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.
Beverly Flaxington is a practice management consultant. She answers questions from advisors facing human resource issues. To submit yours, email us here.
Dear Bev,
My RIA implemented a new performance process last year that included both quantitative and “discretionary” components. Our senior partners told us the discretionary side could overrule the quantitative if other factors were present. I run the operations department, and our quantitative goals were significant regarding processing, client (and advisor) response times, and minimizing errors.
We got really close to hitting those marks, but in August, I lost one of my best people. She had an accident and was out for several months. The rest of the team is relatively young and inexperienced, so her absence was deeply felt. However, my team went above and beyond to cover the gaps and meet our required goals.
In my review last week, my boss told me I wouldn’t be getting a raise or my typical bonus because our team “fell short during the third and four quarters”. We fell short because we were down a person! Everyone pitched in, including me. I am incredibly discouraged and want to talk to our HR liaison, but he has a reputation for running to the senior partners and “tattling” on anything shared with him. I need this job and don’t want to rock the boat, but it’s becoming harder to stay motivated and show up every day.
K.W.
Dear K.W.,
I’m not fully sure of the specific question embedded in your note, but I’ll offer some insights and ideas to help you navigate this.
Audit the Metrics
If one of your senior partners is open to it, I suggest you schedule a meeting to learn more about the specific metrics used to judge your performance. Sometimes one person perceives a number one way, while someone else interprets it differently; you need to establish a baseline for how they are measuring your success.
Contextualize the Data
If you can obtain monthly figures, you can show the results relative to your actual headcount. You might even be able to demonstrate that your “per person” productivity was actually higher than normal during the months you were short-staffed. This is what I mean about numbers: There are many ways to interpret the same data — make sure they see the version that accounts for your team’s extra effort.
Seek Clarity of Discretionary Components
Inquire about the qualitative side — specifically, how discretion is used when quantitative goals aren’t fully met. Discretion is broad and can mean many things. It could be that the partners didn’t have a strong year, they simply didn’t realize your team’s efforts were extraordinary, or bonuses were allocated differently this year. Often, there are behind the scenes factors at play, and asking for clarity can be very enlightening.
A Final Thought
As a last option, if you feel it is too risky to speak up, you may have to acknowledge that this was a painful end to the year and turn your attention toward 2026. Now that you know exactly how much weight is placed on these metrics, track your progress every month so you are prepared for the next bonus discussion.
In the meantime, you must find a way to improve your own morale. In a small firm, it is difficult to feel negative without others noticing, and you want to ensure your reputation remains as a leader, not a naysayer.
Dear Bev,
We have a small team of nine people at our firm and, aside from our president, we are all very close. We go out for drinks together, and some of us even socialize with our spouses on the weekends. I’m not sure our president realizes how tight-knit we are; she often shares comments with one colleague about another, not realizing that we tell each other everything and laugh about her lack of connection to the team.
We had our individual year-end discussions (all eight of us report directly to her). She gave significant raises to three people but told the other five that there was no money for raises because the company hadn’t met its profit goals. However, one of my colleagues works in the finance department and knows firsthand that our numbers were actually very strong this year. When we went for drinks last night, the three people who received raises (I was not one of them) were actually embarrassed to have been chosen when the rest of us were not.
We discussed letting the president know how close we all are and that, as a group, we are concerned about the disparate treatment among team members. We were ready to make a plan until one colleague — who also did not get a raise — suggested that approaching her as a group of eight might feel like we were “ganging up” on her. They worried she would not take very kindly to being confronted that way.
We agreed to ask you for your input before deciding on the next move.
Anonymous
Dear Advisor Team Member,
I concur with your colleague’s opinion: having the entire firm — all eight of you — schedule a meeting to address this compensation concern would likely be very off-putting to your president. There are times when a whole team approach works, such as when you feel passionate about a firm initiative or client matter. However, discussing salary and differing management approaches as a group would likely feel combative and intrusive to your president.
That said, depending on the president’s openness to feedback, I do agree that someone should speak with her on behalf of the team. The best person for this is whoever is least likely to be perceived as aggressive — someone who can adopt an inquisitive, active listening attitude.
It is okay for this spokesperson to let the president know that the team is very tight-knit and that you share information with one another. In a nine-person firm, it is unrealistic to expect colleagues to keep secrets from one another, and she should be made aware of that reality so she can adjust her communication accordingly.
Have the spokesperson explain that the team compared notes and noticed a difference in how raises were handled. The goal is simply to understand the thinking behind those decisions. It’s likely she either can’t defend her approach or she has a valid reason she hasn’t articulated. Again, it’s really important in this conversation to not put her on the spot, but rather to adopt a curiosity-driven mindsight.
Remember, as president, she is not required to share this information with you. She likely views the individual conversations as private and final. Go into this conversation with a “seek to understand” perspective, but keep your expectations for a specific outcome relatively low.
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.
A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: Discover something new! Click here to register for our upcoming webcasts.
Read more articles by Beverly Flaxington
Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.
