Rhetoric by bank sector management around "balanced scorecards" in managing frontline staff may be baloney, if an account by the Finance Sector Union on methods endemic to the sector bears up to scrutiny.
The FSU's submission to the Australian banking sector's retail remuneration review packages surveys data from members and bank records to challenge the credibility of these scorecards.
The banks say the scorecard concept "balances compliance, customer service and sales when determining the performance of an employee.
But according to the union: "The only element of the scorecard that is emphasised, usually in an aggressive manner, by a manager during a meeting is whether sales targets are being met.
"Secondly their performance is often assessed against elements that are not listed on the scorecard."
An extract of the scorecard in use at one (unidentified bank) was used by the union to show that, for assessed behaviours and performance, an employee does not need to achieve a 100 per cent rating – except when it relates to sales.
The FSU also asserted that reductions in staff numbers "undermine customer service and compliance," in a section that also suggested implications for prudential responsibilities.
The union also pointed to "inadequate and insufficient training", itself a function of staff shortages and staff freezes.