I have been working in a public
sector bank for more than 5 quarters now and have been impressed by the way the
bank conducts its operations- be it retail, compliance or HR.
Of course, compliance works
effectively because banking is so highly regulated, RBI guidelines are sacrosanct.
Our bank takes care of business by
launching various incentive based campaigns for employees and by being
absolutely focused on customer service.
What stands out the most in a
public sector unit is the thoroughness of its HR policy and the way the HR team
functions. HR in a PSU somehow defies all the generic stereotypical opinions
about this indispensable function.
Staring with recruitment, what is
the general reaction by operations if a recently hired employee doesn’t perform
upto the standards? Generally, it is “HR did not send us good CVs”, “HR was the
one to hire this person who turned out to be like this”, “We do not believe in
central recruitment”, “HR has all the power, we don’t have any say in
recruitment decisions”. On the contrary,
there are no such reactions in the case of the biggest recruitment drive of the
country. SBI received a humongous 17 lac candidate applications for PO 2013
exam. Such hugeness and organisation in conduct of exam and interviews for the
purpose of recruitment for a job is unparalleled. The central recruitment cell of
the bank does all that needs to be done by them. Their role is well defined.
The screening is national level, completely transparent and performance
standards clearly defined leaving little room for blame game. The management has its own ways of dealing
with non-performers and of course there is a feedback for the screening
process, but there is no apathy towards the recruitment team.
One of the reasons of thoroughness
in the organizational structure in PSUs is that HR manuals are not a copy paste
work by some fancy HR consultancies; rather they are based on traditional
management principles. Any deviations from the laid down HR policies are to be
approved by senior management. Does it
sound bureaucratic? Maybe. Does it affect efficiency? I don’t think so. When
staff welfare policies are in place, management takes quick decisions and
business is driven by incentive schemes, employees remain motivated and keep bringing
in more business. Again, the staff welfare policies that play a big role in employee
retention in our bank, are very well defined in our HR manual.
When we talk about training, we
think “oh a break and free food in a swanky hotel !” That’s not what training
is about in a bank. When training is about fake currency detection, loans
processing and knowing what kind of frauds take place in banking and what to do
to avoid them, it is seen as absolutely essential to the functioning of the
business, for the staff to carry on with their work and not as a ‘timepass’.
Unlike in some other industries, there
is no need to stress on the fact that people are assets. Business per employee
is a common performance parameter in banks and is in millions for the industry.
There is no debate on HR being seen as a cost centre, just like any other
department it does its work, there is no hoopla around what it does and how
efficiently it does it, the HR staff doesn’t have to constantly defend itself
and give justification for its existence in the organization.
I could go on about the role of
HR in transfers, our very well implemented HRMS etc., but lets just keep it
short and hope to learn more from HR implementation in PSUs, especially banks !
