Defining Professionalism: Judgement When It Matters
Celebrating 150 years: What does professionalism mean in modern banking?
As part of the Chartered Banker Institute's 150th anniversary, we invited people from across banking and financial services to consider a question that goes to the heart of our purpose: what does professionalism mean in modern banking?
Our anniversary essay competition asked entrants to define professionalism in one sentence, then defend it, exploring why their definition matters and how professionalism can be applied by individuals at every level and stage of their career.
We selected winners across three categories: non-member, Young Banker and Institute member. In the second of our three winning essays, we hear from our Young Banker category winner, bringing the perspective of someone building their career in banking today.
Winner: Young Banker category
Aimee Willgress, winner of our Young Banker category, considers professionalism as a matter of judgement rather than simply compliance. Her essay explores the importance of accountability, challenge and decision-making when the right course of action is not always clear.
The views expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Chartered Banker Institute.
Professionalism in modern banking is the disciplined habit of exercising sound judgement in the client interest and beyond, even when doing so carries personal or commercial cost.
In banking, professionalism requires not only supporting clients but doing so in a way that protects market integrity, manages risk responsibly, and upholds the public interest. The Chartered Banker Institute reinforces this by framing professionalism as a commitment to ethical conduct, integrity, and care, with explicit emphasis on accountability for the consequences of one’s actions (Chartered Banker Institute, 2018; Chartered Banker Institute, n.d.). Crucially, this moves professionalism away from performative behaviours (dress codes, formality or seniority) and roots it instead in consistent decision-making, restraint, and ownership of outcomes.
This definition matters because modern banking does not lack rules or technical expertise. However, regulatory frameworks cannot anticipate every scenario, nor can they substitute for judgement. Over time, regulation and governance frameworks have become increasingly detailed, yet conduct failures persist. This highlights a key issue: rules can define minimum standards, but they cannot replace judgement. The FCA’s work on culture makes this explicit, identifying behaviour, leadership, incentives and governance as the core drivers of outcomes. In practice, this means the quality of decisions depends less on the existence of controls, and more on how individuals interpret and apply them under pressure (FCA, 2026; FCA, 2025).
For this reason, professionalism should not be confused with compliance. Compliance sets a minimum acceptable standard where professionalism determines how individuals act beyond it. Most real-world banking decisions involve incomplete information, competing incentives and distributed ownership across teams. This creates a risk that responsibility becomes diluted, with individuals relying on process, committees or hierarchy to justify decisions. However, professionalism requires the opposite: personal ownership of judgement, even within collective structures. The Chartered Banker Code reflects this by requiring individuals not just to follow rules, but to consider the implications of their actions, challenge where necessary, and remain accountable for outcomes (Chartered Banker Institute, 2018).
This becomes most visible in what might be described as the “grey areas” of banking, where the right answer isn’t always obvious. Professionalism is not tested when the right answer is obvious. For example, whether a downside case is slightly too optimistic, whether a client narrative is insufficiently evidenced, or whether a behavioural concern is dismissed because the individual performs well commercially. These situations are rarely escalated as clear breaches, but they shape the overall quality of decision-making. Over time, repeated small compromises (selecting convenient assumptions, avoiding challenge, or remaining silent) can accumulate into more serious failures. This is why “following process” is not enough. Process can evidence a decision, but it cannot ensure that the decision itself is sound.
The FCA’s recent work on culture and non-financial misconduct reinforces this wider conception of professionalism. Its survey of over 1,000 wholesale financial services firms found rising reported incidents of non-financial misconduct between 2021 and 2023, with bullying and harassment accounting for 26% of reported incidents and discrimination 23%, indicating that professionalism now extends clearly into how colleagues are treated, how challenge is received, and whether individuals feel psychologically safe to speak up (FCA, 2024a; FCA, 2024b).
A further implication of this definition is that professionalism should be understood not only as an individual attribute, but as a system-level control that directly influences decision quality across the organisation. In practice, professionalism functions as an informal but critical layer of risk management, operating alongside formal governance frameworks. Where rules, committees and approval processes are designed to prevent known risks, professionalism addresses the unknown and unobservable. This reframing is important because it positions professionalism as something that can be observed indirectly through outcomes, such as the consistency of decision-making, the quality of downside analysis, or the willingness to surface uncomfortable risks early. It also highlights a key tension: firms often attempt to control behaviour through increasing process, yet excessive reliance on process can unintentionally weaken the very judgement professionalism depends on. As a result, the most effective institutions are not those with the most extensive controls, but those where professional judgement is actively developed - ensuring that decision-making remains robust even where formal frameworks are insufficient.
However, it is important to take this analysis one step further. Professionalism alone is not sufficient to prevent failures. There is a risk in over-relying on individual judgement if the surrounding environment does not support it. As Herzog (2019) argues, effective banking ethics requires alignment between individual responsibility and institutional structures. Where incentives reward short-term outcomes more visibly than good judgement, or where challenge is subtly discouraged, even well-intentioned individuals may struggle to act consistently. Professionalism is necessary. But it must operate within a system that reinforces, rather than undermines, sound decision-making.
The strength of this definition is that it applies across all levels of seniority, but in different forms. At junior levels, professionalism is often misunderstood as speed, responsiveness and deference. In reality, junior professionalism is shown when someone asks the awkward but necessary question, flags an inconsistency, admits when they do not understand something, or refuses to present analysis with false certainty. At mid-career level, professionalism becomes more visible in judgement calls: balancing client responsiveness against control discipline, resisting the temptation to over-simplify risk, and preserving analytical honesty when timelines tighten. At senior level, professionalism becomes stewardship. Senior individuals set the tolerance for ambiguity, the seriousness with which challenge is received, and whether accountability is embraced or dispersed. The FCA’s emphasis on leadership, governance and reward structures supports this view, because culture is transmitted most powerfully by what senior people normalise, reward and excuse (FCA, 2026; FCA, 2025).
A defining feature of banking, compared to many other professions, is that the consequences of poor judgement are often delayed and indirect. Weak assumptions, unchallenged decisions or tolerated behaviours may not generate immediate issues, but they increase the likelihood of future problems. This makes professionalism particularly important, as it acts as a control against the gradual deterioration of decision quality. It is not simply an ethical concept; it is a practical mechanism for managing risk.
Perhaps the most important feature of professionalism, however, is that it is sustained through repeated habits rather than occasional declarations. Most serious failures are not caused by one dramatic lapse; they emerge from the gradual normalisation of weak challenge, selective curiosity, tolerated behaviour and convenience-led compromise. The FCA describes culture as the habitual behaviours and mindsets that characterise an organisation, which is a useful reminder that professionalism is not something demonstrated only in training modules or values statements, but in repeated small choices made every day (FCA, 2026). The Chartered Banker Institute’s Professionalism Index adds another dimension: bankers who make a strong commitment to professional standards show higher levels of professional pride and stronger belief in the value of their work, suggesting that professionalism is most resilient when it forms part of identity rather than a narrow compliance obligation (Chartered Banker Institute, n.d.).In conclusion, professionalism in modern banking should not be defined by technical competence alone, nor by adherence to rules. It is defined by how individuals apply judgement in situations where outcomes are uncertain, incentives are uneven, and responsibility is shared. Crucially, it requires a willingness to challenge, accept accountability, and prioritise long-term outcomes over short-term convenience.
About Aimee Willgress
Aimee Willgress is a banking apprentice working in a client-facing Leveraged Finance role in London while completing the Level 6 Financial Services Professional apprenticeship and Chartered Banker qualification. She has developed experience in credit analysis and financial modelling and is also involved in early-careers initiatives supporting graduates and apprentices across the London hub. She has a particular interest in how data and structure can support greater consistency and better decision-making in banking.
Sources:
Chartered Banker Institute (2018) Chartered Banker Code of Professional Conduct. Available at: https://www.charteredbanker.com/resource_listing/knowledge-hub-listing/chartered-banker-code-of-professional-conduct.html (Accessed: 23 June 2026).
Chartered Banker Institute (n.d.) Professionalism in banking. Available at: https://www.charteredbanker.com/centre-for-responsible-banking/culture-and-conduct/professionalism-in-banking.html (Accessed: 23 June 2026).
Chartered Banker Institute (n.d.) Chartered Banker Professionalism Index. Available at: https://www.charteredbanker.com/knowledge/research/chartered-banker-professionalism-index.html (Accessed: 23 June 2026).
Financial Conduct Authority (2024a) Culture and non-financial misconduct survey – findings. Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/data/culture-non-financial-misconduct-survey-findings (Accessed: 23 June 2026).
Financial Conduct Authority (2024b) FCA publishes results of non-financial misconduct survey. Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-publishes-results-non-financial-misconduct-survey (Accessed: 23 June 2026).
Financial Conduct Authority (2025) Culture is contagious. Speech by Emily Shepperd, 4 February. Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/culture-contagious (Accessed: 23 June 2026).
Financial Conduct Authority (2026) Culture and governance. Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/culture-governance (Accessed: 23 June 2026).
Herzog, L. (2019) ‘Professional Ethics in Banking and the Logic of “Integrated Situations”: Aligning Responsibilities, Recognition, and Incentives’, Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), pp. 531–543. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3562-y.