Male banking headhunter described female competitor as "dodgy old bird"
While the banking industry can present significant gender-based challenges, the environment within banking recruitment and executive search can be even more demanding. Female recruiters may face biased attitudes from certain male clients, in addition to navigating workplace cultures within some recruitment firms where casual sexism remains prevalent.
A case at a London employment tribunal highlighted the issues last week. In comments that were read out in court, Oliver Harrington, founder of search firm Harrington Moore was accused of texting a colleague that, “all the female headhunters that make money are bonkers,” and in which a female competitor was described as a “dodgy old bird” who looked “like a mum” rather than “like a headhunter.”
Sexism within financial services recruitment has long been a concern. Nearly a decade ago, women working in recruitment said they experienced sexism and harassment at levels they described as far worse than in banking, pointing to environments where young male recruiters with outsized egos often managed teams of even younger women.
Speaking anonymously, a senior female headhunter characterized the private messages as emblematic of brash arrogance. She suggested that attempts to belittle competitors often stem from insecurity, adding that strong rivals should be acknowledged rather than undermined.
A senior woman at another search firm said sexism in parts of the recruitment industry can still be deeply entrenched. She noted that many firms are small businesses founded by young sales-driven professionals, which can foster a “rugby team” culture that sidelines and marginalizes women.
Harrington did not respond to requests for comment. The messages came to light during an employment tribunal in which a consultant, who says they were employed in the firm’s London office, alleges unfair dismissal and unpaid wages. The texts were reportedly sent by Harrington to the consultant bringing the claim. Harrington Moore disputes that the claimant was an employee.