A focus on "my" clients: because that's what drives "my" compensation.
A focus on "my" brand: because my compensation is driven by my ability to generate new relationships, it is my personal reputation as opposed to an institutional, organizational brand that I have incentive to build.
A battle over the value of relationship management versus sales: because in most firms to make a lot of money you have to be the killer not the skinner, raising the issue of the relative value of keeping clients and nurturing relationships.
Hoarding: because the plan punishes delegation of relationships, it makes it hard to encourage the practice of handing off clients, involving junior staff in a meaningful way or assigning clients to the advisor best suited to their needs.
Individualized sales: because the plan requires that we put the client in one person's column or another's, involving other qualified people in the sales effort is discouraged because there is only so much to go around. If I involve you, I have to give something up. It forces advisors to evaluate, "Even if my odds of landing the client are less, am I better off trying this on my own because then I don't have to 'split' with someone else." And on the flip side, why would I help someone else land a new client if it's not going to drive my personal compensation, and take me away from activities that can?
Individualized client acceptance: because it's hard for the firm to have the discipline to tell me what clients I can or cannot accept if that is going to impact my compensation.
Passive management: because if someone is underperforming, they will make so little money that they will eventually leave. We can let the compensation plan manage them instead of coaching them and actively managing their performance.
Large gaps between juniors and seniors: because it is very hard to get young people up and running in this model, and times have changed. The best people want more than just a first year's guaranteed minimum compensation, then to shift to "commission" when their "book" is big enough to support them. They want an ongoing team-based model this compensation plan will not allow.
Potential for low profitability: because advisor compensation is driven by the revenue in advisors' columns, not the profitability, or strategic fit, of those relationships, the organization may suffer from a profitability perspective, as well as diluting strategic focus if advisors take on clients that drive their compensation but don't fit with the firm's focus.
Are most of these outcomes of the eat-what-you-kill model obvious? Yes! Advisors are quick to pinpoint that it is their compensation plan that has led them astray from becoming the organization they want to be-one that promotes people, allocates client relationships appropriately, has an institutional brand and deep, sticky client relationships. Yet they are frozen in the face of changing this compensation plan to something less familiar and something that-they imagine-will be vague and nebulous instead of known and formulaic.