Explore the data from 196 global companies and uncover the key skills trends for the year ahead.
Download
4 workforce transformation insights from financial service HR leaders
Date created
July 21, 2026
Last updated:
July 22, 2026
|
5 min read
.webp)
Table of Content
Article summary
The financial sector is accelerating AI adoption faster than it is building the human capability to manage it. That gap between deployment speed and workforce readiness is a defining challenge for many HR leaders in financial services.
Only 14% of CFOs completely trust AI to deliver accurate accounting data on its own. The vast majority - 97% - say human oversight is critical for ensuring accuracy when AI is deployed. Yet most organizations are still treating AI adoption in L&D as a technology project. The skills and leadership capability gap needed to make that oversight effective are being built too slowly, or not at all.
This tension sat at the centre of the Leaders in Finance HR Event - a gathering of 100 HR professionals from across the Dutch financial sector. Based on the key insights, the successful financial institutions in this era will build the human infrastructure to use new AI tech responsibly and effectively.
1. Change fatigue is impacting workforce stability & trust
Nicole Scoble Williams, Global Future of Work and Agentic Workforce Leader at Deloitte, identified that one in three employees has had to adapt to fifteen or more organizational changes in the past year. Most are being managed through those changes with methods designed for a slower world - town halls, top-down communications cascades, one-off training events.
The result is not only slowing technology adoption, but also eroding trust. When the pace of transformation outstrips the human systems designed to support it, it undermines the cultural coherence, and confidence that financial institutions depend on to function.
AI in finance fails not because the models lack capability but because the data lacks context. Human professionals navigate complexity through institutional knowledge - they know which numbers to trust, how structures map across systems, and where adjustments are needed. AI has none of these advantages. That institutional knowledge, and the judgment to apply it, is precisely what workforce development in financial services needs to protect and build to keep up with the speed of transformation.
When the pace of change starts to outrun human systems, it doesn't just affect productivity. It erodes trust, shared values, and the cultural foundations that hold organisations together.
Nicole Scoble Williams, Global Future of Work & Agentic Workforce Leader, Deloitte
2. Talent systems need personalized for individual’s career growth
Karlijn van den Berg, Head of Talent at ABN AMRO, made the case that most talent programmes in financial services are solving the wrong problem.
That critical question one the talent management field has been avoiding. In a financial sector where AI is reshaping roles faster than job architectures can be redrawn, careers are no longer linear, and employees across every generation are making deliberate choices about where they invest their working lives, talent can no longer be defined entirely by what the organisation needs from them.
Van den Berg mapped three tensions that now define talent management in the sector
The first is the tension between organizational need and individual motivation. Succession planning is built around pipeline logic - who is ready for what role and how can they be developed accordingly. At ABN AMRO, aligning development to what individuals actually care about reduced attrition and raised engagement.
The second tension is between scalability and personalisation. AI is a genuine asset for personalized learning paths, pattern recognition in development data, smarter recommendations at scale. But van den Berg drew a sharp line around what AI cannot do. It can optimize for outcomes already defined. It cannot help a person understand what they actually want. That remains a human conversation.
The third tension is the connection between performance and potential. Financial services has long rewarded performance and assumed potential follows. But potential is contextual and non-linear. Someone who excels in a structured environment may struggle as automation disrupts workflows. Someone overlooked because they don't fit the prevailing leadership model may be exactly the thinker the organisation needs as complexity increases.
AI is good at optimising for outcomes we've already defined. It's less good at helping someone figure out what they actually want. And that's a deeply human conversation that we as HR professionals need to be able to have.
— Karlijn van den Berg, Head of Talent, ABN AMRO
The conclusion: build talent systems that are not merely efficient but genuinely human. If people do not feel seen in your programmes, they will find somewhere else where they do. In a tightening market for skilled financial talent, that is a strategic concern.
3. Capability building is the real transformation lever
Laureen Rwatirera, VP Talent & Learning at Prosus, brought a perspective shaped by leading development across one of the world's most complex technology investment organizations. AI is a revolution larger in scope than the Industrial Revolution - which primarily disrupted manual and factory work. AI, however, will reshape virtually every professional role in some way.
The implication for L&D is significant. Capability building has to be the engine of workforce transformation. The organisations managing AI-driven change will invest in developing the human capacity to carry change: the leadership skills, the judgment under pressure, the ability to hold team cohesion and direction when the environment is shifting underneath.
This is where financial institutions face a particular structural challenge. The sector's traditional strength - process rigour, compliance culture, risk management discipline - can become a constraint when the environment demands rapid iteration, tolerance for ambiguity, and adaptive leadership that does not yet appear in most job specifications or performance frameworks.
4. The generational dimension cannot be managed away
Isabel Workel-Tijhuis of Triodos Bank and Nathalie Amador de Vries of Alpina Group surfaced that the expectations employees bring to work have shifted structurally - not as a generational trend to be managed but as a permanent recalibration of the employment relationship.
For Triodos, employee development at the bank is deliberately connected to purpose, not just performance. In a financial institution built around values-driven banking, that connection is both authentic and strategic.
Employees - particularly those with the skills financial institutions most need to retain - are making increasingly explicit choices about where they work based on whether the organisation's mission connects with their own sense of purpose.
For HR leaders, this cannot be resolved with better employer branding or more compelling onboarding. It requires genuine alignment between what the organisation stands for and how it develops and rewards its people. Where that alignment is missing, no talent programme will compensate for it.
The strategic focus for HR professionals in the finance industry
The throughline across every session was about what AI makes visible - the gaps in leadership capability, talent system design, and organisational culture that were always there, but are now consequential in ways they were not before.
Financial institutions that approach the current moment as a technology challenge will underinvest in precisely the talent capabilities that determine whether transformation succeeds or stalls. Three conclusions from the day stand out:
- Transformation speed is a function of human capability, not technology deployment. You can implement AI faster than your people can adapt to it, and the result is fragmentation.
- Talent systems built entirely around organizational need will fail to retain the people most capable of navigating what comes next. The question is not just who has high potential, but also high potential for what purpose , and does the talent in front of you actually want to grow there?
- Human judgment is not a complement to AI capability. In financial services, where trust is the product, it is the differentiator. The sector that invests most deliberately in developing it at scale, continuously, at every leadership level will hold a capability advantage that no technology procurement decision can replicate.
"That is what Human by Design actually means. Not designing work around AI. Designing it around the humans who will make the difference when AI cannot."
— Leaders in Finance HR Event 2026
Ready to upskill your people & transform your business?
We offer a scalable employee training solution. It lets you continuously upskill your people.
Book a callGet your State of Skills 2026 report
Build skills for every stage of AI transformation
Discover our new Data & AI Academy and how we can help you build the hard and soft skills needed for all stages of AI transformation across your workforce
Discover more
Download The HR Strategy Guide for an AI Era
Learn how HR can lead the charge in creating a strategic approach to AI integration, ensuring organizations drive innovation without losing sight of their people.
Download now
No items found.
Ready to upskill your people and transform your business?
Book a meeting.webp)
Related articles
Review by:
Jeroen Kraaijenbrink: How organizations can overcome the honesty gap
Senior leadership and boardroom teams invest heavily in commercial strategies to win market shares. Yet the most important and honest information driving strategy circulates in teams underneath, never making it to the table where decisions are made.Jeroen Kraaijenbrink, Executive Coach and Strategy Consultant at Kraaijenbrink Advisory, has spent years working on what he calls the honesty gap. We sat down with him to understand what the honesty gap actually is, where it lives in organizations, and why fixing it requires a leadership shift.How do you define the honesty gap?There's a narrow definition and a broad one. The broad one is: we have created organizations and systems where it's barely possible to be honest to yourself, about yourself, and honest to other people.Honesty isn't just lying. It's integrity, being authentically connected to other people and being aware of your own emotions and your own biases.The honesty gap, in a narrow sense, is the fact that truth and information don’t travel vertically upwards in a company. It's often hard to speak openly to your manager because it’s become rational not to. Many people have the experience: 'I've tried it once but then I was punished for it, or was ignored, so let it be, never mind.' That's the fascinating part: it's not good for people, it's not good for organizations and yet we somehow keep this system intact.Is it less about individual dishonesty and more about a collective culture?A lot of the most important information going through your company is between people and in conversations. You need to find a way to have an honest conversation, where the things that matter get on the meeting table, not just in the informal circuit. And I think that's pretty rare.A more systematic definition is that we're not using the collective intelligence of a company enough. We can radically improve it because we’ve made it rational to hide the truth and to keep things to yourself. A lot of it may not be intentional, but the very fact that someone is in a position above you automatically creates this tension: 'What do I show? What don't I show? Because my next performance appraisal is coming up.'Where does the honesty gap typically show up first, and who owns the problem?It starts with leaders. Solving it needs one leader at the top, the CEO at least, being open and reflective enough to admit that there is an honesty gap and that they are part of it. That's the self-reflection you need for any improvement and any change. Like in coaching: you need to be aware that there is stuff to improve. You don't need to be a perfect leader, but you need to be open enough to admit that there is an issue.You talk about the 'persona trap', what is that?You're stuck in a persona where you perform in a certain way within your company. You have a role, a position, a reputation, and that locks you into specific behaviors. The worse the match between who you are as a person and how you need to show up in your organization, the more inner conflict that’s created. Especially at the top, it’s a problem for many executives. They're supposed to be the people who know it all and be decisive. While if you're honest, you don't necessarily know everything, you’re uncertain and have anxieties.The inner core of the honesty gap is breaking the performance, breaking the acting you feel you must do. If you've put yourself in a role of being the strong, decisive, number-oriented leader, that's how you have to behave. But most people don't feel very comfortable in that kind of role because it's not who they are.Can you fix the honesty gap through individual coaching alone or does the system have to change?Part of it is a personal change, part of it is a system change. You can be on your own and be very authentic, but if the system doesn't change at all, you’ll struggle to break the honesty gap.What you need to do is work on the people, the culture, and the system. Ideally that has to include the top, because otherwise it stays at the level of the person being coached. If it's a team lead or a mid-manager, that person can partly create an island in the organization, a safe space for their team and their department. But still, the appraisal systems, objectives, and culture are company-wide. Why is this so hard to shift, even when leaders recognize the problem?We have normalized this idea that you have to be strategic in what you tell and what you show. You have to show up in a certain role at work. It's also the result of how we have separated work from life, which is a very unnatural thing. It's from the industrial age, because for any other species, work is life. But now there’s a split between work, with all the routines in companies, and then your private life. There's just one you, you're the same person at home as you are at work. The good news is that the honesty gap can be closed. While many companies have unintentionally created environments where people hesitate to speak openly, organizations prioritizing trust, authenticity, and psychological safety can unlock a competitive advantage. When employees feel safe to share concerns, ideas, and perspectives, collective intelligence grows, decision-making improves, and stronger relationships emerge across every level of the business.
.webp)
.webp)
Ready to drive impact together?
Close skill gaps, accelerate growth, and future-proof your workforce.
