Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.
To buy a copy of Bev’s book, The Pocket Guide to Sales for Financial Advisors, click here.
Dear Bev,
We are trying to integrate AI more in our firm. We have found a couple of ways, including using it to summarize and follow up on client notes, and help us with some of our marketing initiatives (particularly around copywriting for emails and redoing our standard materials).
Lately there has been a lot of buzz around our support teams (45 people in total) that we are finding ways to incorporate AI in order to streamline the firm and eliminate positions. As a senior leader, I don’t see what we’re doing with AI ever replacing the people we currently have, but rather enhancing what they do, freeing up their time and allowing them to focus on higher-gain activities. We have a long list of things we want to do, over time, in the firm, and we could have existing resources engage differently rather than hiring in the future if we continue to leverage artificial intelligence.
I believe most firms in our industry are looking at ways to more adeptly use AI. I don’t know if others are experiencing the pushback we are or how they are dealing with it. I think we’ve been honest with our team members and have shown them our goals and objectives pretty clearly. Not sure what else we need to be, or should be, doing.
K.A.
Dear K.A.,
In many ways artificial intelligence is the great unknown. I’ve read about firms in our industry finding ways to increase efficiencies by using AI to help with compilation of client notes, identifying industry trends, better uncovering financial risks, providing planning insights and supporting client follow-ups such as meeting scheduling and to-dos. I’m sure this list is only scratching the surface of ways firms are currently using the technology, or ways they could be in the future.
However, with anything as new and relatively unknown as AI, there are going to be a lot of questions teams members will ask, such as:
- Is this going to replace my job?
- How accurate and effective can AI be?
- Will I need to learn a new technology, and what if I am unable to do so?
- Where will AI fit with what we are currently doing?
- Will we need to change our approach to accommodate AI?
- What is the landscape going to look like in one, three and five years?
It’s difficult for senior leaders like yourself. Although you say you don’t expect to eliminate jobs and you can see a future where your current team members are focused on higher-gain activities, the truth is that you also don’t know where this might be going — no one really does. This is an evolving technology, and no one can fully predict the future. I’m not saying you are wrong — I’m only saying your confidence and commitment to your team may or may not be true in three to five years (or even less).
Your team members are reacting out of fear. They don’t know what is coming next, they don’t know where they will fit in, and the confidence you are showing them — rather than feeling like encouragement and support — may make them feel shaky and vulnerable. After all, they also know you can’t possibly see the future either. I’m not sure how engaged the people who are worrying have been to date, but your best option right now is to make sure that, as you make these changes, you involve as many people as possible in the decisions. If you are operating with only a tight group of people who know what’s happening, that can increase the fear factor for others. While you can’t productively involve 45+ people, you can make sure there are sub-groups with different individuals included who are getting a first-hand look at what’s happening and why. Perhaps if more people are seeing the process unfolding and understand the changes and where they will have impact, they might be more willing to embrace the shift. It may allow them to see that nothing is going to radically change very quickly. Whenever there is change, the more people there are who have a voice and are able to understand the the reasons for the changes, the more people there are who can be culture carriers to share with others in your firm. This can improve your chances of your team wanting to help make the changes work rather than resist what you are doing. However, there is still going to be fear, no matter what you do. Make sure you are not minimizing this fear by making commitments you don’t know will ultimately hold up. Instead, allow as many people as possible to have eyes on what is happening in real time.
Dear Bev,
We have recently implemented new technology for our financial planning process. We hired an outside firm to create a process driven by our advisors. It’s unique to our firm, and I believe it is going to be a differentiator for us. However, I’m flummoxed by the resistance we are getting from our junior advisors, who are the ones that will be running the software.
We didn’t engage them in the development process, because it is our senior advisors who know what we need and have been working with the clients for decades. Our junior team acts as the behind-the-scenes planners, implementing the data and running the plans. They now say the software is not user-friendly and is missing several key features they believe would be necessary, especially with regard to tax planning. My view is that because they weren’t involved, they are finding the flaws in what we’ve done. The process took us 28 months, and we invested a lot of money to get what we have now. Did we miss something in this process? I’ve always heard the adage about “too many cooks in the kitchen,” so we deliberately did not want to open the input to everyone.
V.H.
Dear V.H.,
I guess your question is about whether you missed something, and I believe your answer is inherent in what you wrote. I completely get the idea of asking the advisors who are working with the clients and who have presented plans over the years to be the ones to be the primary people giving input. I don’t understand, however, if the next tier is going to be the ones to use the system and work on the inputs, why those team members would not have been consulted along the way.
I remember a few years ago I ran some focus groups for one of my retail bank clients. They had implemented a new technology without talking to any of the people who would be using it day-to-day. It was a very expensive move, and the resistance by the team members using the technology was overwhelming. The firm convened focus groups to find out what the problems were. Ultimately, those problems were vast; there were so many things that were missed in the decision regarding which software to purchase, and in the decision of how best to implement it. However, in the focus groups, I heard the biggest problem was that no one “on the ground” actually using the technology was involved at any step in the process.
It was mind-boggling to me and my team, as we listened to people talking about how the process was fully completed without ever asking anyone who would have to use it for their thoughts. Since that time, I have heard about scenarios like theirs — and now yours — many times. Sometimes leaders don’t want to hear any pushback or anything negative, so they just don’t ask. The problems that then ensue on the implementation and ongoing use are manifold.
I think you need to acknowledge to your junior staff that they really should have been included in the process and you need to listen to their observations to see if any changes can be made. Most software is beta-tested for this reason before it goes live. Consider consulting with the developers as to whether they can upgrade sooner rather than later.
Beverly Flaxington co-founded The Collaborative, a consulting firm devoted to business building for the financial services industry, in 1995. The firm also founded and manages the Advisors Sales Academy. The firm has won the Wealthbriefing WealthTech award for Best Training Solution for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025. Beverly is currently an adjunct professor at Suffolk University teaching undergraduate and graduate students Entrepreneurship and Leading Teams. She is a Certified Professional Behavioral Analyst (CPBA) and Certified Professional Values Analyst (CPVA).
She has spent over 25 years in the investment industry and has been featured in Selling Power Magazine and quoted in hundreds of media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC.com, Investment News and Solutions Magazine for the FPA. She speaks frequently at investment industry conferences and is a speaker for the CFA Institute.
