At the recent National Society of Compliance Professionals (NSCP) Conference, compliance professionals gathered to reflect on what defines credibility in an era of automation and regulatory overload. The discussions were grounded not in theory but in daily reality, emphasizing the balance between technical precision and human judgment that sustains the profession.

Participants spoke of listening, asking the right questions, and maintaining integrity when rules collide with practice. But beyond the conference halls, new research suggests that while the profession’s purpose is clear, its reward remains uncertain.

Human element

At this year’s NSCP conference, one theme stood out above all others: In an era of rapid automation and regulatory expansion, defining credibility remains a distinctly human skill.

Compliance is not merely a technical function. It is a discipline rooted in judgment, communication, and trust. 

The first lesson for those who want to become the best in the compliance field was simple yet essential: Engage with others. Introduce yourself to the person sitting nearby. Meet as many people as possible. The value of professional relationships cannot be overstated in a field where the right insight or shared experience can clarify complex issues.

Networking was described not as a formality but as a cornerstone of professional growth. The compliance profession thrives on collaboration. Understanding how peers approach similar challenges builds the perspective necessary to navigate uncertainty with confidence.

The second insight focused on curiosity and understanding. Participants were encouraged to ask operational and budget-related questions, especially when the underlying mechanics of their organizations seemed opaque.

Without that knowledge, even the most technically accurate advice may lose its credibility. Compliance is not only about interpreting regulations but also about applying them within the realities of business.

A third takeaway addressed the importance of speaking up. Professionals who express a reasoned perspective, even when it diverges from the majority view, often become trusted voices within their firms. The advice was clear: Offer your opinion, be ready to defend it, and acknowledge mistakes openly when they occur. Credibility rests on integrity rather than infallibility.

Artificial intelligence

Perhaps the most striking observation concerned technology. Artificial intelligence may process laws, identify risks, and analyze data with remarkable speed, yet it cannot gather facts, read intentions, or interpret tone.

The essence of compliance lies in understanding people as much as procedures. Sound judgment requires context, empathy, and the ability to balance competing interests, qualities that remain beyond the reach of any algorithm.

The final message from the NSCP conference was both practical and philosophical. To succeed in compliance is to balance precision with perception, policy with pragmatism, and intellect with integrity.

The best professionals do not simply enforce rules; they translate them into guidance that aligns law, ethics, and business.

Amid the growing role of technology, the conference offered a quiet reminder: The credibility of compliance still depends on the human capacity to listen, question, and connect.

Compliance expands, recognition shrinks

The reflections heard at the NSCP Conference find a sharp echo in recent data. Behind the collegial tone of panels and networking sessions lies an uncomfortable reality: Compliance professionals are being asked to do more, for less.

Bloomberg’s regulatory analysis shows that since the 2008 financial crisis, the United States has added hundreds of millions of paperwork hours to the corporate workload each year.

About 51 million of those hours stem from post-crisis rules alone, enough to occupy more than 26,000 full-time employees. For firms, the cumulative cost is staggering. For compliance officers, it is existential.

The BarkerGilmore 2025 compensation reports confirm that even as regulatory intensity increases, pay growth for compliance and in-house legal leaders has slowed markedly.

Chief compliance officer salaries rose by barely 3% this year, down from more than 5% in 2024. In-house counsel saw similar stagnation. The discrepancy between workload and reward captures the paradox of modern corporate governance: rising risk, shrinking recognition.

This imbalance also exposes a subtler shift in corporate culture. Compliance has become central to strategy, yet still operates with limited authority and resources.

The reports note that four out of five compliance leaders believe their departments are under-resourced, while fewer than half feel their perspectives are fully respected by senior management.

Structural issue

The credibility so often discussed at professional gatherings must now be defended within the very institutions it protects. The numbers hint at a structural issue.

Regulatory accumulation, measured in hours and filings, rewards those who can interpret rules but not necessarily those who understand context. The NSCP’s call to “capture the facts” rather than rely on formulas has never been more relevant.

Artificial intelligence can process the law, but only human judgment can reconcile conflicting guidance, weigh reputational risk, and assess intent.

Corporate boards appear torn between recognizing that truth and containing costs. The narrowing pay gap between chief executives and general counsel suggests a slow acknowledgment of legal importance, but the overall restraint in compensation signals hesitation.

Many firms still treat compliance as an operational expense rather than an investment in resilience.

The data also hints at fatigue. The expanding regulatory environment, compounded by ESG disclosure rules, cyber-reporting mandates, and post-crisis banking oversight, has transformed compliance into a frontline function. Yet, unlike traders or executives, compliance teams rarely receive the performance incentives tied to the stability they preserve.

This disparity raises a broader question for the future of governance: Can credibility sustain itself without commensurate support?

As the NSCP discussions made clear, the profession’s strength lies in integrity, independence, and sound judgment. But integrity is not a renewable resource; it requires institutional reinforcement.

If regulation continues to grow faster than recognition, firms risk hollowing out the very expertise that keeps them in business. The human element – listening, questioning, and connecting – cannot be replaced by software or spreadsheets. Nor can it thrive on moral purpose alone.

The Bloomberg and BarkerGilmore data reveal what the conference spirit implied: Compliance has become both the conscience and the caution of corporate America. Yet even the most principled conscience needs resources to be heard.