1 in 3 advice professionals work longer than UK average

Intelliflo’s 2026 Adviser Lifestyle Index, which surveyed 228 people working in UK financial advice, found that 31.5% work more than 40 hours a week, with longer hours associated with poorer work-life balance. A separate efficiency survey found that two-thirds of the average 9.2-hour client advice process is spent away from the client, highlighting the administrative burden. While 80% of respondents said technology had improved their work-life balance, their preferred use of time saved was largely personal: 35% would reclaim personal time and 21% would reduce working hours, compared with 25% who would grow their client base or business.

Press article link.

The most revealing finding is what advice professionals would do with time saved: 35% would reclaim personal time and 21% would reduce their working hours. Just 25% would use it to grow their client base or business.

Compare that with the supplier’s closing message: saved time can be reinvested in serving more clients, deepening relationships or developing teams. The respondents’ preference for a better life becomes a proposition for a more productive business.

That tension speaks directly to Total Wealth Planning: when efficiency creates a surplus, who gets to decide what it is for?

Three observations stand out:

• The profession faces its own life-planning question. People helping clients align money with life also want space for walking, travelling, relationships and rest.

• Technology can release time; the operating model determines whether people keep it. If every saved hour becomes capacity for another client, efficiency may increase output without improving anyone’s life.

• Administration deserves examination beyond automation. Two-thirds of a reported 9.2-hour advice process is spent away from the client. Some of that supports essential safeguards and thoughtful preparation. The useful question is which tasks improve decisions, which meet necessary obligations, and which exist because of how the service is organised.

There are limits to the evidence. This is a survey of 228 people across several roles, and the extract provides no sampling or weighting details. It shows an association between hours and reported work-life balance; it does not establish causation. Nor does “more than 40 hours” establish that respondents work longer than the actual UK average—the headline conflates a standard working week with an average.

But the underlying question is strong:

If we help people discover what is enough, can we build a profession that allows its own people to live by that answer?