Continuing development programmes

How good are your CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES? May be good technically, but poor in learning experience and screen aesthetics. Looking good, attractive and structured in an easily absorbable fashion increases market appeal of the CPD course and likely achievement of outcomes.

With the wisdom of ATHENA, over the years, the financial services TRAINING AND CONTINUING PROFESSONAL DEVELOPMENT industry have produced their fair share of good, bad and very bad CPD.

Sometimes the CPD created by firms for financial institutions is little more than a regurgitation of bank’s OPERATIONS MANUAL or CUT AND PASTE from the regulator’s playbook. Both content creation methods put people off.

Line managers empowered to ensure all their staff are up to date on risk and operations management question why their cost centre is charged so much for e-learning developed by their colleagues sitting on the other side of the partition without any additional features to their team’s learning experience – the quality of in-house support in content creation tailed-off as initial enthusiasm waned to one of CAN’T BE BOTHERED – TOO BUSY.

Contracting out CPD to third party agents can be more cost effective than having a bank’s own team design, research, populate and monitor performance. However, any third party CPD agent must know the subject matter really well, be able to keep datasets up to date, respond quickly to sudden market pronouncements likely to impact the performance of their client risk management practices.

In a recent diversification into the film industry, especially screenplay development, some of the skills in preparing content are portable to TRAINING AND CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT on-line courses.

At DYNAMIQUE, we use a number of these SCREENPLAY features which has resulted in more compelling, engaging and creatively enlightening content catching the eye of partners and companies keen to take on our CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE PORTFOLIO.

Some enterprises and learning bodies take the view that CPD must be dull to be effective in its purpose, to upskill the recipient. Academic institutions, and compliance training houses develop factually correct content which is presented in a dreadfully dull manner.

Furthermore, content is often long-winded and written by people who obviously have not done the work – being little more than JOURNO CONTENT WRITERS. It’s the nuances and industry subtleties that define good from bad content and determine relevance.

Over the years a number of TECH firms entered the industry offering all types of sophisticated learning WHIZZ-DINGS. However, in practice, these WHIZZ-DINGS became a nightmare where datasets, other rules and guidance needed to be updated frequently, reflecting the fast moving dynamics of the industry.

There are many firms offering CPD templates, and recommending the SIX and SEVEN best practice points to provide good CPD. Many come with product bias i.e. they want to shift product rather than benefits. Standardised templates are half-of the problem when creating compelling content and a great learning experience.

CPD must provide students with that KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY DON’T KNOW OR WERE EVEN AWARE, but which can help deliver better outcomes for their enterprise and clients. The latter group being hugely important to Financial Advisory(retail) and Institutional Asset Managers (wholesale) as that is where the value in a financial services business lies -  the quality of the client folio.

The rise of AI, or as it should be called SMART TECHNOLOGY is an opportunity not a threat to the industry. AI has to be TRAINED ON LOTS OF DATA otherwise it will just churn out garbage. The skill will be what to put in the AI’s LEARNING LIBRARY, whether it makes sense to CPD objectives. Human judgement and scepticism so crucial to good learning experiences will always be in demand.

So, what to the future – CPD will always be required by leading firms who VALUE THEIR CLIENTS and WORKFORCE. Learning is a lifelong experience. It isn’t until people are well into their dotage that they HANG UP THEIR SKILL BUILDING BOOTS.   

Finally, to end on a market experience note. I don’t believe that regulation and compliance has led to better outcomes for many of the world’s capital markets’ clients. Regulators BEAT THE DRUM as to how their regulatory and enforcement actions have prevented and deterred malfeasance by industry practitioners. Before regulation came into being the market knew who the BAD APPLES were and who to avoid. That, in itself was a better deterrent – torpedoing their HOLY GRAIL  - that much coveted MARKET REPUTATION.

Furthermore, has regulation been a success or failure? Whilst creating a whole new industry and professional class of compliance specialists and enriching lawyers, thus providing good employment, the outcome for clients has been HARD TO DETERMINE in terms of costs and expenses which come out of overall returns.

Unintended consequences of regulation have resulted in ultra conservative investment and risk management  policies, potentially denying investors of better risk return opportunities as the product sponsors are terrified of REGULATORY CENSURE.

What of current level of qualifications? Level 5 (very basic entry level stuff) and CFA qualifications’ slightly higher up the scale, give clients no more comfort that the individual knows what they are doing or have the client’s best interest at heart, TREATING THEM FAIRLY.

If financial professionals MORAL COMPASSES ARE ALL AT SEA, they are a risk to themselves and to others. As one UK market regulator said of the actions of many financial professionals who should have known better contributing by their actions to the GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS “if you guys had behaved properly there would be no need for regulation” (paraphrased).

Today’s SCREEN BASED ADVISOR may be lot worse than their bowler hatted predecessors who GOT OUT AND ABOUT A LOT MORE and REALLY KNEW THEIR CLIENTS, in business and social terms and how the capital markets really operated. That is why PUBLIC TRUST in financial services industry has declined to such a low ebb. Don’t lose heart, it can be turned around but needs a huge sea change in advisor and financial product providers’ attitudes, being less focused on profit imperative and more so on THEIR CLIENTS’ OUTCOMES.

Have a successful quarter – next blog Dec 2024.