To the Editor:
Jamie Dimon's recent criticism of branch staffing models and the role of centralized help for branch managers is likely to be counterproductive if taken at face value.
In a presentation at the Bank Administration Institute's retail delivery show, the Bank One CEO quite properly emphasized that branch managers should be able to make their own decisions. But he pushed the point too far when he insisted that corporate types hundreds or thousands of miles away are in no position to help them manage and schedule their staffs.
It was a classic argument against centralization. But decentralization is not an answer for all problems, especially when it comes to leveraging the power of a distribution network.
Central teams should do what they are good at. They can help branch managers by quantifying expected workloads and delivering data and tools to help them handle it.
Branch and market managers can make good use of demand forecasts, modifying them if necessary, to match up local resources to demand.
Like call centers, branches having predictable transaction volumes. But branches have nowhere near the same opportunity to realize economies of scale; more than 80% of North American bank branches are staffed with 10 or fewer people.
That means an entirely different set of challenges in trying to maximize service and sales productivity. And that is where time-management programs like my company's come into play.
Managers need to be skilled at real-time management of lobby traffic and lobby operations - how to prioritize issues, when to send employees out for breaks, how to handle unforeseen absences or illnesses or unexpected volumes. To achieve their cost and service goals, they should be trained in time management practices and the use of staffing and scheduling tools.
Such programs could be counterproductive if implemented in a Big Brother fashion. Properly deployed, they can help managers deliver great results.
