CAN YOU HAVE THE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO?

CAN YOU HAVE THE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO? 

 

The answer to the question is a universal ‘NO’. But then some of us think otherwise. The higher you go, greater will be the responsibilities. Now what happens if you show little inclination to shoulder the extra responsibility? Or, for that matter, if you are incapable/unsuitable at a later stage? Nothing. It is a tragedy that precious little is done to check them. An inefficient award staff may not cause eyebrows to rise as does an inefficient supervisor. We have been tolerating mediocrity for too long.

Let us imagine a case where a less efficient person is holding a supervisory post. He will then be compelled to depend on someone who is more efficient than him to get things done. There is then every possibility of the clerk taking undue advantage of the lack of knowledge of the supervisor, often resulting in compromises being made on crucial matters. Who then is the loser? Not the clerk. Not the supervisor either, whose position is secured-thanks to the system. It is the INSTITUTION which is the real loser.

True, all those extremely efficient can not be given top posts because of limited requirement. One would be too glad if someone more efficient than him gets the nod. But then it is not always the case. The reason is simple. Once you are promoted, there is simply no system to review your suitability or otherwise. The present system affords so much protection that unless you do something extremely unholy, you stay where you are. Once you are elevated, you stay there. Surely, there ought to be a system where your efficiency (or the lack of it) is brought under microscope periodically. Whoever fails to stand the test should be demoted. This way, only the best remain at the top to run the institution. The possibility of having to face the ignominy of demotion will compel them to change their attitude. The thought that if you do not keep pace with the developments you could be pushed down will make you work hard. No longer would you be indifferent to the fast changes in Banking activity. For eg., the instances of pleading ignorance, thereby, avoiding responsibility, are common sight. It is a big shame that “pleading ignorance” is done so matter-of-factly. This attitude is cancerous and needs to be arrested immediately.

The only solution that is sure to show them their place is to review their knowledge/attitude by holding an interview. The interview may be held once in two years. The purpose of the interview should solely to gauge his/her suitability to the post that he/she is holding. It should be a continuous process so that any genuine error in judgment in one interview is rectified in the next. An inefficient supervisor may escape once. But not the second time. All those who are found unfit must be demoted. This will inject competition. A healthy one which is so necessary to keep the institution running.

So, do you still believe you can have the cake and eat it too?, NO, MILLION TIMES.