Models for Integrative Advising
The following contribution is intended for open discussion. To read current comments and/or add your own, click the “comments” link that appears at the bottom of this post.
********************************************************
Models for Integrative Advising
There are many obstacles to doing integrative planning that truly covers all the domains that are potentially critical for any given client (money, health, career, relationships, attitudes, living arrangements, meaning, etc.). I’m wondering what people think is the best way — in theory, at least — to operate one’s practice so that this is possible. Here are some possibilities, and I’d love to hear back from you about your thoughts, and your experiences in this regard. I hope that later this year, we will do an article in the Integrative Adviser on this topic, so your thoughts can have more of an impact. We will credit everyone who responds.
Model #1: The network of expert referrals. The advisor is an expert in one domain, but is not highly knowledgeable about the others. When an issue arises in one of the other domains, the advisor refers the client to other experts. If this model is used, does it work well? How much, if any, communication should there be about the client between or among the experts? Should referrals be done as a courtesy, or for a fee?
Model #2: The holistic organization. Similar to Model #1, but experts of several (or ideally all) kinds are housed within the same practice. Referrals are always within the practice, except in special cases. Is anyone doing it this way now? If so, what are its strengths and drawbacks?
Model #3: The general practitioner. The advisor is NOT an expert in any one area, but is the equivalent of a medical GP. The advisor has training in ALL the domains and is capable of dealing with commonplace problems in all of them. The advisory “general practitioner” is also qualified to know when more specifialized help is needed, and routinely refers out to specialists in the various planning and care domains. I am not sure if anyone is using this model now (do many life coaches see themselves this way?) — but in any case, does it sound like a good idea or a bad one?
Model #4: The advisory para-professional. This advisor is not professionally trained in any area, and has only modest knowledge of them. But using some rigorous diagnostic tool (a kind of detailed “state of life” questionnaire, or some software that is much more thorough than anything currently available), the para-professional could identify problem areas, and suggest generally useful solutions, other resources (books, websites, national or local organizations), or other more professional advisors. Could such a model be useful in making integrative planning available to the middle- and lower-income demographic?
What are your thoughts about these models? Do you have ideas about other possible models?
********************************************************
I use “model #1.” I create and maintain written plans, and provide financial and behavioral advising in service to that plan. I thereafter outsource everything else: insurance, estate planning, taxes, asset management, transition coaching, etc.
1I work in a type of model #2 environment, where we have professionals with different areas of expertise in the same building, with other contracted professionals available a phone call away. I like that model, because I get to know the other professionals as people too and have a greater sesnse of confidence in them when I refer clients to them. We also have a lot of common items (office machines, cleaning services, mail, etc.) taken care of with less hassle. But I also really like model #3 and hope to become that type of professional too after I get accredited and continue growing in my profession. The model #3 person, through training, knows enough about the topics to know how they inter-relate. They can help the client choose appropriately and move forward on several fronts, but will know when to refer out too. So combining the two models might look like a GP who in her/his own life developed a firm spiritual, financial, and healthy personal lifestyle and worked in an organization of other committed professionals (who ideally were also holistic in their approach to their own lives) who were the specialists in THEIR fields. Not all Renaissance people themselves, but with that mindset: open-minded and interested in many disciplines. The “broad-spectrum GP” would then know and understand how the various “remedies” and “healthy systems” work together and could talk with facility about those subjects and how actions in any of the areas might improve one’s overall well-being. So, I’m envisioning a financial professional who gets training in and learns enough through their own personal experiences about insurance and estate-planning and taxes and healthy lifestyles and spiritual ways of interacting with the world to talk comfortably and intelligently about them. That sort of broad-spectrum person would also be a person with a lively curiosity and a sense of humor. If people like that worked together in an existing organization or formed their own organization, the synergy could be tremendous. They could work as a collaborative team, much like the medical meetings my registered nurse mother used to attend once a week at the hospital she worked in. The physician, the nurse, the social worker, the dietitian, the discharge planner, and maybe some other areas (the chaplain, the occupational therapist, the physical therapist?) would meet and discuss each patient. What if a staff of life-planners, with different areas of expertise in an organization, worked collaboratively with each other to help the clients? The organization would maintain the confidentiality, but the client would be informed from the beginning that this would be a “collegial” environment where different colleagues could work together as a team to give the clients enough information and support for the clients to make good decisions for their lives.
2Denver Money Manager is developing Model #2. We have 4 senior advisors in the firm – a financial planner, new business development & community outreach professional, investment stategist, and chief financial officer. Additonally, two of us have worked together for 20 year in the personal growth industry. We are developing Model #2 around our corporate mission statement…”it’s not just about the money, it’s about empowering people to Get Rich, Stay Rich, and Live Well”. We believe being rich and living well have very little to do with size of your wallet. Your net worth does determine your self worth. Prior to adopting integrative advising, like most advisers we were a “financial daycare” center. In other words, clients dropped their money off at our door and checked back later to see how the kids were doing. If they didn’t like the way their money/kids were behaving, they closed their account and moved onto a new “financial daycare center.” It occurred to us one day that we ought to try to teach and empower our clients with “parenting skills” when it comes to their money…this launched us into integrative advising.
3Thank u for raising important issues and questions.
I have found the most important way is to begin a narrative with the client early on that weaves all aspects of life and well being into the financial part of the relationship.
I like to ask questions about health, life purpose, life goals and passions, ask ‘what does life look like in 5,10,15 years?’, “who are u in relationships with?” and “what are the qualities of those relationships?”
i’m challenged because it ultimately comes back to financial conversation. Even so it is very helpful because framing the conversation in this way really helps clients seethe big picture of real wealth vs money…
4While there may certainly be an objective standard to determine whether any given approach is NOT effective, it would appear the same cannot be said for determining whether a particular approach or model is MOST effective–that would depend on our clients, whom we cannot speak for.
In this respect, all four models described above (and possibly others), can be structured in such a way as to be effective, as long as effectiveness is the goal, and the requisite skills are present in those all those involved.
Who else has had success with a particular model, and why?
5