06.02.2026
Shadow hiring for AI in financial services is not a rogue behaviour. It is the collision point between two forces pulling in opposite directions: the need to move at unprecedented speed on workplace AI, and the obligation to operate under some of the most demanding governance and regulatory regimes of any industry. This is not just a compliance issue. It is an informal but powerful signal of unmet demand, broken processes, and misaligned incentives between business, IT and HR.
What shadow hiring means in the AI era
In this context, shadow hiring is when teams bypass formal HR, recruitment and IT channels to bring in AI-skilled people or stand up AI capability without passing through standard controls.
In financial services, it clusters in functions already experimenting with AI at the edge of decision-making: fraud, risk, investment research, advisory and operations.
It mirrors the older pattern of shadow IT in banking, where business units quietly procured technology outside central oversight to meet urgent needs, creating hidden security and compliance risk.
Seen this way, shadow hiring is the human capital equivalent of shadow AI. Talent and tools enter through side doors because the front door is too slow, unclear or blocked.
Why financial services is a hotspot
Financial services is structurally primed for both rapid AI adoption and shadow behaviour.
UK and international studies consistently rank finance and insurance as the most AI-exposed sector, ahead of IT. Many core roles are built around tasks AI can augment or automate: analysts, advisers, managers and project leaders.
That exposure is not abstract. It sits with financial analysts, advisers, account managers, project managers and senior leaders who operate at the intersection of data, judgement and client interaction.
At the same time, adoption is already well underway. Surveys of FS firms show that 75% are already using AI, with another 10% planning to adopt in the next three years, but cite talent and skills shortages as one of the top non‑regulatory constraints on adoption. (Bank of England Report).
High exposure, scarce skills and competitive pressure create ideal conditions for “hire first, explain later”. Shadow hiring becomes an adaptive response in a sector that feels it cannot afford to wait.
The speed-governance paradox
Financial services lives with a structural paradox. Boards and regulators expect firms to be AI-driven and impeccably controlled at the same time.
Regulators are watching closely. Firms cite data protection, resilience, cyber security and conduct rules as material constraints on AI adoption. Yet those same organisations expect AI to reshape compliance, fraud detection and customer operations, and are investing accordingly.
Gartner‑aligned estimates suggest around 40% of AI projects will fail when glued onto legacy governance, reinforcing the risk that fragmented, shadowed pilots never convert into production‑grade value.
This tension expresses itself in three predictable behaviours.
1. Fear of falling behind versus fear of non-compliance
Teams worry about losing ground where governance and training lag behind ambition. That anxiety drives “act now, seek forgiveness later”.
Risk, compliance and model governance functions, facing regulatory and reputational stakes, are incentivised to slow things down.
2. Innovation timelines versus governance timelines
Standing up a sanctioned AI role, vendor or initiative can take months of approvals across HR, IT, legal and risk.
AI tools and use cases evolve in weeks. Competitors’ visible moves compress the response window further.
3. Diffuse ownership of AI talent
AI skills sit across technology, analytics, risk, business lines and HR. In many institutions, no single function clearly owns AI hiring. In that vacuum, local leaders re-title roles, hire contractors or build informal AI pods under existing budgets.
Why teams circumvent HR, recruitment and IT
Most teams are not bypassing central routes out of bad intent. They are responding to a system that does not match the pace or shape of AI work.
Traditional role design and competency frameworks were built for stable, regulated roles, not hybrid profiles blending data science, product thinking and automation.
Approval paths are often slow, opaque and multi-layered. Where AI roles trigger oversight from HR, IT, InfoSec, model risk and compliance, friction and uncertainty push teams towards workarounds.
Incentives are misaligned. Business units are rewarded for revenue, efficiency and client outcomes. HR and IT are rewarded for control, standardisation and risk reduction. When AI becomes strategic, speed usually wins.
And financial services has form. Decades of shadow IT and end-user computing normalised the idea that routing around central functions is sometimes the only way to get things done.
The real risk includes compliance but isn’t limited to it
Shadow hiring can feel like an accelerator. In practice, it often slows value and amplifies risk.
AI talent hired in isolation leads to fragmented experiments, duplicated effort and inconsistent tooling. Uncoordinated initiatives create technical and organisational debt that surfaces later through integration, governance and data problems.
When AI capability sits in the shadows, leadership underestimates both progress and risk, misjudging where to invest and where gaps truly sit.
The behaviours designed to move faster can delay the shift from scattered pilots to enterprise-scale AI.
Unapproved tools and unsupervised specialists may handle sensitive client and transaction data outside sanctioned environments.
AI agents influencing credit, fraud, trading or advice decisions may lack documentation, testing and explainability, undermining model risk frameworks.
In a sector treated as high risk under regimes such as the EU AI Act, undocumented AI use can quickly become a regulatory problem.
If a shadow-hired role or tool contributes to a high-profile incident, organisations face uncomfortable questions about authorisation, oversight and accountability.
Shadow AI commentators already argue these tools can pose greater risks than traditional shadow IT because they influence decisions directly. Shadow hiring is the human vector of the same risk.
A signal, not just a breach
The opportunity is to treat shadow hiring not only as non‑compliance but as a rich source of intelligence about where demand, innovation and risk truly sit.
It shows where demand is real, where processes are broken, and where governance no longer reflects how work actually gets done.
More effective responses focus on discovery and sense-making rather than compliance hunts. That includes mapping AI-exposed roles as a proxy for shadow activity, analysing work rather than org charts, using HR as an early warning system, and applying structured AI role and risk profiling.
The choice ahead
Shadow hiring is not a glitch. It is the system telling you where your AI strategy is already happening without you.
You can double down on control, chasing shadow activity and shutting it down on discovery. Or you can treat it as a live map of unmet demand, misaligned incentives and governance that no longer fits reality.
The firms that win the AI race in financial services will not be those with the longest policies or the neatest slideware. They will be the ones that can bring shadow activity into the light quickly, using it to redesign how HR, IT, risk and the business share ownership of AI talent.
If shadow hiring is where your people are already betting their careers on a different future of work, the real question is not “How do we stop this?” but “How fast can we catch up?”
Discover where your organisation stands on the productivity curve.
Book your Morson Productivity Diagnostic and uncover the insights that drive future-ready growth.
