Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A RopesTalk podcast series—a collaboration between Ropes & Gray's Insights Lab and Front-Line Anti-Bribery—focused on the data and behavioral sciences approach to risk management.
Culture and Compliance Chronicles: Data, People & Purpose—Navigating the Talent Landscape in Ethics & Compliance with the Leonid Group – podcast transcript
Transcript:
At a glance: Click the links below to advance directly to the corresponding sections of the transcript:
• [1:13] Getting to Know James and Jamie
• [6:33] The Changing Role of Organizational Compliance
• [10:43] Building a Team in a Volatile Environment
• [14:53] How to Retain Talent
• [18:22] What Should a Candidate Ask an Organization?
• [23:57] How to Design a Compliance Role
• [27:26] How to Build a Case for Investment in a Compliance Team
• [33:59] Key Takeaways
Nitish Upadhyaya: Welcome back to the Culture & Compliance Chronicles, the podcast that gives you new perspectives on legal, compliance, and regulatory challenges faced by organizations and individuals worldwide. The clue is in the title—culture is at the heart of everything. It’s the endlessly shifting patterns that govern our environment and behaviors. The magic is in amplifying certain patterns and dampening others. Let’s see if we can pique your curiosity, get you to challenge some of your perceptions, and give you space to think differently about some of your own challenges. I’m Nitish Upadhyaya, and I’m joined by Amanda Raad and Richard Bistrong. Hello, Amanda and Richard.
Amanda Raad: Hello, hello.
Richard Bistrong: Hello, Amanda. Hello, Nitish.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Now, the last time that we were recording with Nadège Rochel, we had a fantastic time thinking about how to put the fun into compliance—how we bring the spirit of creativity and innovation into solving real-life compliance challenges that people are facing on the ground, including by building relationships and understanding what they need, along with some surprises. Now today, we have James Mitchell and Jamie Browne of the Leonid Group. Welcome, James and Jamie.
Jamie Browne: Thank you very much for having us.
[1:13] Getting to Know James and Jamie
Richard Bistrong: I am delighted that we’re joined by James Mitchell, the CEO of the Leonid Group, who founded the business in 2018, driven by a desire to shake up the traditional recruitment model. And Jamie Browne, who is the managing director for the corporate governance division of the Leonid Group, who specializes in ethics and compliance hiring and advisory, predominantly for some of the most senior hires in our compliance world. And a bit about Leonid: they are a specialist international talent advisory and search firm that’s doing something a little different in the talent space. Leonid operates at the intersection of recruitment and talent intelligence. They help organizations hire exceptional people across compliance, risk, legal, and broader compliance and corporate governance functions. But just as importantly, they bring a much deeper layer of insight into how those teams are structured and what great really looks like in today’s environment. So, I also have the pleasure of sitting on the advisory board of the Leonid Group. And along with Ropes & Gray’s Sean Seelinger, we teamed up for a spring event, which was very well received in New York City, and another one in Greenwich, Connecticut, and we’re going to regroup in Dubai in October. So, Nitish, I’ll turn it over to you for some rapid-fire questions.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Now, this is the first time we’ve had two guests collaborating on a podcast with us, so we’re going to see how this one shapes up. James and Jamie, we’re going to do the rapid-fire round to help the audience get to know you. We want three things we should know about you, but we’re going to switch it up. So, James, go first, then Jamie, and then we’ll do one by one.
James Mitchell: I grew up on a farm in the southwest of England. Have wonderful memories lambing sheep with my father and getting chased by cockerels day in and day out and the horses as well.
Jamie Browne: So, I am the city boy. I grew up in London, a through and through city person. I can very much deal with London and its weather and its rain as long as I’m traveling enough. And luckily, our clients are around the world, so it gives me a good excuse to get out and about.
James Mitchell: I’m a huge rugby fan. A very, very good year for me—my local team, Northampton, won the Premiership Final. And very much looking forward to the Rugby World Cup next year.
Jamie Browne: James and I have actually known each other for over 18 years now. We actually met during university during our summers. Worked for a door-to-door sales company, which is where we met. And since then, we’ve climbed Mount Kilimanjaro together. We’ve started a business together. And I have the honor of being godfather to one of James’s kids. So, we’re pretty tied in.
Amanda Raad: I have fellow Mount Kilimanjaro climbers. I love this! We’re going to have to exchange stories on this at some point.
Jamie Browne: We were vastly unprepared for it. We were in Ibiza the week before, and then went to Tanzania to climb the mountain.
James Mitchell: Next time we see each other, Amanda, I’ve got some very good stories to tell you about that trip.
Amanda Raad: I am in, in, in.
James Mitchell: And for my final one, I’m actually related to a fairly well-known actress named Helena Bonham Carter—she’s a distant cousin.
Jamie Browne: That’s pretty good. I don’t have the same links to be able to lean on. I was going to say for my final one, that somehow, I’ve become, I think, one of the world’s most enthusiastic advocates for ethics and trade compliance recruitment, which is a sentence my 18-year-old self would not have thought I’d say. But the intersection of business and economics and geopolitics means it’s something I actually really am interested in.
Nitish Upadhyaya: And then, give us something that each of you is curious about.
James Mitchell: I’m saying AI early (we’ve only just started the podcast). One of our values is data-powered, human-led, so I’m really interested, really curious as to how we can best leverage technology whilst recognizing our value, which fundamentally is our network and our relationship with people.
Jamie Browne: For better or worse, I’m mildly obsessed with the minutia of U.S. politics. I’m subscribed to about 50 different podcasts all talking about the same thing from different perspectives.
Amanda Raad: Maybe you could use AI to sort through all those podcasts and figure out exactly what the differences are.
Jamie Browne: There must be a more efficient way to use my time.
Nitish Upadhyaya: And then, what’s the last thing that surprised you?
Jamie Browne: Trade compliance has been an area that I’ve focused on over the years. Now, it’s really surprised me, actually, how quickly trade compliance has moved as a function from the warehouse to the boardroom—from a more back-room function to a strategic priority. Something where CEOs of multinational corporations want to be talking about it, and I’ve watched that with my own eyes over the last few years.
James Mitchell: My recent surprise was a little bit more simplistic. I found my passport in my daughter’s bag taking her to kindergarten this morning, which wouldn’t have fared well for our trip next week, Jamie…
Jamie Browne: I’m glad you found that.
James Mitchell: So, that was a surprise. But another surprise that happened today: I found out that my office has a brilliant array of ice cream in the freezer for free. That will be exciting.
[6:33] The Changing Role of Organizational Compliance
Amanda Raad: This is a winning day, I think. Your passport is safe and you have ice cream, so I don’t think you can go wrong. All right, well, Jamie, you set us up well for this as we dive into the questions because you talked a little bit about the change of where compliance sits in it becoming a strategic priority. Can you both tell us a little bit about your overall perspective on how the role of organizational compliance has changed in the past few years, and then give us a little bit of a prediction of where you think we’re going?
Jamie Browne: I think more broadly across compliance is that shift—which has been over a period of quite a few years—from a box-ticking function or an advisory function to being a genuine business enabler. Boards and CEOs now expect chief compliance officers to speak the language of risk and commercial strategy, and not just a regulatory process. And I think that shift has been quite noticeable, as well as the certain areas of expertise and specialisms that have surged in the last few years. So, I mentioned sanctions and export control, and I think it really shocked companies how ill-prepared they were for that and how they didn’t have the resources and the team and expertise in place to deal with the post-2022 world that we’re now in. I think we could also say the same for third-party risk management and supply chain integrity, as well as human rights. I’d say, if we’re looking ahead, that is still an area where companies need to do a lot of work. Human rights are something that companies, I would say, are not yet prepared for. And then, stating the obvious: AI governance—where that sits, who takes responsibility for it. Is it something people really want, or is it a hot potato being passed around? That’s still being debated.
James Mitchell: And by extension to what Jamie just said, I think CCOs are now realizing that they need to build programs that actually work in practice as opposed to just looking good on board reports. The expansion of said scope and moving from that kind of policing force to that constituted business partner, there is an increasing pressure, I think, on compliance departments to practice what they preach and look at those tailored policies, procedures, processes, and the engagement of people within the organization and quantify that to an extent. So, I think that’s an additional big shift as well.
Amanda Raad: James, do you have any predictions on where you think it’s going to go? Do you agree that it’s those same risk areas or where do you think we’re going?
James Mitchell: I think the scope of risks now is so broad. I think it’s forcing a conversion of compliance, risk, legal, and ethics functions—there’s a lot more collaboration between them all. And to an extent, I think we’re seeing more of a blurring between the second and third line, an internal audit, taking increasing responsibility over second-line activities. So, I think the increased amount of pressure that’s coming on to compliance functions is forcing that convergence. And then, the obvious other one for me would be AI, both as a tool but also as a risk they need to govern moving forward.
Jamie Browne: I attend quite a lot of compliance conferences and events. We need to keep our finger on the pulse so that when we’re hiring for these teams and advising on these teams, we know what the current trends are. And I would just add that I don’t know how anyone in compliance does it—there is so much on your plate at the moment in this world. It seems that they’re only adding more to it, and then they’re trying to say for you to do more with less. It’s a busy time right now and it seems to be only going in one direction.
Nitish Upadhyaya: I’m hopeful that the silos that James described as breaking down a little bit will help as more people become responsible for the overall risk management of the business. Are you seeing that happen gradually or as a bit more of a waterfall as things converge?
Jamie Browne: I have an analogy for this. Like I said, I used to see compliance as being quite separate from the business—an advisory function advising on the legal and regulatory aspects of the work—and now, the compliance function is almost like an octopus with its tentacles truly embedded into all aspects of the business. And having to really work collaboratively across all those different areas and the skill set required to do that and to lead that function effectively is very different to what it was when it was an advisory function separate from the business. Some companies are appreciating that and recruiting for that, others are still having maybe the more traditional view of compliance when hiring.
[10:43] Building a Team in a Volatile Environment
Nitish Upadhyaya: So, let’s talk a little bit about building a team in this sort of volatile environment where things have changed, the skill sets are different, and the issues being covered are different still. What are those typical challenges that you’re seeing faced by companies who are trying to hire the top-caliber ethics and compliance professionals?
James Mitchell: So, a slight extension, actually, on the last point that Jamie made there: I think nowadays, due to the increased scope, the ideal candidate is a bit of a unicorn. They need to have legal regulatory knowledge, plus they need to have business acumen. They need to be fluent when it comes to data. And they need to have phenomenal soft skills as well, in terms of the ability to influence and communicate throughout the organization. So, I think that that’s one of the big challenges. And so, to an extent it then pivots more towards: How do you break up the roles and responsibilities within an organization? How do you break up that generalist, that specialist, the builder, or however you choose to segment your compliance function? Because the reality of it is to have a team full of unicorns who are excellent in every single one of these domains doesn’t work. One of the typical challenges is how do you break that down, have clarity around roles, responsibilities, and critically looking at the ownership piece? So, accountability, mapping where the strengths lie, and who takes responsibility for pushing different initiatives.
Jamie Browne: The main challenge a lot of companies face is they go to market without doing the necessary homework. They’ve not looked enough internally at what they already have before going to markets. They’ll come to us with a job description that looks great on paper, but then, I delve into, “Why are you hiring for this position? Where is this person going to fit? And tell me all about your existing team and their personalities and the culture?” And they’re not ready for that. So, then, they’re going to market looking for something on paper that looks really good, but with not that clarity of how it’d actually fit within their team. So, I always try and get my clients to almost take a step backwards initially and look internally at what they already have, and what type of soft skills and personality will fit best with that. The technical knowledge is a given—if you’re hiring in this space, you’re going to have the technical knowledge. The bit that sometimes hiring managers struggle with is understanding the soft skills side, which is now, in this new world of stakeholder management being a primary driver for compliance, that soft skills are more important than the technical acumen, and I think companies aren’t ready for that. Finally, just to add, sometimes companies are missing the really basic elements of hiring. They’re not pricing the roles correctly for the market right now. They’re using wrong job titles. If you’re hiring someone as a senior compliance director but they’re expecting to be managing an overall compliance program, why don’t they have a chief compliance officer title? They’re not being flexible enough with location. They’re dragging interview processes out for too long. There are so many pragmatic elements when running a search that can be neglected, as well as looking at the bigger picture of why they’re hiring.
Richard Bistrong: That’s very interesting, Jamie and James, because one of the topics that seemed to really resonate when we were in New York and Connecticut together in terms of the soft skills was agility—that teams need to have the ability to say, “We may not need this type of resource base, for example, in anti-bribery issues, but now, we’re facing trade and sanctions. Do we have a team that can adapt to a new environment as opposed to maybe declaring redundancies on one hand and then having to hire on the other?”
Jamie Browne: In these days, building a function on genuine adaptability should be the priority. Hiring people who can pivot, who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and pitch in is what’s required. If you become too siloed and too focused on one narrow area of ethics and compliance, you will not be able to pitch in. Compliance teams are lean, and they require people to really pitch in together to get the job done. And if you don’t have that skill or if you’re not willing to get your hands dirty in different areas of compliance, you can struggle.
[14:53] How to Retain Talent
Richard Bistrong: Yes, totally agree. I think that’s mission critical right now. We also spoke about retention, and we know that the costs of a bad hire or a hire that ends up being ill-suited to the role go well beyond the costs of a compensation package. So, what are some of the best practices that you have seen, not only in terms of attracting the right talent, but how do we retain the right talent?
Jamie Browne: Also, this is something really important to have during the interview process itself—some of the retention can be judged on how the interview process is done. A lot of the time, where chief compliance officers or general counsels fail in the first 12 months is usually to do with an expectation mismanagement between the hiring manager or the company and the employee being hired—and the damage is already done by day one of starting because of that difference. I think another point is that sometimes compliance professionals that leave feel isolated. They do need genuine access to leadership within the business—they need a seat at the table. Visibility into business decisions is usually more powerful than giving them a 5% or 10% pay rise. They want to feel valued and respected as a function. If they’re not seeing that, then they will look elsewhere. Ultimately, I look at a compliance career as a series of projects. Three to five years of building and transforming a compliance program, and after that period, they’re either going to be looking externally or their current employer needs to be giving them a new project to get their teeth into, because otherwise, they will get bored in their roles.
James Mitchell: That retention piece is one of the most overlooked things. Particularly, if we look at the cyclical nature of the labor market and what we’ve seen over the last five or six years—you saw a complete stop with COVID, and then we saw a huge amount of labor movement for the period of 18-24 months. And then, what you’ve actually had is a very stable labor market from a movement perspective just due to the volume of the movement after COVID. Now, if you look at the attrition that’s happening within the ethics compliance community over the past 24 months and correlate that to the typical tenure of compliance professionals, it doesn’t correlate. So, the data tells us that because the labor market is cyclical, there is going to be that movement. As Jamie said, it tends to be a series of projects.
It’s really important to take a little look inward at the moment and look at how you can retain your best people. And this comes down to clarity in terms of career pathway and options of development. If you have a smaller, leaner compliance function, you have perhaps quite a flat hierarchical structure, then let’s look at alternatives, and stretch assignments and opportunities to lead various different projects and various different initiatives and empowerment, that way, exposure to stakeholders, and getting a sense of having a genuine seat at the table, I think, is really, really important. But to reiterate Jamie’s first point, the culture and the tone is set from the top. All of the surveys that we’ve done, all the data that we’ve accrued over the last 15 years we’ve been doing this, people don’t move for money alone. They leave due to dysfunction and feeling under-supported and being in an environment where the culture is not positively orientated from a compliance perspective. So, there’s lots of these little things and changes that you can make to help retain good staff, which I think is a really, really important focus for compliance leaders over the next 12 months.
[18:22] What Should a Candidate Ask an Organization?
Richard Bistrong: I’d like to ask a follow-up, going back to Jamie’s first point. We once talked about this on a Leonid podcast, and we’ll put that in the show notes. So, let’s look at this from the candidate’s perspective. As Jamie shared, a bad interview is going to lead to probably poor retention. So, if you’re a candidate, what are the kinds of questions that a candidate should be asking so that there are no surprises—and we’ve seen too many surprises—once you’re through that door? How can we better be prepared in the interview process for what the reality will be if there’s a hire?
Jamie Browne: I think there are some basic things that you want to understand during an interview process. Taking a step backwards, any interview process, especially in this competitive environment, should be a two-way street. The hiring manager or the interviewer should be talking as much as the interviewee. The company needs to sell themselves and the role and the team at the moment—it’s not just the candidate selling. I think sometimes companies forget that. They want a six-stage interview process because it makes them look important or makes the role look more important. If anything, it just frustrates candidates. A slight tangent, but I think that’s a really important part.
I think if we’re looking specifically within compliance, you want to understand in detail about the reporting line and board access. So, a chief compliance officer who reports to the general counsel with no direct board relationship is a fundamentally different role to one with genuine independence, and that distinction tells you everything about how seriously the organization takes the function. I think it’s also good and completely reasonable to ask what happened to the last person in the role, and why the position is open. The answer, or the lack of one, is usually quite revealing. And finally, I think, ask how compliance success is measured internally. If the answer is purely about training, completion rates, and audit findings, you’re probably looking at a more reactive function. If it involves input into product launches, M&A due diligence, and commercial decisions, that’s a function with genuine organizational standing.
Amanda Raad: That’s super helpful, and I love that you point out the two-way street component of this. I also think who a company puts forward for the discussions is really interesting. It’s one thing when you’re looking to see how much of a seat at the table you’re going to have, but then you are only needing one senior leader in one function and you aren’t actually able to, during the interview process, have discussions with the board, other functions, or the business to ask the harder questions or get a sense for how the partnership will work. So, curious how that looks to you as well: the who.
Jamie Browne: Really interesting point. So, we’re being retained this week on a chief compliance officer role, and the hiring manager for the position, the general counsel, was talking about who the interviewees would speak with during the process. And she said that, “We don’t want to slow the process down, but we might want to add on an interview with the CEO of the organization.” I was saying, “100%. If that can happen it really will show the value that the company and the CEO puts on compliance if that person wants to be involved in an interview process.”
James Mitchell: Yes, and all this drives towards the culture and the attitude, going back to our earlier point. I would always recommend people to be asking about how leadership responds when compliance and business interests conflict, and how does that work within the organization. And also, going back to Jamie’s point around effectiveness and how that’s measured, how it’s perceived internally, I think it’s a really good idea to speak to incumbents already in the function, and that can be done via whomever you’re represented by, if it’s a search or consultant. The odds are they’ve worked with that firm for a while—they may have placed people there. I think it’s a really, really good idea to speak to the people on the ground and get an honest appraisal and have a little look under the hood before you go into an organization.
Jamie Browne: The final point as well: we don’t want to talk about money. We’re British—we talk around it. And it may be seen as superficial—we’re talking about money or job title—I understand that to some capacity, but ultimately, I do think how a company prioritizes their compliance function is signaled by how much they’re willing to pay. If a VP of marketing and sales is earning way more than the VP of ethics and compliance, I do think that signifies something. If you’re trying to say this person’s going to be heading up the compliance function, but you give them a title of senior compliance manager, how will they have the authority to sit down with the senior executive leadership of the company and really influence them? Whereas, it may be seen as quite superficial as, “What does my job title look like on my resume,” or, “What am I being paid,” it does have a real significant impact on how you’re received within the company.
Nitish Upadhyaya: We should have you folks doing our culture assessments and audits. Because, you know, some of these questions that you’re asking are fundamentally the questions that we ask on a day-to-day basis about the culture of a company. As much as it’s about the compliance function, the efficacy, and how well it performs its duties, this also then spills out into how people approach risks, how people approach speak up, for example, across the organization as well. So, it’s almost as if the incoming compliance officer or the interviewee is not just getting a sense of what their role is going to be like, but actually, what the culture is going to be like as a whole in what they’re dealing with.
Jamie Browne: Ultimately, the role is one thing, and that may be perfect on paper, but if that role is perfect but the company and the culture isn’t, then you will never be able to have the impact that you want in that role.
[23:57] How to Design a Compliance Role
Amanda Raad: So, we’ve talked a lot about the role of culture and the importance of having the right access and the role that plays in retention, but let’s pull all these threads together and tell us a little bit about the design part of your work. What are the key components for organizational design for the ethics and compliance team that you really call out?
James Mitchell: Starting with the macro picture, I think a clear mandate and reporting lines are essential, and that independence piece. So, as Jamie mentioned earlier, access to the board, to the audit committee, that’s really important. I think scalability—so, looking at where the company is going as opposed to just where it is today, and having that slightly more forward-thinking approach. And I want to reiterate as well, again, I think job titles are such an overlooked piece. We just did an engagement for a big aerospace and defense client this year. And one of the biggest findings was—and we spoke to all the people in the organization—that the job titles were completely off and they didn’t have that credibility and weren’t able to influence internally. This massively impacts the interface with the adjacent functions, in terms of their ability to collaborate and influence legal, HR, security, audit—all these different things. So, starting at the top, it’s that reporting line, and then going more granular, it’s the nitty gritty of the role’s responsibilities, the title, and that ability to then interface with different functions.
Jamie Browne: Amanda, one point you made earlier really resonates and I completely agree. I think when you’re evaluating in an ethics compliance function or team, start with risk, not head count. The design should map directly to where your material regulatory exposure sits, whether that’s trade or data privacy or anti-bribery or sector-specific risk. Once you have that understood, you then can build a team and structure around it as opposed to saying, “I need a chief compliance officer, and then I need an EMEA, APAC, an Americas director, and managers under that.” That doesn’t necessarily give you the flexibility that you may need within the organization.
Amanda Raad: That so resonates with me, not only because you said it was a good point, but also because I think people are feeling so much pressure to show their value that often they’re starting at the top, at the really big, hard to accomplish, hard to show value things. Like, how do you show that we have a great healthy culture? Or how do you show the massive risk register that covers the entire organization? It’s really hard. There’s so much you can do if you take a step back and come from the risk up. Like, what are you actually trying to achieve, and then build up from there. We have to do both, but I think people are missing the risk part, which is the obvious part.
Jamie Browne: If you look at your overall function—let’s say, trade compliance and customs compliance fit within your function—some of the more nitty-gritty parts of customs compliance can bring real dollars and cents to the bottom line, it can have a real ROI. And if you’re focused too much on the bigger picture up here and not into the nitty gritty of what your function does, you can lose some easy wins.
Amanda Raad: I’ve seen it start to help answer the bigger questions that companies are struggling with, too, so if you can get it right in one place then you can, as James said, scale it and apply it to other places. It’s almost like you’re running a pilot for how you make bigger decisions. I really like that.
Jamie Browne: And I think at the moment, at least, you can’t just use the stick of enforcement as the fear factor for compliance. You need to be building positive examples of what a compliance function can do.
[27:26] How to Build a Case for Investment in a Compliance Team
Nitish Upadhyaya: In thinking about compliance functions, how they’re resourced, and where they sit, I hear a lot of folks asking what are our peers doing, what are we seeing in the market, because, sometimes, they need that extra ammunition to be able to go and speak to the board, the CEO, whomever else, or whatever risk function they’re reporting into—to say, “Hey, this is how a company that we are trying to compete with does it.” What sort of resources can people use to build that evidence base to try and give them not just the ROI and the internal stories, but also the external picture which sometimes weighs, for better or worse, more heavily in decision-making at that senior level?
Jamie Browne: This is something we’ve been looking at as an organization. Leonid as a company over the years is known primarily as a search function. However, what we realized is that over the years that we’ve been building out this business and the thousands of conversations that we’ve been having with chief compliance officers and general counsels is that we’ve collected so many data points on how teams are structured, what skills are most in demand, what reporting lines look like. And now, without having an intelligence offering, what we want to be able to do is allow chief compliance officers to be able to take that step back and really understand how their team, their structure, their skills compare to their industry peers. And because we have the insights into how that all works, we’re able to give them that qualitative and quantitative data on how does their team stack up to competition, which can help build a business case for adding resources or restructuring or looking at different ways, and we’re providing objective data as opposed to just what they think themselves.
James Mitchell: Yes, absolutely. Going right back to the beginning of this conversation, we talked about the increase in scope of responsibility and expectations of a chief compliance officer. Now, this manifests itself in becoming some sort of Frankenstein monster, we like to call it, in terms of new teams, new skills being bolted on, and it just becomes this huge operational thing with lack of clarity around ownership and accountability. So, I’m a firm believer, whether you’re a business owner or a functional owner, to take the time to step back and work on your business or on your function, not necessarily in it. And actually, sometimes, it’s really good to have that moment to step back and look at, “Okay, who owns what? What’s the mandate of this function? What’s the risks of this function? Let’s do some accountability mapping to see who’s got ownership of these different things. Let’s look at—because you will inevitably have it—who’s under-resourced, who’s over-resourced.” It’s not necessarily always about looking for a business case head count—it might be about reallocation of resources.
All of this ties into a more efficient and better operating function, as well as going back to that key thing that I always talk about, which is retaining your best staff and creating the best working environment to cultivate the best people within it. And once we do that mapping process, that’s where, as Jamie said, all of the data that we have comes in. We can give that comparator analysis. We can illustrate and make a business case with said data. That is a much more powerful picture to paint to the board, especially as you can make those comparisons. You can decide on these are the changes we want to make. We can go as granular as to essentially designing those job descriptions and pricing them up, depending on when you want them located. And you can go with the renewed budget to your CFO and say, “Look, these are all the risks that we’re facing. This is the impact of this if this happens. This is how we propose the reorganization. This is the exact cost of the reorganization, and this is the benefit of it.” Data is power.
Richard Bistrong: Can I challenge that a little bit, James? After the Trump administration pause on the FCPA, Ropes & Gray published some pretty scary data on how the work force was, asking, “Hey, is bribery now back open for business?” I read an article, I think it was in the GIR, where the chief compliance officer said, “We’re now getting even scarier questions, like, “Do we really need to do all this due diligence? Are we over-risking our business processes? And do we really need all this complex workflow?’” In that environment, James and Jamie, how do you go to management and say, “We need to make sure that we not only keep the resources that we have, but that we might need to rebalance or increase the resources even if your perception is that enforcement is down”? That seems to be a tough business case. What’s a tip and trick to counter that narrative?
James Mitchell: So, we all know that enforcement cycles are cyclical. The statute of limitations still exists, so retrospective prosecution risk is still there. To answer your question, Richard, what else can you do, I think you can tie it into specific business initiatives. So, again, looking forward and becoming part of the strategy of the organization—looking at M&A activity, looking at new geographies, looking at AI adoption. All of this comes with new risks. So, understanding and moving with the organization, and making sure that you’re being clear in terms of the upcoming risks and making a business case to react to those as all of these extra things come onto your plate, I think that’s probably the strategy in this interim period if you’re not getting the buy-in due to that change of enforcement cycle. Perhaps pivot to speak the language of the audience. Jamie referred earlier to how you can illustrate ROI in some areas of compliance, whether it be due to drawbacks within trade compliance or something, but there is a way to do that and to illustrate the risk of, at a very simplistic level, losing people and the cost of a bad hire versus retaining your staff. There are different techniques that can be used within the ecosystem of where you are and the buy-in you have from the board and the attitude and everything like that.
Jamie Browne: Maybe some enforcement is down and some may be a bit quieter than normal, but if we’re looking at export control violations, if we’re looking at sanctions enforcement, if we’re looking at ESG, sustainability regulations in Europe, there’s a lot to keep people busy still at the moment from an enforcement perspective—there’s no reason to be cutting back. Just to give some data as to 2025, we had compliance hiring up 35% on the year before, and that was during the FCPA pause. Companies are not slowing down when it comes to hiring, so if your company’s looking to cut back, just know that your competitors are not.
[33:59] Key Takeaways
Nitish Upadhyaya: What a great lesson and a call to action for lots of folks who are maybe sitting on the fence about resourcing a compliance program or thinking about their next role. We’re going to come to you both for just one very pithy takeaway in a second, something that you can leave our listeners with. But before you do, Richard, what’s your key takeaway?
Richard Bistrong: I think the key takeaway is we’re not in the world anymore where if we think there’s a problem we can say, “Okay, we’re going to dedicate 15% of our work force to control functions.” We have to be smarter than that. And what I love about working with the Leonid Group is we don’t have to have Groundhog Day—I think that’s another one of Amanda’s terms—that there’s data out there, you’re not alone, and there are some benchmarking practices that you can look at to, yes, work harder, but also, now we have to work a lot smarter.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Amanda, what about you?
Amanda Raad: I just loved the two-way street in the interview process, because I think that that is symbolic, really, for the whole relationship. It’s so important who you are having conversations with and what you can learn from those conversations, and I think just everybody focusing on both sides is really important.
Nitish Upadhyaya: I think that’s what’s come out for me as well, that human aspect of the interview process. Both the company trying to make it as human as possible and the individual trying to judge, “Is this a place I really want to work at?” And liaising with their recruiter regarding that as well. So, over to you, Jamie and James: One final takeaway before we round out.
Jamie Browne: I go to these conferences. I listen to the webinars and podcasts. And I think a lot of time and attention is given to what tools should chief compliance officers use. What systems? What processes are needed? And what tech stack should we have? My message is always: don’t forget about the people. Without the right people, the tools, the tech, the systems are irrelevant. This function is moving so rapidly, and the people and the organizations that stay closest to market data will make better decisions and create a competitive advantage in this space.
James Mitchell: Taking a moment to step back and take a look and work on the function rather than in it. There is so much noise, so much expectation, so much additional responsibility. To an extent, it addresses what Jamie just said in terms of focusing on your people, but taking that step back and looking at the mandate, looking at the accountability—who has that ownership piece—and how can you make the function more effective, I think, is something that is understandably overlooked when everyone is so busy on a day-to-day basis, but I think is really powerful.
Nitish Upadhyaya: So many takeaways there for both folks recruiting in the compliance space, but also participants in that recruitment process who are looking to create their next jump and next role and, as Jamie said, maybe your next project in the compliance space. I’m excited that this team is all going to be live together in person in Dubai, being hosted by the Middle East and Africa Compliance Association, MEACA. Keep an eye on the MEACA newsletter and social media channels for a little bit more about where you can find us for a very exciting lineup of events, and some more real discussion about the situation of the market—behaving in it rather than the machinery of it—and hopefully, a drink or two as well. And for those of you in the New York City metro area, stay tuned for a return of this team again later in autumn, or the fall, as Richard would want me to say. So, we’re looking forward to seeing lots of you, hearing feedback as well on this episode. James and Jamie, if our listeners are interested in finding out more, where can they get in touch?
James Mitchell: Naturally, a lot of information on the website and various content online, but we’re in the people business, we’re all about making meaningful connections, so reach out to us. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Let’s have a conversation. It’s a small world. Let’s get to know each other.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Thank you all for tuning in to the latest episode in our Culture & Compliance Chronicles series. For more information about our series and any of the ideas discussed today, take a look at the links in our show notes. You can also subscribe to the series wherever you regularly listen to podcasts, including on Apple and Spotify. Amanda, Richard, and I will be back very soon for our next chapter. If you have topics you’d like us to cover or novel perspectives you want everyone else to hear about, get in touch. Thanks again for listening. Have a wonderful day and stay curious.