The annual survey found that almost two in five retail bank planners said their employer did not value them, with just 29 per cent saying were feeling their bosses’ love.
Planners working for superannuation funds reported the second lowest levels of positive employer feelings (57 per cent), while those working for advisory firms were the most likely to feel valued by their bosses (72 per cent), followed by those employed by accounting practices (71 per cent).
Possibly a product of their workplace, accounting practice-based planners were the only group to respond in black and white terms on whether they felt valued or not by their employer, with 29 per cent saying they were not, but none were unsure.
However, 17 per cent of advisory firm-based planners, 29 per cent of those working for super funds, and a third of retail bank-employed planners felt uncertain about their employers’ feelings towards them.
Loyalty
While the survey found that few retail bank planners were feeling appreciated by their bosses, two-thirds said they were either not job hunting, or were “not actively looking” with fewer than one in five actively in the market.
Across the industry, just 12 per cent of planners said they were looking for a new opportunity, while 53 per cent said they would not consider offers from other employers.
Those working for accounting practices or super funds were the least likely to consider jumping ship, with no planners in these groups reporting to be looking for other employment options.
Planners’ loyalty to their employers was highlighted by the survey, which found 90 per cent of respondents spent at least five years with an employer before moving jobs, with half of that group saying they spent more than a decade at a company before moving on.
What will keep planners happy?
Close to one in four planners said that expanding their team would be one of the key things their employer could do to retain their services.
The prospect of more staff was second only to a salary increase (43 per cent) in terms of inducements employers could offer to secure their planners’ loyalty, with those working for aligned groups more likely to say it was an issue (25 per cent) than their non-aligned peers (19 per cent).
For planners earning in excess of $220,000, securing extra staff was just as important as a pay increase for employers looking to hold onto their services (45 per cent).
When it came to securing a salary increase, non-aligned planners were more likely to be hooked by the lure of more cash (47 per cent) compared to 39 per cent of aligned planners.
The survey found that providing more training opportunities was the third best thing employers could do to retain them (16 per cent), while an employee share scheme was the next most popular option for holding onto planners.
Stumbling block to suitable salary
Across all planner groups, employers’ “poor organisational management” was identified as the single biggest stumbling block preventing them from receiving the salary they deserve.
Echoing the result of the 2015 Money Management Salary Survey, data from the annual survey found that almost one in five respondents felt their employers’ management skills were restricting the growth of the wage packets (18 per cent), with planners working for aligned groups marginally more likely to hold their bosses responsible (19 per cent), than their peers in non-aligned practices (17 per cent).
For non-aligned planners, clients undervaluing their services was the biggest issue (20 per cent), while aligned planners were significantly less likely to blame their clients (10 per cent) for their salaries not increasing.
The third biggest barrier preventing planners from achieving the salary they desired, was “lack of opportunity”, with 15 per cent of respondents saying that was the biggest issue, with aligned planners again more likely (18 per cent) to report it as the problem, than non-aligned planners (11 per cent).
At the other end of the spectrum, just one per cent of respondents said they were a “poor personal fit” within their current organisation, and that was preventing them from obtaining the salary, while a lack of training (two per cent), and gender (three per cent) were also identified as barriers by a minority of planners.
