Why Financial Firms Keep Losing the Messaging Battle

By: Avi Pardo, Co-Founder & CBO, LeapXpert

Financial firms globally have similar playbooks for off-channel communications: ban the channel, run a training, and send attestations for signing. Yet, the conversations are still happening on personal phones. Calling that playbook ‘good enough’ only hides how little has changed.

More than 100 organisations have faced charges under the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s off-channel communications initiative, while other regulators have pursued similar failures. Yet the response is still another rule, another warning, another ban.

The missing piece is the psychology behind banning. Until firms understand what drives employees towards off-channel apps, even banned ones, the next record-keeping failure is already on its way.

Why employees find workarounds

These channels are already part of the client relationship. A banker may be chasing a decision, dealing with a concern or replying to a question that has come through on Signal, WeChat or WhatsApp. In that moment, getting back to the client takes priority.

If replying through the approved channel takes too long, creates operational friction, or disrupts the conversation flow, the employee is likely to answer somewhere else. The message gets sent, but the firm may never see the full exchange.

Psychologists have studied this response to bans for decades. Jack Brehm’s work on psychological reactance shows people can push back when they feel their freedom of choice has been restricted. Research into imposed workplace change points to the same response: people who feel pushed into a new way of working may quietly find another route. Someone reads the policy, completes the training and then uses a personal phone when a client needs an answer.

Daniel Wegner’s work on ironic rebound also helps explain why bans can misfire. Tell people often enough to avoid something and it can make it more appealing. The channel remains on the phone, the client is waiting and the approved route takes longer.

Once the conversation moves to a personal phone, the firm may never recover the full exchange. Employers also face legal limits on how far they can inspect a private device.

Governance beats the workaround

Governance should redirect behaviour instead of trying to suppress it. Employees need an approved route that works while the client conversation is happening, or the workaround will keep winning.

Financial firms still need clear rules and a complete record of business conversations. Regulators expect those messages to be kept, whether they were sent by email, text, WhatsApp or another service.

The problem usually shows up during an ordinary working day: between meetings, on a journey or while a client is waiting for an answer. If the approved channel holds things up, few people will pause the conversation to sort out the process. They will reply another way.

Businesses are losing valuable conversation data

Regulatory risk is obvious when messages go missing: a firm cannot supervise what it cannot see or produce records that were never captured.

Client conversations carry information a business would want to know: a concern raised weeks before a relationship starts to slip, pricing pushback that never reaches the CRM or a salesperson handling a difficult exchange in a way others could learn from. Repeated questions may also point to problems with onboarding, service or product design.

Governed communication creates a record the organisation can learn from. Applied responsibly, conversation data can support supervision, client service, dispute resolution, coaching and a clearer view of relationship risk.
That information is already being generated every day. The difference is whether it remains scattered across personal devices or becomes something the organisation can understand and act on.

Bring the conversation back into view

Plenty of companies have the basics in place: a policy, training and an approved tool. What is often missing is a setup that matches how people work and talk to clients.

The existence of a policy says very little about whether it works. ‘Good enough’ governance can leave a business with all the right paperwork while the same behaviour carries on underneath it.

A quick exchange can soon include a shared document, a follow-up question and another colleague joining the conversation. Messages, files, participants and timing all form part of the record, which needs to stay within the firm without someone rebuilding the exchange later.

If senior leaders use the same channels they have banned for everyone else, the policy is a sham. Employees follow what leaders do, rather than what the compliance manual says. Training can help, particularly when people understand the reason behind it. But explanations only go so far if the approved route slows down a live client conversation. Technology can capture the record, but leadership decides whether people take the rules seriously. No system can rescue a policy that senior figures ignore.

Keeping those exchanges within view gives the business more than a record for compliance. It can also pick up concerns, repeated questions and early signs that a client relationship is beginning to change.

More rules have not stopped the conversations. They have pushed them onto personal phones and out of sight. Calling that ‘good enough’ is no longer credible.