I have written this piece inspite of some initial reservations on account of my retirement long long ago and that I may not be conversant with all subsequent developments in the Bank. I was persuaded to attempt this piece after the invitation of views from more persons by the 'Newsletter' and after I read the views of my former lovable colleague, Shri V.S.Das.
At the outset, I hold the view that the Governor, with the approval of the Central Board where ever it is necessary, should be free to introduce changes in the organisational structure of the Bank for it to be effective in the performance of its functions. Of course, as the Board itself has put, all the stake holders involved in the exercise have to be consulted, the most important of them being the staff of the Bank whose reasonable expectations in their career path should not get seriously affected. This is important since, unlike the IAS officers, who have access to practically every post in all the institutions of the country, officers of the Bank have to look mostly for their career progression with in the Bank.
After recognising the authority of the Governor to make changes, it has to be said that it is unfortunate that the Board has blessed the proposals of one more Deputy Governor and two more Executive Directors in the Bank apart from other changes the details of which are not known. It may not serve any real purpose to offer views on this matter since this seems to be a fait accompli. Nevertheless, it is difficult to resist the temptation of expressing views on the subject for whatever they are worth. RBI had only three Deputy Governors for a long time. If my memory serves me right, the fourth Deputy Governor was mainly to function as the full time Chairman of NABARD apart from handling, say, just one or two departments of the Bank. A full time Chairman ( who is not a Deputy Governor ) has been in charge of NABARD for a long time and hence the Bank should be able to manage with only three Deputy Governors. Like wise, additional posts of Executive Director are unnecessary since already there are too many of them (most of them perhaps function as in charges of two departments if not as head of a single department) and there is a case for reduction in their number. Posts of Executive Director, Principal Chief General Manager etc should not be created just for the sake of providing promotional opportunities. These posts would lose their charm if they are too many. Apart from these posts losing charm, so many posts at the level of Executive Director and the Deputy Governor would not be really necessary if only we look at the papers which are being pushed up to and seen by them. Over the years (even when I was in service), papers got pushed to higher and higher levels and the delegation of authority suffered seriously. Officers at various levels have to be encouraged (even compelled) to take decisions at their level (of course in accordance with rules relating to delegation of powers and authority which has to be periodically reviewed and revised). Managerial competence and confidence in their judgement would develop in the officers only when they learn to take decisions. When one of the Deputy Governors during my service casually mentioned to me of heavy work load at his desk, I had politely told him that if he permits me I would look at the papers sent to him and mark them with different colours to indicate which should not have been sent to him,which are in a grey area and which have been rightfully sent to him and that he may have take a view. It is needless to add that he was not inclined to add to my workload !
In order that officers of the Bank have promotional opportunities, Governor should explore the possibility of officers of RBI at levels from 'Chief General Manager' onwards, being accommodated, by way of deputation initially, in various institutions in the country and there is scope for such a move. The need for lateral induction in the RBI of officers at senior levels could be substantially eliminated if only the Bank take care not to destroy the specialisation of officers in certain areas in the name of 'combined seniority' and giving effect to it in a manner which is not worthy of an institution like the central bank of the country. The expertise of officers in various areas whose performance is outstanding and who have great potential could further be augmented by allowing them to remain in that area and through suitable training in India and abroad.
While talking on Human Resource practices, Shri Das has indirectly hinted (at least, I think so ) that certain recent moves in the Bank had to be relooked. Human Relations Management Department should have high credibility before its policies find acceptance by the staff of the Bank. The policies in various areas such as posting, promotion, transfer, training in India and abroad, Performance Appraisal (including moderation of reports at the HRM department in the central office) have to be spelt out and should be known to every one so that there is no scope for favouritism and there is cooperation from the staff to the implementation of the HR policies. Frequent changes in the rules relating to rotation and placement of officers in various departments, eligibility criteria for promotion etc had caused havoc in the past and if I read Shri Das's views carefully, the position seems to have only further worsened. I may conclude with one more observation. In the context of recent suspension and arrest of a Chairman of a public sector bank, it was mentioned that eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Chairman/ Executive Director got changed frequently. This had happened in the RBI also for appointment to the post of Executive Director in the RBI which naturally helped some persons and adversely affected some others.
- A.Chandramouliswaran
