Here is what I find anomalous.
All the firms I coach are evidence-based advisors. A client receives advice based on the same identical principles, regardless the advisor in the firm.
Now for the anomalous part.
None of these firms has a process for converting prospects in to clients based on evidence. Each advisor approaches it differently. These advisors typically believe their approach is superior. They have no data to support that assessment.
A fundamental misunderstanding
There’s a vast amount of peer-reviewed research, largely in the disciplines of psychology and neuroscience, on how to approach this process. If you knew about it, you would find it persuasive. You would then create a consistent process – just like you do with investing – and insure that it’s followed by everyone in your firm.
It gets worse.
The way most advisors approach meetings with prospects isdirectly contraindicated by compelling evidence.
- You talk instead of listen.
- You request intrusive amounts of information before or at your meetings.
- You believe your job is to convey information, not elicit it.
- You often “play the same tape” regardless of the unique circumstances of each prospect.
- You assume the attention span of prospects is far longer than it is.
- You assume what you are saying is more important than what the prospect has to say.
- You steer the conversation to get to your agenda, instead of eliciting theirs.
- You believe “small talk” is a waste of time.
- You believe “telling your story” is important.
- You don’t show a genuine interest in the prospect as a person.
- You don’t understand the neuroscience that impacts the way we react to each other, so you can harness it to your benefit.
In short, you believe it’s about you, when it’s really about the prospect.
Resource of the week:
I summarize the issues with talking too much in this blog.