Why Lance Harvie of RuntimeRec Can't Be Trusted

He Denied an Agreement That's Fully Documented

A side-by-side breakdown of what the RuntimeRec founder claimed on Reddit versus what the documentation actually shows.

April 9, 2026

On June 3, 2025, Lance Harvie — founder of RuntimeRec, a recruitment agency based in Malaysia serving the Australian market — posted a public response on Reddit to a warning that had been published about him months earlier.

His opening line was unequivocal:

"Every material claim in it is false."

He then challenged anyone reading the thread:

"Where is the evidence of an introduction? Where is the email? Where is the resume? Where is any documentation of a referral? There is none, because it never happened."

That challenge was a catastrophic miscalculation.

Because the evidence not only exists — it is timestamped, recorded, and published in a public archive. And it directly contradicts nearly every claim he made.

This post exists to place his words next to the documentation and let readers decide for themselves who is telling the truth.

Claim vs. Evidence — Side by Side

❌ Lance's Claim #1:

"They sent me no resume. They sent no email introduction. They made no formal referral of any kind."

✅ The Evidence:

On July 22, a formal email introduction was sent to Lance for a candidate named Gareth Sampson. That email is timestamped and archived.

→ View the email introduction to Lance

The email included a recorded voice introduction from Gareth Sampson, which I had produced specifically for the purpose of introducing him to Lance as a candidate.

→ Listen to Gareth Sampson's voice note sent to Lance

He says no introduction was sent. The introduction is published. Both of them.

❌ Lance's Claim #2:

"Gareth contacted me directly and independently. This person played no role in that whatsoever."

✅ The Evidence:

Gareth connected with Lance on LinkedIn after receiving the email introduction — not before, and not independently. The sequence is documented in the full evidence archive. The LinkedIn connection followed the email. The email followed a conversation with Lance about sourcing a salesperson.

If Gareth "contacted him directly and independently," why does a timestamped email introduction to Lance exist — dated before the LinkedIn connection?

❌ Lance's Claim #3:

"No figure was ever discussed. No terms were ever agreed. No percentage was set. The specific claim of a confirmed 10% finder's fee is completely fabricated."

✅ The Evidence:

After interviewing Gareth, Lance sent me a recorded voice note confirming his intent to hire and confirming the referral fee arrangement.

→ Listen to Lance Harvie's voice note confirming the finder's fee

He says the fee was "completely fabricated." His own voice note says otherwise.

❌ Lance's Claim #4:

"Blocking him was a necessary step to protect myself and my team from exactly this kind of conduct."

✅ The Evidence:

The blocking occurred immediately after a request for clarity on the referral fee — not after any threatening message. The documented WhatsApp exchange shows the sequence:

  1. Clarity was requested on the fee.

  2. Lance accused the referring party of "attacking his integrity."

  3. Lance said there was "something wrong with your mate."

  4. Lance ended the conversation: "We're done here. Have a good life."

  5. The referring party was blocked across WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and email.

  6. Gareth was subsequently hired.

  7. The fee was never paid.

The full WhatsApp exchange, voice notes, emails, and complete timeline are published here:

→ Full evidence archive

The Oldest Trick in Recruitment

Anyone who has worked in or around recruitment knows this move. It is one of the oldest and most common tactics in a cutthroat industry.

Here's how it works:

A recruiter asks — in a meeting, over a call, almost as an afterthought — "Do you know anyone who might be a good fit?" A name is offered. The recruiter takes the name, makes the approach independently, and when it comes time to pay the referral, claims the candidate "came to them directly." The introduction never happened. The referral was never formal. The name was just "mentioned in conversation."

That is exactly what Lance attempted here. In his Reddit response, he wrote:

"This person mentioned a candidate named Gareth to me in conversation. That is the full extent of their involvement."

Except the involvement didn't stop at mentioning a name. A formal email introduction was sent, with a recorded voice note from the candidate. And Lance confirmed the referral fee in his own recorded voice message.

The trick only works when there's no paper trail.

There is a paper trail.

The Pattern Behind the Charm

To his engineering clients, Lance presents as polished, professional, and reliable — because they are the ones paying him. But what happens when someone is no longer useful? When their value has already been extracted?

Based on direct documented experience: the charm disappears. The blocking begins. The denials follow.

And this is not the only account of this pattern.

A former RuntimeRec employee — a talent sourcer — left the following Glassdoor review:

"Toxic Environment"

"Work was stressful every day with micromanaging. If there were no new hires, they blame that you weren't doing a good job. They also didn't care about serious personal problems or things you couldn't avoid. The CEO has trust issues. They ended my contract without any formal meeting or hearing my side of the story. It was not a good place to work."

Advice to Management: "Loosen up."

Key lines from that review:

  • "The CEO has trust issues."

  • "They ended my contract without any formal meeting or hearing my side of the story."

Sound familiar?

This is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern. Charming to clients. Disposable treatment for everyone else — partners, referral sources, and internal team members alike.

The Irony That Writes Itself

Lance Harvie runs a recruitment agency. His entire livelihood depends on companies trusting him to source talent — and paying him for that service. That is how recruitment works. A candidate is found. An introduction is made. The fee is paid.

Yet when someone did exactly that for him — sourced a candidate, made a formal introduction, and agreed a referral fee — he hired the person and refused to pay.

A recruiter who doesn't pay his own recruitment fees.

The hypocrisy is not subtle. It is structural.

If this is how he treats someone who helped him hire, the question every potential client should ask is: what does the rest of the operation look like when no one is watching?

The Glassdoor review answers that question.

What He Asked For

In his Reddit response, Lance wrote :

"Where is the evidence of an introduction? Where is the email? Where is the resume? Where is any documentation of a referral? There is none, because it never happened."

The email introduction: published.
The voice introduction: published.
His own voice confirming the fee: published.
The full archive: published.

He asked where the evidence was. It was already online — months before he asked. He either didn't check, or he assumed no one else would.

People who operate this way rely on one assumption: that the person they burned will stay quiet, move on, and let the record disappear. That is how the pattern repeats. That is how the next founder, the next referral partner, the next internal hire gets the same treatment.

This is the record. It is not going anywhere.

Published by B2B Growth Systems

b2bgrowth.systems