Recently, I was in Mumbai and interacted with a cross-section of top executives of public sector banks, including State Bank of India, to carry out an informal study on how bank managements are planning to counter the post-VRS situation. It was obvious from the feedback that I received that little planning had been done either in terms of meeting staff requirements of branches or fulfiling the expectations of customers in the aftermath of VRS implementation. Corporation Bank was the only exception because of the sane stand taken against VRS by its chairman and managing director. This is an eloquent testimony to Corporation Bank's independent organisational thinking and professionalism in dealing with matters that have a direct bearing on operational efficiency and customer service.

My interaction with the SBI chairman, Janki Ballabh, and the MD, Y Radhakrishnan, was quite significant in the context of SBI's special status in the banking industry. Mr Janki Ballabh's heart is in the right place. He has identified the problem areas rather quickly and has gone about doing various things to keep staff morale high, which is so very vital in an organisation of SBI's size. However, there are certain things which are easier postulated but difficult to implement or operationalise. It would be interesting to examine what these are in the context of SBI's post-Mckinsey organisational structure.

The Mckinsey recommended structure has greatly diluted the role of SBI's managing directors in that they cannot function or act organisationally in their perceived role as operational heads. The separate institution of MD, is specially created for SBI by the government in view of its size. The Mckinsey structure, however, puts these MDs in charge of independent business networks-one in charge of corporate banking network and the other in charge of the retail banking network. The MDs are therefore, constrained to discharge the role as bank's operational heads, for obvious reasons. As a consequence, the chairman is handicapped in pushing through his agendas or the bank's policies across the organisation in a unified manner.

SBI is a divided house today, with the two networks operating under the respective MDs. Equitable distribution of manpower between the two networks has become a bone of contention. While the corporate banking network with fewer branches and high value corporate clients manages to corner the best available talent, the retail banking network with a larger number of branches handling voluminous personal and general banking transactions as well as government transactions, is not given the manpower support that it deserves. There is a virtual tug of war between the two networks in getting manpower support. Operators and the controllers in the retail network have no idea of what is in store for them once the VRS optees are relieved, as majority of them belong to this network. This is a direct fallout of SBI management's last-minute decision to relieve only officers above the age of 55.

The time is opportune for the SBI management to have a re-look at the institution of MD in the context of the severe erosion of their role responsibility and functionality. The two networks can as well be headed by senior deputy managing directors instead of by the MDs, as at present. This suggestion is, however, no reflection on the capabilities of the present MDs, who are otherwise competent enough.

The point that is sought to be driven home is about the damage that the Mckinsey organisational structure has caused to the SBI. The organisational divide is there for all to see, and will become even more pronounced as and when VRS is implemented. Mr Janki Ballabh will have to muster more than ordinary courage to take a fresh look at the organisational structure for possible review. Good luck to him.

(The writer is ex-senior executive of the State Bank of India and anAhmedabad-based management consultant)