Regulatory focus across financial services continues to evolve, with increasing attention being placed on behaviour, conduct, and the ability to evidence competence in real-world conditions. It is no longer sufficient for individuals to demonstrate knowledge in structured environments alone. Organisations are now expected to consider how people behave in practice, particularly under pressure, and how that behaviour aligns with expected standards.
In response, many firms are doing what they have always done: introducing more training, repackaged through new technology or rebranded with obscure names to spark interest. New wellbeing initiatives are also being added alongside existing development programmes, seemingly offering greater ‘support’ against stress, fatigue, and emotional overload. On the surface, these are positive steps. However, they often rest on a familiar assumption — that behaviour can be improved through increased exposure to knowledge and guidance. In practice, this assumption does not always hold.
As explored in my previous articles, in the context of skills-based organisations, the way work is structured can have a significant impact on individuals. Constantly evolving expectations, shifting roles, and ongoing pressure to adapt can increase cognitive load and reduce a sense of stability. What is becoming increasingly clear is that this impact does not sit separately from behaviour; it shapes it.
Whether the goal is improved conduct, competence, or wellbeing, the principle is the same: behaviour will only change when the conditions around it allow it to
Behaviour under pressure is not simply a function of technical competence. It is influenced by a combination of emotional state, environment, and the internal narratives individuals bring into the moment. Where these factors remain unchanged, behaviour will tend to revert to familiar patterns, regardless of the training or guidance provided.
Behavioural science reinforces this challenge. Research suggests that behaviour change is not driven by knowledge alone, but by a combination of motivation, ability, and the conditions present in the moment. Even where individuals understand what is expected of them, change will not occur unless they are both willing and able to act differently in real time. Under pressure, this becomes even more pronounced. Individuals tend to default to familiar patterns that feel safer or require less cognitive effort, particularly where those patterns have been reinforced over time.
This presents a clear challenge for organisations seeking to evidence competence and improve conduct. Teaching individuals how they are expected to behave is unlikely to be sufficient if the conditions that drive behaviour remain unchanged. In many cases, this results in a disconnect between demonstrated competence in training environments and observed behaviour in practice. The intention may be there, but the system does not support it. Whether the goal is improved conduct, competence, or wellbeing, the principle is the same: behaviour will only change when the conditions around it allow it to.
This is where a more integrated approach to development becomes important. Rather than treating skills, behaviour, and wellbeing as separate interventions, organisations need to consider how these elements interact as part of a wider system. Organisations can introduce recharge days, yoga sessions, or other wellbeing initiatives, and individuals can learn how to engage with them, but unless the conditions exist for those behaviours to be adopted consistently, the impact will be limited. Knowledge alone does not translate into sustained change.
Approaches such as HUMAN© are beginning to address this gap by focusing on the individual as a whole system, rather than a set of separate capabilities. It provides a structured way to move from awareness to consistent action, recognising that behaviour is shaped over time and reinforced through experience. By guiding individuals through stages of reflection, understanding, and practical application, HUMAN© supports people in identifying not just what needs to change, but why their current patterns exist and how they can be shifted in real-world conditions. This allows development to move beyond knowledge acquisition and into behaviour that can be applied consistently, particularly under pressure.
This shift in focus also has significant implications for leadership. In environments where pressure is constant and expectations continue to evolve, the role of the leader can no longer sit solely in oversight, direction, or performance management. Leaders are increasingly required to understand the conditions in which behaviour occurs and importantly, to take responsibility for shaping them. This represents a meaningful change. It requires leaders to develop new skills, including the ability to recognise how workload, targets, cultural norms, and psychological safety influence decision-making in real time, as well as an awareness of how their own behaviour contributes to the environment others operate within. As a result, leadership becomes less about driving outcomes directly, and more about enabling the conditions in which the right behaviours can emerge and be sustained.
As expectations continue to evolve, organisations have an opportunity to rethink how competence is developed and evidenced. The question is no longer just whether individuals know what to do, but whether they can apply it reliably in real-world conditions. Without this change in thinking, organisations risk continuing to invest in development that individuals are unable to apply when it matters most.
