3 Highlights from our Pre-Released 2011 Teams Research
The following are three highlights from our pre-released research report on teams. Keep your eyes out for the full report to be released soon!
1) Wealth management teams are playing a significant role in the world of financial services. However, the majority (55%) of advisors are currently not working on a team. With little difference in key metrics such as career satisfaction, new assets acquired, and client loyalty between solo advisors and advisors on the general population of non-elite teams, advisors are likely to be more cautious towards becoming part of a team. That said, advisors on elite teams excel on all key metrics.
2) The disparity in career satisfaction between advisors on elite teams (61% very satisfied ) and the rest of the field (43% and 40%) raises the question; are they “very satisfied” because they are elite or are they elite because they love what they do (they’re very satisfied) ? Most likely the answer is somewhere in the middle, these elite team advisors love what they do, are committed to excellence, and have developed into an elite team as a result. What we did find interesting is how the career satisfaction of solo advisors had a meaningful improvement from 2009 to 2011; 29.6% to 43% very satisfied, while career satisfaction of financial advisors associated with the general population of teams remained basically the same; 41.6% in 2009 / 40% in 2011. It is also worth noting that solo advisors are currently more satisfied with their careers than advisors on teams, while advisors on elite teams lead the field by a wide margin.
3) It is interesting to note that there is little difference between the vertical and horizontal models in the general population of teams. Whereas, there is a major disparity in the elite teams between vertical (59%) and horizontal (32%) models. With team leadership such a key ingredient in all elite teams, it appears that a challenge amongst horizontal teams centers around the leadership issue.
1) Wealth management teams are playing a significant role in the world of financial services. However, the majority (55%) of advisors are currently not working on a team. With little difference in key metrics such as career satisfaction, new assets acquired, and client loyalty between solo advisors and advisors on the general population of non-elite teams, advisors are likely to be more cautious towards becoming part of a team. That said, advisors on elite teams excel on all key metrics.
2) The disparity in career satisfaction between advisors on elite teams (61% very satisfied ) and the rest of the field (43% and 40%) raises the question; are they “very satisfied” because they are elite or are they elite because they love what they do (they’re very satisfied) ? Most likely the answer is somewhere in the middle, these elite team advisors love what they do, are committed to excellence, and have developed into an elite team as a result. What we did find interesting is how the career satisfaction of solo advisors had a meaningful improvement from 2009 to 2011; 29.6% to 43% very satisfied, while career satisfaction of financial advisors associated with the general population of teams remained basically the same; 41.6% in 2009 / 40% in 2011. It is also worth noting that solo advisors are currently more satisfied with their careers than advisors on teams, while advisors on elite teams lead the field by a wide margin.
3) It is interesting to note that there is little difference between the vertical and horizontal models in the general population of teams. Whereas, there is a major disparity in the elite teams between vertical (59%) and horizontal (32%) models. With team leadership such a key ingredient in all elite teams, it appears that a challenge amongst horizontal teams centers around the leadership issue.
posted by Matt Oechsli at
4:05 PM
<< Home