Employees and employers have starkly different goals,
according to a global career survey from Manpower Group’s Right Management. High
performance and productivity? An overwhelming majority of employees (90%) say
that’s not how they define career success.
The top definition of workplace success among employees is enjoyment and happiness,
while employers logically focus on performance goals. The study’s findings indicate
an ongoing disconnect between employee aspirations and the performance demands
of employers worldwide.
The No. 1 global career aspiration is work/life balance
(26%), and the top definition of workplace success is enjoyment and happiness,
which trumps salary (19%). Doing the best work is a close third at 18%,
followed by respect and recognition (15%).
High performance is an aspiration for just 10% of the survey
respondents, and ranks lowest in Europe (8%) and highest in Asia (14%). North
America falls between the two areas at 12%. Across the generations, defining
workplace success as high performance is reported evenly by Generation X (11%),
Millennials (10%) and Baby Boomers (8%).
Of the three age cohorts, Millennials (14%) are the least
likely to aspire to be best at what they do compared with Baby Boomers (22%)
and Gen X (17%). Only 3% of employees globally aspire to achieve a prominent
position.
The survey also found:
35% of workers globally said the desire for work/life
balance is a top motivation for changing jobs;
35% said they would leave for higher compensation;
25% would leave for a different work culture; and
25% of workers cited more challenging
assignments as a reason to change jobs.
More advisers will partner or find
a way to leverage robo technology in their plan business, and the technology
can be an efficient way to scale advice.
Mitch Caplan, chief executive of
Jefferson National, describes robo adviser technology as a GPS system that
allows investors—especially those who are starting to save for retirement—to be
self-directed, but still receive some guidance. High-net-worth individuals, who
will demand much more human support, are less likely candidates to receive robo
services, he says.
Todd Clarke, chief executive of
CLS Investments, recalls that when his firm began offering money management advice
to plan participants in 2001, he found participants crying out for actual
advice. “This holds very true today,” Clarke tells PLANADVISER. After receiving education on the available investments, technical information on equities, bonds and asset allocation, participants in an enrollment meeting would leap at the offer of a managed account from Clarke’s firm. They wanted advice, not general information.
The bottom line is that
participants need investment advice, and plan sponsors are willing to make it
available, Clarke says. Participants vary in the amount of advice they need,
he explains, from the do-it-yourself (DIY) participant who eagerly plunges into
the investment lineup, to the do-it-for-me participant at the other end who
wants full support.
Robo adviser tech might find its natural home in the smaller
end of the plan market, where plan sponsors could be reaching for low-cost
advice solutions. Alison Borland, senior vice
president of retirement strategy and solutions at Aon Hewitt, says the large plans Aon Hewitt serves haven’t
expressed much interest in robo advisers specifically. Most large plans already
include some level of advice, some of which is automated,
and not very different from the robo-adviser experience.
After thousands of participant
meetings, Clarke maintains that all participants fit somewhere on this
continuum and says the robo adviser is an excellent fit for those who want an adviser
to do it for them.
Robo advisers are good for the
intersection of several needs, Caplan says: “The
technology specifies dollar amounts they need to put in, and guides them to
allow the money to build over time. It allows for timely rebalancing.” A robo solution
works for people entering the savings market, which is a wide cross-section, allowing
an adviser to more cost-effectively serve a range of people.
Caplan’s bet is that robo
advisers are going to wind up being among the most powerful tools to help advisers,
because of their ability to help scale up a practice. Whether dealing with plan sponsors or
individuals outside a retirement plan, advisers need to ask themselves whether
they want three very large clients, or if they are better off with 20 clients
in the middle? “Scale is what matters,” he stresses, “and advisers
have to get their business to a point where they are serving for scale.”
NEXT: What advisers need to leverage to win business
Technology Helps Scale
After a period without much tech
innovation, Caplan points to several factors that are driving much of the current interest in robo adviser themes. “Advisers are realizing they need to embrace
technology,” he says. Technology matters more
than ever, especially if advisers are serving a number of participants in a
defined contribution (DC) plan, because it allows them to provide a better
experience to the plan and run the practice more efficiently.
Clarke sees robo advisers as an
advice solution that will fit some retirement plans, but the option is unlikely
to have any effect on the cost of providing advice to participants. “We charge
the same whether you eat in our restaurant or go through our drive-through,” he
says, only half joking. The reason is that CLS delivers the same service whether
it’s via technology or in a face-to-face session, he explains. “We’re putting in
the same amount of work behind the scenes in managing our portfolios. Our advice
is our advice. It’s just a different way to package it.”
Advisers who can provide low-cost
advice, high-value human interaction when needed, and the technology people want
are the ones who will really win, Caplan believes. “Everyone is fascinated with
robo, and you can compare it to the same behavior you saw with the online or
discount brokers in the 1990s,” he explains, another tech innovation that
seemed like a huge, untapped market. “Robo advice is being viewed as a solution
for Millennials. That market is untapped because no one’s figured out how to
reach that market.”
Participant outcomes will always be
better when plan participants are given professional advice, Clarke says,
whether the advice is given person-to-person or delivered through technology in
the form of a robo. “It’s better than people trying to do it themselves,” he
says. However, robo can never entirely replace in-person advice sessions,
because the robo is built solely for the investments the user has in a 401(k). Clarke
notes that face-to-face advice gives a much more complete picture of the person
and their finances. “We’re too early to know if robo is going to be an acceptable
way to deliver advice to participants,” he says. “The future will tell us.”
The
intersection of technology and financial services is always attention-getting,
Caplan says, as are suddenly emerging business models, and the potential to
serve a large, under-served market. “It feels very current, very in the moment,”
he says. “But when you step back and look at it as a long-term trend, in the
end nothing replaces human capital.” The most effective way to advise people is
the combination of efficiency by way of technology and the adviser’s own human
capital, Caplan says.