What if the real questions weren’t in HR trends?

---

Beginning of the year. Executive committee. A presentation appears on the screen: “The 10 HR trends to watch in 2026.” Skills-based organisations, people analytics, employee experience, generative AI applied to HR, and other new HR buzzwords.

The slides roll by. People nod, take notes, make a mental note to dig deeper into certain points.

And yet, as you leave the room, there is that vague feeling. A sense of satisfaction that the organisation is keeping up with HR trends, mixed with lingering questions. As if something were missing. As if everything had been discussed… except what really matters.

This discomfort is no coincidence. Trends are reassuring. They provide structure. They give the impression that progress is being made, that we know where to look. But sometimes they also serve to avoid certain conversations. The ones we do not yet know how to have. The ones that truly commit us.

In this article, I will not list trends. Instead, I invite you to question what they reveal — and, more importantly, what they conceal.

---

Trends as intellectual crutches (?)

Every year begins the same way. Consulting firms, specialist media, HR platforms — all publish their lists. The trends of the year. The priorities to follow. The must-have topics.

This is not useless. It helps us step back, see what is emerging elsewhere, and benchmark ourselves.

But let’s look at what actually happens inside organisations. How many of these trends become real priorities? How many trigger actual decisions? And how many end up forgotten in a drawer, replaced the following year by a new list — sometimes exactly the same one?

The problem is not the trend itself. It is what we do with it. Or rather, what we don’t do with it.

Trends often act as substitutes. They provide direction without forcing a choice. They document without deciding. They allow us to say, “We’re aware,” without having to say, “This is what we are choosing.” The more trends we accumulate, the less clear our priorities become. The more informed we are, the less we take a stand.

In the banking sector, this is particularly visible. Transformations have followed one another for over a decade: digitalisation, regulation, reshaping of business models. HR teams have adapted to this pace. They know how to read signals, identify shifts, anticipate needs. And yet, how many HR strategic plans end up looking like inventories? So many initiatives to run, so many skills to develop, so many frameworks to deploy — all within a year.

This is where a different perspective becomes necessary. Not to criticise these plans, but to question what they reveal about our relationship with the future. This desire to anticipate everything, cover everything, leave nothing to chance. Foresight offers a shift in perspective. It does not try to predict the future; it treats it as a field of possibilities — scenarios, turning points, choices that open or close doors. The future is not something to be discovered; it is something to be worked on.

So perhaps the real question is not “What are the trends for 2026?” but rather “What decisions are we avoiding by focusing on trends?”

The need to step aside

For a long time, I worked on these topics: skills, L&D directions, HR transformations, frameworks to deploy. Every year, the same questions came back in slightly different forms. Every year, we thought we would finally crack them. And the following year, they would reappear on the HR priority list.

You cannot see a system clearly from within it. You need to step back, change your vantage point, accept looking differently at what you have been doing.

And that is when a question becomes unavoidable: if we are working on the same topics year after year and nothing really shifts, perhaps we have not identified the real issues. The real problems — the ones beneath the surface, the ones we are not yet able to articulate.

Not because we lack skills. Not because we lack tools. But because these issues require something other than deployment. They require conversations, trade-offs, and consciously accepted renunciations.

What trends are trying to compensate for

Let us assume that behind every HR trend lies a tension — something we do not yet know how to address, something we prefer to bypass, equip, or document rather than confront directly.

Take a few examples of trends we hear about today.

Skills-based organisations

The narrative is clear: we need to move from job-based logic to skills-based logic. Map what people can do in detail, make career paths more fluid, match available skills with emerging needs.

This is valid. It is even necessary in a fast-moving environment. But let’s look at what is left unsaid.

In investment banking, certain areas of expertise are still seen as markers of value. The trader who understands volatility in emerging markets. The risk manager who can read weak signals in correlations. The M&A specialist who senses sector dynamics before they become visible.

These skills do not map easily. They cannot be broken down into reusable building blocks. And above all, they are not transferred in the same way as a process.

This creates a gap. The skills discourse assumes everything can be identified, developed and transmitted. Reality tells a different story. Some expertise leaves with people. Some becomes obsolete before it can be passed on. Some is simply too costly to maintain once the environment has shifted.

So the real question is not “How do we map skills better?” but rather: “Which skills are we losing without acknowledging it?” and “Which ones are truly worth fighting to keep?”

But to ask that question, you need to be able to hear the answer. And that is where culture comes into play. In some banks, the culture values fast decision-making, action and momentum. Debate is encouraged, bets are taken, even risky ones. In others, the culture favours caution, collective validation and multi-layered risk mitigation. Both make sense — but they do not enable the same conversations.

A skills-based approach can work well in the first culture. It assumes speed, experimentation and adjustment. It accepts imperfect mapping and temporary imbalances. In the second culture, the same approach can stall. Everything needs validating, documenting and securing before anything moves. And in the meantime, the framework turns into an unwieldy machine.

The issue is not the trend. It is the gap between the mindset it assumes and what the culture actually allows. You can deploy all the tools you want — if the culture does not create space for the necessary trade-offs, the framework will remain superficial.

These questions are rarely asked. Because they commit us. Because they require choices. Because they may also mean letting go of something.

And then there is fashion. Because yes, some trends become fashionable. And in banking, not being “on” a trend can create discomfort — a sense of missing out, of falling behind competitors.

Skills-based organisations are a striking example. They have become unavoidable. Consulting firms promote them, tech platforms promise them, HR conferences revolve around them. So initiatives are launched, skills are mapped, tools are purchased. Not necessarily because their strategic relevance has been fully clarified, but because you need to be in. Because not being in carries the risk of being seen as lagging behind.

This mechanism is rarely acknowledged, but it weighs heavily. It creates a gap between theory and practice. In theory, skills-based approaches increase agility, fluidity and matching. In practice, they are also adopted because they have become the expected language — the one used in committees, the one that reassures investors, the one that signals transformation.

People analytics and HR data

The narrative: decisions must be evidence-based, driven by data rather than intuition and bias, steered by reliable indicators.

Again, this is essential. Data sheds light, challenges assumptions and reveals blind spots. But it does not replace decision-making. It never says, “This is what you must do.”

Banks have access to vast amounts of HR data: turnover by role, skills maps, engagement scores, career trajectories, individual performance. We can measure a great deal. We can even model scenarios.

And yet, how many decisions remain unresolved? Not because data is lacking, but because data does not tell us which hypothesis to favour. It does not arbitrate between two equally plausible scenarios. It does not tell us which risk we should accept.

So we accumulate more. We refine. We cross-reference. We document again. As if the right decision will eventually emerge on its own, carried by the obviousness of the numbers.

But what is missing is not data. It is the ability to decide under uncertainty. With data, yes — but without waiting for it to eliminate every grey area. Because those grey areas will not disappear.

Engagement and employee experience

The narrative: we must improve employee experience. Listen more. Personalise journeys. Create an environment people want to stay in.

No one would disagree. But again, let’s look beneath the surface.

In banking, cultures are often shaped by high expectations: individual performance, short response times, pressure on results, hierarchies that still carry weight even when we say they are flattening.

Engagement surveys have been sending the same signals for years: lack of autonomy, overload, a gap between collaborative rhetoric and individual evaluation, the feeling that internal mobility is an obstacle course.

These signals do not come from nowhere. They come from the ground. From employees who live these tensions daily. From middle managers who are asked to steer in uncertainty without the mandate to arbitrate. From teams subjected to successive reorganisations without always understanding the bigger picture.

They are the first to see when something does not work — when a framework remains superficial, when a narrative does not match reality, when a transformation creates more confusion than clarity.

They are part of the system, but their voices are rarely present when trade-offs are made. We listen to them through surveys, analyse responses, draw up action plans — but we do not involve them in the conversations that truly matter.

We launch initiatives: wellbeing programmes, redesigned workspaces, tailored development paths. All of this makes sense. But all of it also avoids a deeper question: are we ready to revisit the implicit contract between the organisation and its talent?

That contract says: “We ask a lot from you, but we also offer a lot.” Pay. Status. Prospects. Relative security. It is an equilibrium that held for a long time, but today it is cracking. Not because employees are less committed, but because what is asked of them has changed — and what is offered has not always kept pace.

So we improve experience, personalise, listen — but we do not renegotiate the terms. And above all, we do not bring what the field has been signalling for years into strategic decision-making.

AI and HR automation

The narrative: AI will transform HR. Automate low-value tasks and free up time for strategic support.

This is true. And it is already happening. Chatbots for recurring questions, algorithmic matching for recruitment, predictive analytics to anticipate attrition.

But let’s look at what is really at stake. When we say “free up time for strategic support,” what do we mean exactly? What kind of support? For whom? To decide what?

Because if HR does not already have a clear role in strategic trade-offs, AI will not give it one. It will simply make existing activities more efficient. Faster, perhaps — but not necessarily more impactful.

The real question AI raises is not “How do we automate?” but “What is HR’s real contribution?” And how does that contribution evolve in an environment where much of what used to be tactical becomes automatable?

What these four examples reveal

These four examples share a common thread. In each case, the trend documents, equips and reassures. It structures a response — but it also avoids the underlying question. The one that commits us. The one that requires trade-offs. The one that would force real debate, not just deployment.

They also share another characteristic: trends are markets. Markets for consulting firms, software vendors and HR platforms. This is not a judgement — it is an observation, and it creates a specific dynamic.

The more visible a trend becomes, the more supply it generates. The more supply there is, the more unavoidable it seems. And the more unavoidable it becomes, the harder it is not to engage with it. Not necessarily because we need it, but because not being there risks being seen as outdated.

Large banks know this mechanism well. They can distinguish genuine signals from marketing noise. But even knowing this, they remain caught in the dynamic. Because there is a reputational cost to not following, an employer branding cost, a credibility cost with the talent they want to attract.

So they move forward. They deploy. They invest — sometimes without having truly clarified what they expect from it, without having debated the cultural shift it implies, without having measured the gap between theoretical frameworks and organisational reality.

This gap does not stem from a lack of competence. It stems from a lack of collective clarification. Before deploying, we should be able to ask: “Do we have the culture to bring this to life? Do we have the collective appetite for the trade-offs it implies? Are we ready to own the tensions it will create?”

But these conversations do not always happen. They slow things down. They expose disagreements. They force us to admit we may not be ready. So we move ahead, deploy, adjust later. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t.

Uncertainty as a structural reality, not an anomaly

There is a phrase often heard in organisations: “Once things calm down, we’ll be able to…”

Clarify strategy. Invest in training. Rethink career paths. Redefine roles.

Except things do not calm down — and they will not.

Uncertainty is no longer a temporary state. It is not a parenthesis between two periods of stability. It has become the norm. Economic cycles are shorter. Regulation evolves faster. Technologies disrupt business models in a few years. Talent changes sectors without looking back.

In banking, this reality is tangible. Investment banks live with constant reorganisation. Business lines are reshaped. Teams reform. Priorities shift from one quarter to the next. What was strategic six months ago may no longer be today.

And yet, many HR processes are still built on the opposite assumption: a predictable environment, three-year planning horizons, linear skills evolution, stable needs.

This creates a real — though not always visible — tension. We know we should operate differently: more through scenarios than plans, more through hypotheses than certainties, more through continuous adjustment than infrequent large-scale transformations.

But accepting this also means accepting a loss of control. Deciding without knowing exactly where it will lead. Accepting that some decisions will need revisiting, that some investments will not deliver, that some skills developed today will be obsolete tomorrow.

It is a shift in posture: from control to steering, from forecasting to active anticipation, from securing to accepting risk.

It is uncomfortable. But it may be the only realistic stance left.

What this says about HR’s real mandate

This may be the most uncomfortable question of all — the one rarely asked in executive committees.

What place does HR really occupy in decision-making?

Not in speeches. Not in org charts. In practice — when choices must be made, when trade-offs are required, when renunciations must be owned.

In many large banks, HR functions have become highly professionalised. They master tools, run complex frameworks, deliver large-scale transformations. But how many truly have decision-making power over strategic choices that shape the organisation?

There is a paradox. HR is asked to support transformations, prepare future skills, anticipate needs — but it is not always given the mandate to challenge assumptions. To say: “This scenario implies letting go of certain skills. Are we comfortable with that?” Or: “This trajectory contradicts what we decided six months ago. Are we owning that?”

So HR sometimes retreats into a facilitator role. Supporting, equipping, smoothing — but not contradicting. Not forcing uncomfortable conversations.

Yet those conversations exist. They just do not always happen in the right places.

Because signals do come up. From middle managers caught between conflicting demands. From teams watching transformations pile up without clear coherence. From subject-matter experts unsure of their real place.

These voices carry the reality of the field. They know what blocks, where frameworks fail, where trade-offs are missing. But they are not in the room when decisions are made.

So symptoms are treated: processes improved, training delivered, communication increased — without addressing root causes. Without connecting what is lived at the bottom with what is decided at the top.

Some questions remain unanswered:

• Which skills are we willing to sacrifice? In a transforming bank, some expertise will disappear. We cannot keep everything. So which ones do we let go — and who decides?
• How much internal mobility are we willing to lose? Fluid careers are an ideal, but in reality some moves disrupt team dynamics or create gaps we cannot fill. Where do we draw the line?
• Which talent are we prepared to let go? Retaining the best is a mantra, but sometimes retention costs more than departure — financially, culturally, symbolically. How do we decide?

These questions will not be answered by HR trends. They cannot be solved with tools. They require debate, collective trade-offs and shared accountability.

Perhaps the maturity of an HR function is not measured by the sophistication of its frameworks, but by its ability to hold these conversations — to ask uncomfortable questions, to illuminate blind spots without replacing decision-makers, but without avoiding decisions either.

Three questions to move beyond trends

So how can we do things differently? Not a method. Not a framework. Just three questions to shift perspective.

What decisions do these trends allow us to avoid today?

Whenever a trend emerges, we can ask: what is it compensating for? Which trade-off does it postpone?

If we talk so much about skills-based organisations, perhaps it is because we still struggle to steer through people’s skills. We remain stuck in job-based logic. So we hope the framework will get us there. That the tool will drive change. That better mapping will lead to better steering.

If we focus heavily on people analytics, perhaps it is because we prefer more documentation to deciding with what we already know.

This is not criticism. It is an invitation to look beneath the surface — to identify what remains unresolved. Not to solve everything at once, but to acknowledge that these questions exist and deserve more than a framework.

What role do we truly want HR to play in uncertainty?

In a stable environment, HR can manage, run processes and deploy plans.

In uncertainty, that is no longer enough. HR must shed light, challenge, propose scenarios, stimulate debate, accept not knowing — and still ask the questions that matter.

This requires clarifying the mandate. Not just on paper, but in practice. In the meetings HR attends (or does not). In the moments it is listened to (or not). In the trade-offs it is involved in (or excluded from).

This role cannot be decreed. It is built and earned. But it also requires collective acceptance of what it implies: giving HR the right to challenge also means accepting being challenged.

What are we willing to own collectively, rather than delegate to frameworks?

HR trends are reassuring. They suggest there is a solution — a tool, a method — something to deploy that will fix the issue.

But some questions cannot be solved that way. They require conversations, trade-offs and shared accountability between leadership, the business and HR.

We cannot delegate to a framework the question of which skills are strategic. We cannot automate the decision to let a talent go. We cannot outsource the trade-off between short-term and long-term.

These questions belong to the leadership collective. HR can illuminate them, but it cannot carry them alone. As long as this is not acknowledged, we will keep looking for solutions where we first need clarity on responsibility.

What remains when trends fade away

Trends will continue to exist — and that is normal. They help us orient ourselves, see what is emerging elsewhere, and benchmark.

But they will never replace thinking, decision-making or posture.

The future of work is not found in a report. It is not predicted in a list. It is worked on and built — through the trade-offs we accept, the renunciations we own, and the conversations we finally agree to have.

Perhaps 2026 will not be the year of HR trends. Perhaps it will be the year we start asking the real questions. The ones that commit us, that shift us, that force us out of ready-made frameworks.

Not because it is more comfortable — but because it is the only path left once we accept that uncertainty is not an anomaly.

The future of work is not read. It is worked on — and decided.

---