The Manager's Guide to Running a Regulated Team

There are good books on management. There are good books on compliance. There is almost nothing written for the person who has to do both simultaneously, with twelve people reporting to them, a weekly target to hit, and four hours of call reviews they have not had time to do yet. This article is for that person.

Monday morning. You have seventeen advisors on your team. Three of them have had a rough couple of weeks, the numbers are down and you are not sure whether it is the market, their approach, or something specific that happened on a call you did not hear. One of them is a new starter in their third month who seemed fine in training but whose numbers have not come together yet. Two of them are your best people and you are not worried about them at all, which means you have barely spoken to them this month.

You have a one-on-one scheduled with four of them today. You prepared for two. The other two you will wing: ask them how they are getting on, look at their pipeline, say something encouraging, and schedule another conversation for next week.

Meanwhile, the compliance team has just sent  a reminder that the new disclosure requirements come into effect on the first of next month and all customer-facing staff need to be signed off as competent before then. You have not started that process.

This is what regulated team management looks like in practice. Not what you read in the management textbook. The actual version.

‍

What makes managing a regulated team different from managing any other team?

Every manager deals with performance, development, and accountability. Managing a regulated team adds three layers that most management training does not prepare you for.

Every conversation your team has is potentially reviewed by someone other than you.

In an unregulated environment, a conversation between a team member and a customer is between them and the customer. If it goes well, great. If it does not, you find out when the customer complains or the deal falls through. The feedback loop runs through outcomes.

In a regulated environment, the conversation may be reviewed by your compliance team, a QA analyst, a regulator, or a lawyer — sometimes months or years after it happened. You are not just responsible for your team's results. You are responsible for their conversations. Not whether they happened, but whether they happened correctly.

The compliance obligation is not the enemy of performance. But it can feel like it.

The advisors who handle disclosure requirements smoothly, who follow the required script without making it feel like a script, who documents correctly, these are almost always the advisors who also perform best commercially. The correlation is consistent, and most experienced regulated team managers have noticed it. But getting to that understanding takes time. Before you get there, compliance obligations feel like friction. The teams that perform best in regulated environments are the ones where the manager has found a way to make compliance part of the approach, not an addition to it.

You are coaching conversations you mostly cannot hear.

This is the one that most management training does not prepare you for at all. In most management frameworks, coaching is based on observation. You watch someone do the work, you give feedback, they improve. In regulated team management at any meaningful scale, you cannot watch enough of the work. Your team is having hundreds of conversations a week. You can realistically hear a handful. The coaching you give is based on a tiny and potentially unrepresentative fraction of what your team is actually doing with customers.

The gap between what you think is happening in your team's conversations and what is actually happening is usually larger than you expect. The thing you are coaching someone on may not be the thing causing the problem. The thing causing the problem may be in a call you never hear.

Before your next one-on-one, pick a team member you have not listened to recently, not one you are worried about, and review three of their calls. The conversation you have will be different to the one you planned.

‍

How do you coach effectively when you cannot hear enough calls?

This is the practical center of regulated team management and the question most management training skips entirely, because the honest answer is uncomfortable: you probably cannot coach as effectively as you need to with the tools most regulated businesses give you. What you can do is be smarter about the sample you do hear.

Stop reviewing calls randomly. Review calls with a hypothesis.

Most managers approach call review by finding a handful of calls and listening. If something stands out, they flag it. If nothing does, the review feels unproductive and the coaching session is generic.

Try to form a hypothesis before you listen. "I think James is struggling with the objection that comes up when customers ask about the fee structure." Now listen to three calls specifically looking for how James handles that moment. You will learn more from three calls reviewed with a question than from ten reviewed without one.

The hypothesis can come from outcome data, the deal was lost, the compliance score was low, or from what a customer said when they called back, or from a pattern in last month's scores. The point is to arrive at the calls with a specific question rather than a general curiosity. Some managers we talk to often say they 'have a feeling' about someone, but they lack a way to prove it.

Use your best performers differently.

A common approach to learning from top performers is to ask them to share what they do in a team session. This rarely produces lasting change. What works better: identify one specific moment where your top performer consistently handles something better than the rest of the team. One objection, one disclosure sequence, one way of managing a difficult customer, and use a recording of that moment as the basis for coaching everyone else.

You are not asking the top performer to articulate their approach in abstract. You are letting the conversation speak for itself. "Here is how Sarah handles when a customer pushes back on the fee. Listen to how she does it. Now let's talk about how you do it."

This requires call recording. It requires you to have heard enough of Sarah's calls to know which moment to use. But if you are going to prioritize any call review time, it is worth prioritizing the calls of your best people, specifically looking for moments that are teachable.

Build the coaching conversation around specifics, not impressions.

The coaching conversations that do not change behavior are impressionistic. "I think you sometimes move a bit fast in the discovery phase." The advisor nods. Nothing changes, because nothing specific is being addressed.

The coaching conversations that change behaviour are specific. "On the call with Mr. Henderson on Thursday, at about the four-minute mark, you moved to the product features before you had completed the suitability questions. The customer did not push back on it, but if they had, you would have been in difficulty." That is actionable. The advisor knows exactly what happened and exactly what to do differently.

Before your next coaching session, form one specific hypothesis about what the person is doing in their calls and review calls until you can either confirm or rule it out. Go in with evidence, not impression.

‍

How do you manage compliance without it killing the culture?

The compliance obligation in a regulated team can become the dominant narrative: the thing every conversation comes back to, the reason every process is slightly more complicated than it needs to be. When this happens, it is exhausting for the team and it does not produce better compliance outcomes. People who are compliant out of fear of being caught are not compliant in the same way as people who understand why the obligations exist.

The managers whose teams have consistently good compliance records without a culture of anxiety tend to do a few specific things differently.

They explain the why, not just the what.

Most compliance training tells team members what to do. The best regulated team managers also explain why, not as a lecture but as context. "The reason we have to do the suitability assessment before we talk about specific products is that if a customer later claims they were sold something unsuitable, the record of that assessment is what protects both them and us." When people understand why the obligation exists, they are much more likely to follow it correctly in situations the training did not specifically cover.

They separate the compliance conversation from the performance conversation.

When compliance and performance are discussed in the same breath "your numbers are down and your compliance scores are also a concern" the two issues contaminate each other. The person feels doubly criticised and defensively addresses neither. The best managers keep the conversations separate. Compliance is one conversation, with its own agenda. Performance is a different conversation. They may be related, and if they are, you note the relationship — but they are addressed separately so the person can focus on each one.

They celebrate compliance wins, not just compliance failures.

Most regulated teams hear about compliance when something has gone wrong. The advisor who consistently gets the disclosure right, who handles the difficult suitability conversation correctly, who flags a risk appropriately, they rarely hear about it. A specific acknowledgement in a one-to-one is enough: "I listened to your call with Mr. Wilson on Tuesday and the way you handled the disclosure at the point where he started asking about the higher-risk option was exactly right. That is what it is supposed to look like."

They involve the team in improving the process.

The people who know where the compliance process creates friction are the ones doing it every day. The managers who keep compliance friction manageable, actively ask their team where the process is getting in the way, and take those problems to the compliance team. Ask two or three team members individually where the compliance process creates the most friction in their day, not in a team meeting, ask in a one-on-one, where they will be honest. Take what you hear to whoever owns the compliance process and see what is fixable.