Topic outline

• Collapse allExpand all
  Just Being Honest

  Just Being Honest

  • Characters: 

    Lucy: Part-qualified Actuary – A bubbly energetic personality but a sensitive soul at heart. Has worked hard on this project and needs to be encouraged to flourish. 

    Justin: Part-qualified Actuary – Slightly reserved but confident in his ability. Will defend himself when faced with any criticism or feedback that he doesn’t think is warranted or justified. 

    Glenn: Senior Actuary – A loud, confident, boisterous figure, and prone to profanity. He is welcoming, social and supportive. He believes that giving direct and candid feedback is the most honest and constructive approach. He is genuine and sincere, but his strong personality and use of bad language can make others uncomfortable and seems intimidating. 

    Kim: Senior Actuary – Considers herself the definitive paragon of professionalism. Her manner is terse, and she wouldn’t dream of swearing in a work environment. She doesn’t believe that being nice or kind are factors in professional communication, but doesn’t consider herself mean, just honest and factual. She has high expectations and is not accepting of these not being met. As a result, others often perceive her as cold and judgemental, with a focus on the negative. 

    Synopsis: 

    Lucy and Justin are two junior part-qualified actuaries who are about to have meetings to have work peer reviewed. Glenn and Kim, the reviewers, have ways of communicating that may well be considered ‘unprofessional’, but both give what they consider to be just ‘honest feedback’.

  • Discussion points: 

    • What do you think of Glenn’s particular style of giving feedback? 
    • What did you think of Kim’s style of giving feedback? 
    • What principles of the Actuaries’ Code should be taken into account?

• Just Being Honest Follow-up

  Just Being Honest Follow-up

  • Feedback: 

    • What do you think of Glenn’s particular style of giving feedback?

    We’ve probably all come across someone like Glenn, but you could argue that this is two grown adults having an adult conversation. Justin will have heard this type of language, maybe in friend groups or on television, so it's not going to be uncommon. This isn't a formal meeting and there are no clients, so they can conduct the conversation as they want. Glenn is being really supportive, giving feedback of what went well and what could be improved, and he's being very open and approachable and willing to help Justin. 

    You could also argue that there are times when stronger language is inappropriate, and it is important to make sure you tailor it to the situation. You should also be aware how it’s coming across to the other person. Justin was clearly uncomfortable in the scenario and Glenn didn’t react or adjust his language. The way you talk can affect your professional reputation, affect the way people see you and the way that you set a culture around you. 

    • What did you think of Kim’s style of giving feedback? 

    Kim is being perfectly professional - she's being a bit blunt, but that could just be her personality, and you shouldn't have to change who you are to fit in in an inclusive workplace. She's also respectful of the fact that everyone's busy, she's just trying to be efficient and direct about getting the result in a straightforward way. 

    However, Kim doesn’t appear to be getting her points across well. The report is a good one, with just a couple of mistakes that can be tweaked, but Lucy is having to keep asking for more information and guidance. As a peer reviewer, you should be there to help guide the paper/ report, make sure it can be relied upon and that it is understandable as a whole. It’s important to support colleagues and help with personal development by providing comprehensive feedback including what is good about the work. 

    • What principles of the Actuaries’ Code should be taken into account? 

    Communication

    There are different styles of communicating in the scenario which raise some important issues. In the scenario, Kim said she had sent an email to Lucy giving her feedback on the report and was reluctant to discuss it further; while the email was a helpful way to share the information, not giving Lucy the time in the meeting to discuss it was dismissive and unconstructive. This was an inappropriate style of communication given that Lucy was in a face-to-face meeting. The Communication principle of the Code states that “Members must communicate appropriately”. Communication is a two-way thing - on the one hand, you have to make sure you're clear and tailor it to your audience and need to be aware of the needs of the audience. On the other hand, listening to the audience is also important – communicating in a style that the audience has understood what has been said and that the key messages are clear. The actuarial community, as with society as a whole, can be neurodiverse and therefore style of communicating needs to be considered. 

    Integrity

    The Integrity principle of the Code is very clear and states “Members must show respect for each other in the way they conduct themselves.” Everyone is different in the way they like to be interacted with – some prefer an informal style where it’s informal language – this can be a really good way to connect with people and build relationships. On the converse, some prefer a more factual/ business style. It's really important to adapt and tailor the situation accordingly. 

    In the scenario Justin and Lucy were talking about Glenn and Kim and used the nickname of ‘the robot’ with reference to Kim. Whilst this could be considered as chat/ gossip, it wasn’t showing respect and should be called out. 

    It’s important that we act inclusively in order to make sure that everyone that we work with feels comfortable.

    Not available unless: The activity Just Being Honest is marked complete
• Feedback

  Feedback

  • FeedbackRate The Content
• Claim CPD

  Claim CPD