There cannot be two views on the need to revamp the organisational structure and restore the pride of the RBI by redefining its role in the context of changes in the financial sector during the last couple of decades. Such a revamp is overdue in all public sector organisations and government. But the manner in which proposals are being made and the inept handling of the whole issue makes one wonder whether an organisation which had received appreciation at the international level for its appropriate management of monetary policy and other role expectations is finding itself in the lurch when it comes to managing its own house. Raghuram Rajan is a fast learner and the willingness expressed by him to negotiate the HR issues with representatives of staff and renegotiate top level changes where legislative amendments are necessary with the Government are indicative of his open mind. To an outsider, media reports give the that Rajan initially addressed internal issues like the CEO of a startup company. The RBI has a glorious past and a team that can handle its mandated role efficiently. The regrouping of departments or coordination of the deputy governors should not become street discussions.
The very purpose of VITALINFO is to provide a platform for wider dissemination of updated information related to and happening of events in and around RBI.
1 comment:
This is not the first time that the re-organisation of RBI is being attempted. Though I do not recall the ealier re-organisations being so much under the public glare, but RBI being a highly respected and prominent national institution, it is understandable that this time the subject has engaged wide attention.
Is it necessary to re-organise the Bank? What are the compelling reasons? A few weeks ago the Governor had said with respect to the FSLRC report: : "If it aint broke, don't fix it. "
I am sure the Committees headed by the Executive Directors would have gone in depth into the need for organisational reform and advised the Governor suitably.
I only want to say that when it comes to HR there is need to tread carefully and with a certain degree of sensitivity. For people serving the RBI, it is, after all, a career and life-long commitment and not just a job, as it is for an IAS officer or in the armed forces. There are professional aspirations, pride in the institution which has been serving the nation admirably. Unless HR is handled with due sensitivity it could vitiate the traditionally congenial organisational the camaraderie among officers and staff, climate and culture that the RBI has nurtured for decades. I am told things are changing rapidly, and, unfortunately, not necessarily for the better.
I am aware that in the past there has been occasional tinkering with HR policies, creation of new structures, posts, positions. Some of these decisions may not have been altogether objective and in the organisation's interests. They can be re-visited and the damage undone. I do believe that the decision to have automatic promotions from one grade to another will not stand the organisation in good stead. It might already have created a whole lot of organisational problems. I am also of the view that progressively adding to the strength of EDs diminishes the importance of the position and is not even called for going by the workload. It is also absurd that the RBI should have so many Principal Chief General Managers when there used to be only one - the senior-most Grade F. Is there no better way of providing job delight and professional progress other than promotions and change of designations?
I think what is very necessary in a monolithic institution like the RBI is constant review and fine tuning of our complicated systems and work processes. I am rather dismayed that there is no department or unit in the any of the five proposed clusters to address this important task. Many years ago we had a Management Services Department (MSD) to perform this role, to objectively and periodically evaluate and rationalise our systems and procedures. What a pity that the department, staffed by experienced and trained officers in various functional areas of the Bank was abruptly dismantled, unfortunately for wrong reasons - for censuring faulty systems and making constructive suggestions. Can we think of reviving it? Otherwise, let every department have a Systems and Procedures Wing reporting directly to the CGM-in-Charge. It can be monitored by the concerned EDs.
Times have changed and the Bank is perenially in the public domain, almost every day. Therefore, Mr. Warriar, it is not such a bad thing, after all, to have all the stake holders, including the public, on board. I believe this would faciltate greater transparency and objectivity in how we would like to take our institution forward.
I wish the RBI all the very best in their endeavour to make the organisation more efficient and professional.
V.S. Das
Former Executive Director
Post a Comment