Early careers programs in 2026: Using a glocal model
About the Author
Ruairi O’Donnellan is the Head of Marketing at Intuition. Intuition is your end-to-end strategic learning partner, helping you identify, design, and deliver the knowledge and skills your teams need to succeed. The perspectives in this article are informed by discussions with Intuition colleagues who work closely with risk teams across global financial institutions, as well as by ongoing delivery of risk capability and problem-solving programs.
***
Why 2026 demands a different structure
If you step back and look at the landscape in 2026, what becomes immediately obvious is that the workforce is more distributed than ever, and yet, at the very same time, more connected than it has ever been.
Financial institutions operate across multiple regions, often across multiple continents, and within those offices they are bringing in early careers professionals with the intention of integrating them quickly, developing them properly, and making them part of the long-term fabric of the organization.
And yet, alongside that expansion, complexity has intensified.
Cohorts entering in New York, London, Singapore, or Hong Kong may sit under the same global brand and governance structure, but they are operating within very different regulatory regimes, very different market structures, and very different cultural contexts. So what that means in practice is that early careers professionals need two things at once. They need a shared global understanding of how their institution works, how capital flows through it, how risk is framed, how governance is applied, and at the same time, they need to understand the nuances of the environment they actually sit in.
Add to that the reality that travel budgets are tighter, classroom centralization is harder to justify, and scrutiny around return on investment is higher than it has ever been, and suddenly the traditional model of early careers delivery starts to look stretched. Programs are now expected not only to inspire and educate, but to demonstrate measurable consistency and impact across regions, which is a very different expectation from even five years ago.
And then, of course, there is AI. Information is everywhere. Explanations are instant. But what institutions are now realizing is that access to information is not the differentiator, judgment is. Governance is. Ethical consistency is. So when you look at all of this together, global dispersion, regulatory variation, cost pressure, AI abundance, cross-border collaboration, you begin to see that early careers development in 2026 cannot rely on legacy structures that were designed for a different era.
It needs to be deliberately constructed.
***
Other articles in this series:
- The first 90 days in finance: Where early career momentum is built
- How to preboard finance graduates with Know-How
- The anatomy of a successful early careers finance program
***
Table of contents
Global consistency as the foundation
At the heart of any global early careers program, there has to be a consistent foundation. Without it, everything else begins to drift.
Professionals entering a global institution must develop a shared understanding of the core mechanics of finance, how capital is allocated, how liquidity is managed, how balance sheets function, how risk is categorized and escalated, and how compliance is embedded into day-to-day decision-making. These are not regional concepts. They are systemic concepts, and if they are not understood coherently across offices, collaboration inevitably weakens.
And what also tends to happen, almost quietly at first, is that variability creeps in. Not because talent differs, but because exposure differs. One region might emphasize certain fundamentals early, another might assume prior knowledge, another might focus heavily on regulatory onboarding but lightly on capital mechanics. Over time, those differences compound. It’s a very simple problem to fix, but can have very real consequences if left unattended.
Now take into account that senior leaders do not operate with regional caveats. They expect a uniform standard of thinking, analysis, and professionalism across the organization, and that expectation can only be met if early careers development establishes a consistent global backbone from the outset.
Regulatory complexity cannot be an afterthought
Of course, consistency does not mean ignoring difference, particularly when it comes to regulation.
Regulatory regimes differ significantly across regions, and that difference is not cosmetic. The regulatory landscape in the United States is not identical to that of the United Kingdom or the European Union, and neither is interchangeable with Asia-Pacific jurisdictions. Capital requirements vary, reporting expectations shift, supervisory cultures differ, enforcement styles are framed differently, and compliance interpretations can carry distinct emphases.
So what early careers professionals are navigating, whether they fully realize it or not, is a dual obligation. They must understand the global standards of their institution, the risk philosophy, the governance principles, the compliance expectations that apply everywhere, and they must also understand the specific regulatory environment in which they are operating day to day.
If learning remains purely global, without regional application, it risks becoming abstract. If it becomes overly localized, without reference to shared institutional principles, it risks fragmenting coherence. The balance matters.
Embedding regulatory nuance early ensures that professionals are not just memorizing frameworks, but internalizing how those frameworks operate within their own jurisdiction, which in turn strengthens confidence and reduces ambiguity when real decisions have to be made.
Market structure shapes lived experience
And, as important as regulation is, it is not the only differentiator.
Market structure itself varies in ways that materially affect how early careers professionals develop. The depth and maturity of capital markets are not uniform across the world. In some regions, professionals may be exposed early to highly structured transactions, complex derivatives, and sophisticated institutional clients. In others, the dominant experience may centre around lending portfolios, advisory relationships, or wealth management frameworks.
Product distribution models differ. Funding environments differ. Asset class exposure differs. Even the strategic conversation at a regional level can differ; one office may be operating in growth mode, another may be navigating capital constraint or regulatory tightening.
For example, a graduate in one geography might find themselves immersed in counterparty credit exposure from week one, discussing structured instruments and collateral management, while a peer elsewhere might be primarily concerned with balance sheet dynamics and client advisory conversations. The underlying principles are shared, but the daily application looks very different.
If early careers programs ignore these contextual realities, learning can begin to feel disconnected from lived experience. Professionals may understand a concept in principle, yet struggle to see how it manifests in their own environment. So while global consistency remains essential, contextual layering is what makes that consistency meaningful.
The glocal model as structural resolution
When you step back and look at all of this together, the tension becomes clear. Global standards must be protected. Local nuance must be respected. Lean too far in either direction and something will break.
This is where the glocal model stops being a buzzword and starts becoming a structural necessity.
A glocal approach begins with a clearly defined global backbone, shared financial fundamentals, consistent governance expectations, a common institutional language that applies across offices. That backbone ensures that professionals, regardless of geography, are thinking from the same conceptual starting point.
But that backbone is not delivered in isolation. It is interpreted locally. Regulatory nuance is layered in, market-specific examples are introduced, case material reflects the environment in which participants are actually working. Faculty who understand the local operating landscape contextualize global standards without altering them.
So what you end up with is a structure that is globally coherent but locally resonant. The standards travel. The application adapts.
Architecture matters more than philosophy
Of course, it is one thing to describe this in theory but actually implementing it at scale requires architecture.
At the centre of that architecture sits a digital knowledge backbone, something that can be deployed globally and consistently, establishing a shared baseline across dispersed cohorts. A structured platform such as Intuition Know-How provides coverage across financial fundamentals, governance frameworks, emerging industry developments, and region-specific regulatory requirements, and because it is written by experienced finance practitioners, it reflects operational reality rather than abstract theory.
But digital infrastructure alone does not build fluency, particularly in early careers programs where interaction, challenge, and applied thinking are critical.
This is where the workshop layer comes in. A true glocal model combines scalable digital consistency with locally delivered, instructor-led sessions. Faculty positioned near major financial hubs, who understand local regulatory expectations, market dynamics, and cultural norms, bring context and immediacy to global standards. And because those instructors are regionally based, rather than flown in from centralized locations, travel dependency reduces (and cost), flexibility increases, and operational resilience strengthens.
What this layered structure ultimately enables is coherence without rigidity, and relevance without fragmentation.
Why this model is becoming the standard
When each of the pressures shaping early careers programs in 2026 is viewed independently, it is easy to assume that incremental adjustments will suffice. Yet when those pressures are experienced simultaneously across multiple regions, the limitations of traditional models quickly become apparent.
Early careers leaders are now responsible for building cohorts that must share a common institutional language, a consistent understanding of capital and risk, and a unified governance mindset, all while operating within distinct regulatory and market environments. That is not a marginal shift. It is structural.
The glocal model provides a way of meeting that structural shift deliberately. It protects global standards through a consistent knowledge backbone, often supported by scalable digital infrastructure, and it reinforces local relevance through regionally delivered expertise and contextual application.
And perhaps most importantly, it recognizes that the first months of a professional’s career shape how they think, how they escalate, how they interpret risk, how they collaborate across borders. If that foundation is uneven, alignment weakens over time. If it lacks context, engagement suffers.
In a world defined by cross-border collaboration and evolving regulatory scrutiny, the ability to scale consistently while remaining locally grounded is no longer optional. It is simply how early careers programs need to be designed.
Key takeaways
- In 2026, early careers programs are operating within a structurally different environment, defined by global dispersion, regulatory variation, tighter budgets, AI-driven information abundance, and higher scrutiny on measurable outcomes.
- Global consistency is not a preference, it is a prerequisite. Foundational concepts such as capital, liquidity, risk, and compliance must be understood coherently across offices if collaboration and performance are to scale.
- Regulatory nuance cannot be layered in as an afterthought. Early careers professionals must understand both the global governance standards of their institution and the specific regulatory framework in which they operate.
- Market structure and business context shape lived professional experience. Capital markets depth, product exposure, funding environments, and strategic priorities differ across regions, and early careers development must reflect that reality.
- The tension between global standards and local relevance is structural, not temporary. Lean too far toward uniformity and learning becomes abstract. Lean too far toward localization and coherence fragments.
- The glocal model resolves this tension by establishing a shared global backbone while embedding local regulatory, market, and cultural context into delivery.
- Digital infrastructure provides scalable global consistency, but workshops and locally positioned faculty ensure contextual application, interaction, and practical fluency.
- The first months of a professional’s development shape long-term judgment, risk interpretation, and collaboration patterns. Consistency and contextual relevance at this stage have a compounding impact over time.
Intuition launches new retail credit and AI tutorials in Know-How
Frequently asked questions
