What Would You Do? Responses to “A Questionable Actuarial Recruiter”
By John West Hadley
The Stepping Stone, May 2025
In the January 2025 issue of The Stepping Stone, I presented the situation below. Here are selected responses and excerpts, edited for space and clarity, followed by the real-life conclusion. (Please note that inclusion of responses should not be taken as an endorsement by either the Leadership & Development Section Council or the Society of Actuaries of the positions presented.) Send your own ideas for situations to pose in upcoming issues to John@JHACareers.com.
A Questionable Actuarial Recruiter
John has been building a new actuarial department for his company. From time to time, he gets a call from Bruce, a well-known actuarial recruiter he’s been in touch with since he received his ASA.
John has used Marilyn to recruit several of his current actuaries, and she has always brought him quality candidates. In return for a three-month exclusive, Marilyn gives him 5 points off on the firm’s standard commission.
During one of those exclusive arrangements, Bruce calls him with a possible candidate. John tells him that he has already been presented that candidate. He tells Bruce that if he has any other quality candidates, he’s welcome to talk to Marilyn about a sharing arrangement, as she has said she is open to that.
John has a phone screening with the candidate, and at the end the candidate asks about something Bruce had said. Bruce advised him to be careful what recruiters he deals with, as someone else had shared negative feedback on him with John. John assures him that isn’t true.
The next week, John is at an actuarial club meeting, and runs into a young actuary who asks about the job. John asks how he heard, and is told Bruce said he had an exclusive arrangement on the search.
Quality actuarial candidates can often be hard to find in a competitive market. Bruce has a strong actuarial network; John has known many actuaries who have used him. If you were John, what would you do?
- Confront Bruce?
- Refuse his calls in the future?
- Continue to work with him when he has a good candidate, but be careful to validate anything he tells you?
- Something else?
Thanks for all your responses! A high level summary:
- Almost all felt that John should talk with Bruce. Most felt it should be a dialog, rather than a confrontation.
- Only two felt John should definitely no longer work with Bruce, but all felt he should be careful in those dealings.
Here are the two who felt John should no longer work with Bruce:
I would confront Bruce and tell him that they would not be doing business any longer. He was told that John had an exclusive with Marilyn. He is lying to candidates that he has an exclusive. Bruce is just not ethical and I would not work with someone who has such poor boundaries and questionable ethics.
Bruce is not being truthful, and his professionalism is questionable. The dilemma is whether John is willing to tolerate the untrustworthy behavior to get at his network. John shouldn't avoid him. He should be honest about why he won’t use Bruce’s services going forward and break ties. To even deal with Bruce is to have a scarcity mindset when in reality, there are plenty of fish in the sea.
This actuary urged caution:
- Let Bruce know this is unacceptable behavior, and
- be very careful about working with Bruce in the future.
The actuarial community is small, so it’s likely impossible for John to avoid Bruce entirely, but he can vet what he says and limit his interactions with him.
As did this one:
Integrity and ethical behavior are essential standards that everyone should uphold. Dishonesty and unethical actions cannot be tolerated or rewarded.
John should have an honest discussion with Bruce to clear up any misunderstandings and communicate the potential consequences. While continuing to work with Bruce when he has good candidates, John must always verify the information provided to ensure decisions are based on accurate data. If Bruce’s behavior does not improve or if similar issues arise again, John should consider removing Bruce from his list of recruiters.
Additionally, John should keep detailed records of all interactions with recruiters to maintain a clear trail of what was discussed and agreed upon, which can be useful in case of disputes.
This respondent saw no need to confront Bruce:
The answer is fairly simple. Hire the candidate and pay Marilyn her fee. She has the “exclusive” and presumably a written agreement saying so. If Bruce asks for a fee, decline because he was Johnnie-come-lately. Bruce can then try to collect a fee from the candidate. No need to confront Bruce. No need to refuse his calls.
But this actuary did see a confrontation as essential:
Bruce is lying about his current relationship with John, and should be confronted directly. Not confronting Bruce could hurt the relationship with Marilyn. John should tell him what he heard and give him a chance to explain, as it's possible there was a misunderstanding by the candidate. However, John should be very careful about working with Bruce in the future as he has crossed a line and broken the trust necessary to have a strong, healthy relationship. Let Marilyn know about the situation so if she hears anything from candidates, she doesn't think John did something wrong.
This actuary suggested talking to Bruce, with healthy skepticism:
Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.
Since John has an established relationship with Bruce, I think a phone call is in order—“I ran into a candidate, here’s what he said...did he misunderstand something?” It’s also fair to say that a candidate mentioned that Bruce had told them another recruiter had bad things to say to John about the candidate, and see how he then responds to that.
John then has two data points, and his radar will be up to see how Bruce responds. Anything short of a firm (and believable) story/denial pretty much wrecks the relationship. Having access to a wide network doesn’t mean much if I can’t trust Bruce to be delivering the message I expect him to.
While this actuary felt that Bruce’s network is an important consideration:
Given that it seems Bruce is potentially holding back quality candidates and has a large network, John should discuss a win-win arrangement. First, get the facts by asking if Bruce did actually convey that he has an exclusive arrangement on the search, when that is truly not the case. Assuming Bruce does admit it, allow that conversation to develop into an agreement that still feeds John quality candidates to interview, while letting Bruce earn something from it. All the while, be cautious of interactions with or surrounding Bruce, but I think there is more upside to leveraging Bruce’s network instead of blocking him out completely, considering he’s well-known in the industry.
This actuary saw the value of the network, with caveats. Talking with Bruce can wait:
Good recruiters with a strong network can be a great help to find the best candidates, but dealing with a dishonest recruiter who has repeatedly lied to candidates seems like a recipe for negative outcomes. Working with someone whom you cannot trust is going to lead to more effort and uncertainty, and Marilyn has already shown she is able to provide high-quality candidates without resorting to dishonesty.
Reach out to Marilyn and see if Bruce had contacted her about a sharing arrangement, and get her thoughts on sharing with Bruce specifically.
Then wait until Bruce reaches out with a candidate in the future, and raise concerns with him on both experiences. Be curious to hear Bruce's version of events, but very skeptical of what he has to say. Inform Bruce that if he had not worked out a sharing arrangement with Marilyn, we are going to respect her exclusivity period. Let him know that if he continues to mislead candidates, the company will no longer be able to work with him for future postings.
Recruiters are often the first connection candidates make on their way to joining your company. Working with recruiters who will honestly represent your firm and the opportunity is critical to ensuring candidates are properly informed about your company and what they can expect should they be hired.
Thess respondents felt there might be more than one side to the story:
“You are never confused when you hear one side of the story.” With this in mind: Not being directly involved in the conversation, there are at least a few possibilities. One is that Bruce lied to the young actuary as he had lied to the previous possible candidate. But it’s also possible that the young actuary misread Bruce’s discussion. For example, Bruce could have referred to the exclusive arrangement after a discussion or agreement with Marilyn that John was unaware of. The young actuary may have forgotten or misinterpreted Bruce’s comments. John should call Bruce and find out his side of the story. At that point, he can determine the best future path with respect to his relationship with Bruce.
There needs to be an honest conversation. Two cases of hearsay is not compelling, but is concerning. Something like: “I have heard that you are telling potential candidates things that are not true. This concerns me and I would hate to think that you are telling untruths in hopes of getting the commission on a job. I would not want to have to drop you from my most favored recruiter listings.” Bruce needs to adjust how he is dealing with candidates and hear that this approach is not working. There is a difference between “leave me alone and never call again, you dirty, rotten scoundrel” and “I would like to work with you, but here is what I am hearing and it leaves me concerned.”
One actuary felt John should have spoken up sooner:
John should have confronted Bruce immediately after hearing from the previous possible candidate that Bruce misspoke about him. That is more serious since it involves John directly, suggesting that John repeats information or hearsay he may have received from one competitor to a different competitor. As a candidate, I would look negatively at a potential boss who engaged in such behavior.
Finally, one respondent shared this pithy response to the issue of Bruce’s ethics:
I found that once you have direct contact with the candidate, the recruiter has little influence. It’s annoying to pay crooks, but at some point, it may be in your best interest to do so.
What Actually Happened?
John confronted Bruce, and told him not to bother calling again, as he would never consider another candidate submitted through him. Bruce immediately called John’s boss, the chief actuary, to complain. John had already discussed the issue with him, and he echoed what John said. Marilyn continued to provide John quality candidates. Over the next year, Bruce made a few outreaches, and John simply repeated his prior message.
Several years later, the company was going through a merger, and John was in a job search mode. He got a call from a recruiter named James who sounded a little bit like Bruce. John asked for materials, and they showed a different part of the country than Bruce’s location, over letterhead in James’ name. John went on the interview, but it turned out not to be the job he would want.
Later, John was talking with Susan, who said, “Didn’t you know that when Bruce leaves messages, he always gives the name James so that people won’t know it’s a recruiter calling?”
Statements of fact and opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of the Society of Actuaries, the newsletter editors, or the respective authors’ employers.
John Hadley was an FSA for many years, and now works with job seekers frustrated with their search. He can be reached at John@JHACareers.com, 908.725.2437 or via LinkedIn. Find his free Career Tips newsletter and other resources at www.JHACareers.com.