Structure for scale

Advisory teams rarely start as well-organized units. More often, they form gradually. One advisor adds support as the business grows, another advisor joins with their own assistant and a “team” takes shape. On paper, the structure looks solid. In practice, things can feel misaligned.

One associate is handling far more than others. Client responsibilities are unclear. While everyone is technically part of the same team, they may be working in parallel, not in partnership. The business is operating — but not efficiently.

This is a common inflection point.

You may be growing. You might be planning for succession, or simply trying to ease operational strain. Perhaps you’ve hit a ceiling in capacity or clarity. Whatever the case, the team structure that got you here may not be the one that will support your future.

This is where a strategic approach to team structure becomes impactful.

World-class teams are not defined by headcount. They are built through clarity, alignment and intentional design. Each role has a purpose. Client service, planning, operations and growth responsibilities are thoughtfully distributed across the team. Advisors focus where they create the most value. Support professionals are empowered. The entire team works in sync toward common goals.

Advisory firms often treat team structure as a single decision. In reality, it’s two interconnected levers:

1. Practice (business) structure
   Who owns the clients, profit and risk?
   
   Your firm likely falls into one of four structural archetypes: solo, silo, ensemble or mega-ensemble. Rising accounts under management (AUM), headcount or client complexity often signals a need to evolve this foundation.
   • Solo practices include a single advisor who runs every aspect of their business and may employ administrative support. Great for autonomy and profit retention, but more challenging for specialization and succession planning.
   • Silo practices include two or more advisors operating independently under one umbrella firm with shared administrative support. The shared support increases time for client services, but requires more formal structures.
   • Ensemble practices are team practices with centralized management, a support hierarchy and one or more owners. Offers more opportunities for collaboration and strong continuity planning, but higher operational and management complexity.
   • Mega-ensemble practices are larger operations with multiple teams, departments and layers of leadership. Provides more room for diversity and specialization, yet requires conscious effort to maintain a cohesive culture.
2. Organizational (decision) structure
   How does work actually flow within the team?
   
   This governs who does what, how decisions get made and how client experience is delivered — whether through vertical, horizontal or hybrid models. When work slows, roles blur or accountability falters, this is the lever to examine.

Vertical: Example of a top-down model where each advisor manages their own book and staff. It offers autonomy but risks fragmentation as the team scales.

Horizontal: This example emphasizes shared responsibilities, often with centralized support. Works well for teams that want to specialize and scale client service efficiently.

Hybrid: This example blends autonomy with integration. Advisors retain some independence, while systems, roles and processes are standardized across the firm. This model fits enterprise-scale teams offering breadth and depth — but it requires strong infrastructure and defined communication flows.

Your internal team structure should reflect your firm’s growth stage and service strategy. Here’s a simplified overview:

Many firms move gradually from vertical to hybrid models as they scale. But evolution doesn’t always mean expansion. The right first step is to assess the structure you already have.

When things feel “off,” clarity on which lever to pull — and how — is key to unlocking your next phase of growth.

Feeling stretched doesn’t always mean you need to hire. Before adding headcount, ask:

• Where are roles overlapping — or underutilized?
  
• Are responsibilities aligned to each person’s strengths and license level?
  
• Could better processes, clearer roles or technology ease the load?

Use diagnostic tools to evaluate:

• Capacity strain (e.g., missed deadlines, reactive client service)
  
• Role clarity (e.g., task confusion, uneven workload)
  
• Workflow friction (e.g., repeated handoffs, slow decisions)

In some cases, a restructure will unlock capacity and improve service without increasing costs. In others, targeted hiring — based on clear needs — can bring scale and sustainability.

Growth isn’t just about volume — it’s about design. A “team of conviction” is one where every person understands their purpose, owns their role and works in concert toward the same goals. Whether you’re a solo advisor or leading a multi-team enterprise, aligning your team structure to your strategy isn’t a one-time exercise. It’s a lever you’ll return to again and again to help unlock scale, elevate client experience and build a sustainable, resilient practice.