Making the Cut
Characters:
Claire: Senior Actuary – Over-confident and slightly arrogant. She’s keen to conclude the interview process and move onto other matters.
Michelle: Senior Actuary – Also over-confident and has a tendency to speak before she really thinks about things which can be inappropriate.
Mahendra: Actuary – Has 10 years of consulting experience in Life and Pensions but no experience in non-Life. He is more junior than the other candidates.
Francis: Actuary – Has taken a two-year career break for mental health reasons and this job will be his return to work. He’s a bit nervous, anxious and low in confidence about his personal circumstances but he is absolutely capable of doing the job.
Daniel: Actuary – Left the industry three years ago to work outside the actuarial industry to help his wife set up a property development company.
Synopsis:
This scenario depicts how the framing of questions and personal biases of interviewers can impact the interviews e.g. biases against gender, age, race, mental health. The two main characters (Claire and Michelle) are conducting an interview process and it becomes clear that they are not entirely happy with any of the candidates, but feel they need to make a decision rather than go through the process again, due to other work pressures.
Discussion points:
This scenario was deliberately scripted to raise some awkward moments. Let’s look at some discussion points.
- How is the Actuaries' Code (the Code) relevant in this scenario?
- Is Claire and Michelle’s behaviour a professionalism matter?.
- Do you think there is enough awareness of mental health issues?
- Is it acceptable to discount someone who has got a gap in their CV?
- Do you think about ‘inclusivity’ in your interactions with others?
- Is it okay to seek further background information on candidates?
- Was it professional to have mixed messages with regard to flexible working?