yes, proceed to No. 3.
3. Does the advisor have the required knowledge/skills? If no, proceed to No. 4. If yes, proceed to No. 5.
4. Has the advisor ever demonstrated the required knowledge/skills? If no, arrange training. If yes, arrange for the advisor to practice and for you to provide feedback.
5. Are the expectations for performance clear? If no, clarify expectations. If yes, proceed to No. 6.
6. Are there consequences for underperformance? If no, create consequences. If yes, ensure consequences are clear.
7. Any other obstacles?
– The “perfect” scan
To answer this last question, I then will switch to a modern-day model developed by the Institute of Coaching at Harvard Medical School. It is called the PERFECT Scan and looks like this:
– Personal. Are personal issues affecting performance, such as sleep, medication or a condition such as attention deficit disorder?
– Environment. Are working conditions conducive to productivity – for example, the workspace, systems, organizational dynamics, resources and culture?
– Relationships. Are personal relationships distracting – for example, family, co-workers and outside influences?
– Feelings. What is the person’s current emotional state – for example, is he or she stressed, angry, depressed or disenfranchised?
– Effective thinking. How does this person process information? For example, is this person analytical, inductive, auditory or visual?
– Continuity. Can we draw on something this person has done in the past, tap into the present and connect it to the future?
– Transcendence. Does the person really value his or her work? Do they feel it is their “purpose”?
More than one conversation with each advisor may be required to determine the answers to these questions. When using this technique, I almost always uncover some unspoken or hidden factor that is affecting performance. Consequently, I recommend that you approach and frame the exercise as a mutual exploration rather than an inquiry. Let the advisors know that this process is designed to help you understand their thinking so you can support them in meeting their personal objectives.
Here’s the important thing: as the CEO of your branch, you get to determine what constitutes reasonable effort and acceptable performance under your watch. Bear in mind, however, that “success” is highly subjective. Each advisor defines it in his or her own way, and what you might deem to be insufficient results may be perfectly acceptable to the two individuals you describe.
The same applies to branch managers. Some want to create a fast-paced, high-performing culture, while others are more interested in having a collegial environment in which advisors do a good job, but don’t necessarily shoot the lights out in production. One approach isn’t always better than the other. How the manager wants to run the business is a matter of choice.
It sounds like you prefer the high-performance culture. So, be sure to articulate your expectations so everyone understands them. If there is a large disconnect between what you want and what is happening, see if the gap can be closed – or, at least, narrowed – through training, systems design, coaching or management. If not, then do what you can to help the advisors establish themselves somewhere else.
As a very wise manager once told me, no one is ever a “neutral” influence on a branch. They are either positive and contributing to growth or negative and detracting from it.
George Hartman is managing partner with Elite Advisors Canada Inc. in Toronto. Send questions and comments regarding this column to ghartman@eliteadvisors.ca. George’s practice-management videos can be viewed on www.investmentexecutive.com.
© 2015 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.