Why Top Compliance Leaders Are Hesitant to Move — Even When Banks Are Desperate to Hire

Over the past two weeks, I have written about why UK banks struggle to hire Heads of Compliance and MLROs, and how increasing FCA scrutiny is reshaping hiring decisions.

An equally important, but less discussed, issue is this: many highly qualified compliance leaders are choosing not to move at all — even when demand for their skills has never been higher.

In today’s regulatory environment, senior compliance roles carry unprecedented personal accountability. Enforcement actions, Section 166 reviews, and heightened individual responsibility under SMCR have fundamentally altered how candidates assess career moves. For many, the question is no longer about title or remuneration, but about risk exposure.

I regularly speak with strong candidates who turn down roles after advanced-stage interviews. Common concerns include unclear regulatory remediation plans, weak compliance culture at board level, and unrealistic expectations placed on a single individual to “fix” systemic issues. In some cases, candidates are being asked to take on MLRO or Head of Compliance roles without adequate resources, authority, or protection.

From a bank’s perspective, this creates a paradox. Institutions urgently need credible compliance leadership to satisfy regulators, yet the very conditions that trigger regulatory concern often make the roles unattractive to the strongest candidates.

The most successful hiring outcomes I see today come from banks that are willing to be transparent. They acknowledge existing challenges, demonstrate board-level ownership of regulatory issues, and clearly articulate how compliance leaders will be supported. Candidates are far more willing to engage when they see shared accountability rather than personal liability.

As FCA scrutiny continues to intensify, the competition for top compliance talent will not be won by speed or compensation alone. It will be won by credibility, clarity, and culture.