The Nature vs Nurture Debate Around Professionalism
The Nature vs Nurture Debate Around Professionalism
As some of you will no doubt be aware, the 2015 Roy Morgan Image of Professions Survey highlights a less than desirable trend for our specific professions of interest based upon a survey of approximately 600 people aged 14 years and over.
Last year, the percentage of respondents describing accountants with very high or high ethics and honesty dropped 7%, placing them at 11th on the list. Lawyers didn’t fare much better coming in at 15th on the list with a 7% decline on last year. While financial planners fare a little better decreasing by only 4%, they still placed only 17th on the list. So whilst the financial planning profession may be coping a battering in the press, it would be fair to say each of these professions have room for improvement.
It has always intrigued me, the number of times ethics subjects are part of overall educational and professional training. I completed a subject on ethics as an undergraduate, again in all three of my post graduate courses, as well as part of my professional development for my business broking and CEPA qualification/licenses. What amazes me is, if I haven’t ‘got’ ethics after the first course, why would I have it after my fifth or sixth course. In fact, is ethics something that can be taught in our adult years while undertaking tertiary or professional training anyway? Isn’t ethics something that is instilled in us at home during our formative years? Is it also perhaps not fair to suggest that individuals’ ethics will vary based on their culture, their age, their socio-demographics, their profession or vocation, their lifestyle and so many other factors?
Likewise, clearly it is possible to simply have a range of people with differing ethical beliefs. What is ethical to one person may not be ethical to another.
Lately in the press we have been hearing ideas from various parties about how to improve the professionalism of financial advisers. Now please, this is not intended to be an attack on advisers.
Accountants and lawyers are not above reproach and have probably also been through similar experiences as to what is currently taking place within the financial planning industry. Naturally, there will be expectations around increased training and qualifications to help financial planners lift their game. In addition to the professional bodies representing these advisers, a formal register is now in place. So steps are being taken and it will take time to see the benefits of these changes.
However, of late I have heard suggestions that financial advisers should be required to take an oath of integrity, which apparently will help prevent dubious practices. Or the other idea, that enforcing minimum qualifications amongst financial advisers will lead to many leaving the industry, particularly amongst those within the baby boomer generation. This is not to say that such suggestions aren’t from the very best of intentions.
But, I can’t help but stop and wonder whether an oath will really do much to protect the general public from unethical behaviour by advisers. Likewise, if higher qualifications weed out some of the less ethical advisers, presuming protection can be provided for our more senior advisers, then is this really a bad thing?
Perhaps logically we need to realize that where people in general want to do the ‘wrong thing’ by others, they will irrespective of their training, qualification, ethics or any other factor. It’s simply human nature.
In addition, I suspect that we probably need to accept that where individuals invest based on the advice of others (or even on their own advice) and experience the ebb and flow of the risks associated with the financial markets, that disquiet is always likely to accompany a period of downturn, especially where money and wealth is lost. Whether advisers act ethically or not, it simply isn’t possible to stop the loss of wealth during a bust market.
That’s not to say that we don’t want ethical advisers across all the professions. Yet history would confirm that a 100% success rate on ethical behaviour is impossible. That said, we can certainly require advisers to act ethically and reprimand or prosecute where actions are otherwise.
However, the varying views of what is ethical will always result in a disparity of outcomes.