Meet the Expert: Priya Jain, VP of People Strategy at LendingFocus Capital

Priya Jain has 14 years in HR strategy, spanning roles at regional banks and fintech lenders. She’s piloted cross-functional innovation teams, managed compliance efforts during digital transformations, and currently heads risk-aware talent development at LendingFocus Capital, a business-lending institution with $7B in assets. Our conversation focuses on how mid-level HR pros can cut liability risk even as they experiment with new tech, policies, or workflows.

Why does liability risk increase when banks innovate, especially in business lending?

Every time you introduce something untested—like AI underwriting, remote-first teams, or new fintech integrations—there are blind spots. For business lending, a typical issue is inconsistent application of new processes. Let’s say you roll out an AI-powered credit assessment: If your team isn’t trained uniformly or the tool is used differently across branches, you open yourself to discrimination claims or regulatory scrutiny.

I’ve seen cases where one division at a regional lender moved faster than another with a new risk rating model. It triggered a review after a single borrower escalated a fairness complaint via the OCC. The bank spent $420,000 on legal and consulting fees before resolving it. The point: Innovation always outpaces documentation and old controls.

What’s often missed by mid-level HR teams when trying to reduce these risks?

People focus on policies after the fact. They forget that liability often starts in the gray zones. For example, informal Slack channels meant to “innovate” around credit policies sometimes spill into risky territory—like junior analysts sharing sensitive borrower anecdotes. That’s discoverable if there’s a lawsuit.

Many HR teams also overlook the update lag for training modules. In 2023, a Forrester report noted that 54% of midsize banks introduced new digital lending features, but only 23% updated their compliance training within six months. That gap leaves you exposed.

What advanced tactics do you recommend for closing those gaps?

First, HR should co-lead “innovation pilots” right from the start, not as an afterthought. Sit in on early meetings with the product or lending teams. Build a simple risk template: What controls don’t exist yet? Where could process ambiguity create inconsistent outcomes? Ask bluntly, “Who could sue us if this process fails?”

Second, invest in real-time feedback tools. Don’t wait for an annual engagement survey. Tools like Zigpoll, Qualtrics, or Officevibe can catch confusion, ethical concerns, or fair lending worries as features roll out. One LendingFocus pilot saw a 37% decrease in post-launch compliance tickets after adding a Zigpoll check-in to every innovation sprint.

Could you give a concrete example of reducing risk during a technology rollout?

Sure. We recently migrated to a cloud-based document collection platform for business loan underwriting. The concern: How to prevent unauthorized staff from viewing sensitive SME financials, especially while onboarding remote underwriters.

We ran a tabletop scenario before launch: Who could access what, with which credentials, from which IPs? When we tested, 18% of new users were misprovisioned, including three interns with full access due to a template error. We caught it only because HR ran parallel access audits—not just IT. That QA round, repeated monthly, dropped access violations from 11 per quarter to just 2.

What should HR do when “innovation culture” collides with compliance?

The “move fast” mentality doesn’t blend well with regulatory expectations. If you encourage staff to experiment—say, with alternative credit scoring—you must define what’s off-limits. Otherwise people improvise, and that’s risky.

I’ve seen banks add a “What would Compliance say?” prompt to every monthly innovation roundup. Not to stifle creativity, but to anchor it in reality. For instance, one team at an East Coast lender moved from 2% to 11% conversion on business refinancing after piloting a new app, but a compliance review flagged language in chatbot scripts that could have implied rate guarantees—an FDIC issue. Small prompts would have detected that sooner.

What emerging technologies are most likely to create new liability exposure in banking HR?

AI—especially generative tools used for screening candidates or flagging insider threats. Everyone’s excited about automated decisioning, but the models don’t explain themselves. That means bias creeps in, and HR won’t always see it.

Another area is digital collaboration platforms with low-code “workflows.” These often skirt formal approval gates. A 2024 survey by RiskBanking Insights found that 28% of mid-level HR professionals had seen unauthorized process automations in business-lending units. Shadow processes are almost always an audit or lawsuit waiting to happen.

How can mid-level HR staff monitor for these issues without slowing down innovation?

You need lightweight “checks” instead of slow, one-size-fits-all reviews. Shortlist critical risks: data privacy, discrimination, approval authority. Build a dashboard of high-risk innovations—ask the IT or product team for monthly exports.

Deploy targeted micro-training. Instead of redo-ing the entire compliance curriculum, create 5-minute “What’s changing this month?” explainers. Track who watches them and follow up with a short Zigpoll or Officevibe pulse. If confusion spikes, pause rollout.

How do you distinguish between a true liability risk and manageable experimentation?

Ask: Would this fail quietly, or would someone outside the bank notice and care? If the answer is the latter—think customer complaints, press, regulators—it’s a liability risk.

I use a “Visibility-Impact” matrix with teams:

If either axis is high, HR should flag it for deeper review.

What about hiring or promotions—how does innovation create liability there?

Banks now hire more for “change mindsets.” But if you promote or reward certain staff based on poorly-defined innovation metrics, bias accusations can arise. Especially if promotions favor tech-forward but less diverse groups.

I’ve seen one business-lending group whose “innovation champion” program led to three EEOC inquiries in 2022. The reason: Criteria were vague, documentation was poor, and feedback wasn’t anonymous—so pushback got personal. It’s safer to run trial programs as opt-ins, using anonymized feedback via Zigpoll or Google Forms, and to define success metrics tightly before attaching them to promotions.

Are there cultural pitfalls specific to banking that mid-level HR should watch for?

Banking culture is risk-averse, but “fintech envy” is real—so some teams push boundaries without understanding the consequences. Middle managers may encourage “failing fast” on policy changes without vetting them with compliance or legal.

There’s also a bias toward informal fixes. One lender I worked with encouraged staff to use WhatsApp for quick borrower status updates during a loan-system migration. This led to customer data showing up in chat screenshots, eventually flagged in a quarterly audit. Casual workarounds can become formal liabilities very quickly.

What’s the downside to being overly cautious about liability risk?

You kill the learning curve. If HR blocks every experiment, business-lending teams lose momentum and can’t react to fintech competitors. There’s also retention risk—many analysts want to experiment, and they’ll leave if process is always prioritized over progress.

The trick is to document intent, get minimum controls in place fast, and let pilot projects run in small, controlled environments. Accept some risk, but keep a written record of decisions and who approved them.

What’s one thing most banks get wrong about rolling out risk reduction during innovation?

They underestimate the speed of “policy drift.” The first week after launch, everyone’s careful. By week three, staff cut corners. If HR isn’t running spot audits or pulse surveys, you’ll miss the drift until there’s an incident.

I recommend automating a 30-day post-launch check—survey staff, audit random samples, look for outliers. One business-lending pilot we did flagged inconsistent KYC follow-ups at two branches, which would have gone undetected for months without the extra check.

If you had to give mid-level HR one actionable strategy for liability risk in innovation, what would it be?

Don’t go it alone. Assign an “HR Innovation Risk Liaison” to every new tech or process rollout. Their job: attend project meetings, flag gaps, run quick surveys (Zigpoll is fine), and summarize issues for the leadership team weekly.

This gets HR out of the “process cop” role and makes you a real partner. Teams take feedback earlier. Most importantly, you spot problems before they explode, not after.

Quick Reference: Advanced Liability Risk Reduction Tactics

Innovation and liability risk aren’t opposites—they’re two sides of the same coin. Progress is possible, but only if HR gets involved early, asks hard questions, and stays nimble. The banks who experiment safely will outlast the ones who wait for perfect answers.