- The universal banker concept offers efficiencies in the branch delivery of advice and transactions, but thus far most FIs are using universal bankers for sales OR service, not both.
- Associates who have transitioned from traditional teller and banker to universal banker tend to remain in their comfort zones and lag in their development of complementary skills.
- Still, by offering branch personnel a complete view of a customer’s interactions, including those that are digital, AI-based tools accessible in the branch can help universal bankers better resolve problems and offer financial advice.
For years, banks have been wrestling with whether to deploy universal bankers to achieve the holy grail of lower branch staffing and higher sales productivity. Indeed, based on a recent survey of financial institutions, most have deployed some level of universal bankers across their networks (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Branch Staffing Models (From recent Curinos survey of FIs)
Source: Curinos Analysis
A principal factor driving the trend is the continuing downward slope of teller transactions. According to Curinos’ Distribution Analyzer, 43% of branches now process fewer than 2,000 financial transactions per month, compared with only 7% pre-pandemic (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Percent of Branches by Teller Transaction Volume
Traditional Branches – must have at least 50 transaction a month to be counted
With more and more branches pushing minimum staffing levels, the flexibility that the universal banker affords to staffing appears more important than ever. But while flexibility is crucial, what’s interesting is that FIs are using universal bankers less for sales and service than for sales or service. More than half of those surveyed position the universal banker to do one or the other, but not both, depending upon time of day or shift (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Banks’ “Choreography” of Universal Bankers
Source: Curinos Analysis
And the role of universal banker is not without its challenges, one of the most formidable of which is finding the right talent and equipping them to be successful in all aspects of the job. The breadth of processes, systems and skills that the position demands is immense. As a result, first–year attrition for universal bankers is nearly as high as for tellers despite their traditionally higher qualifications and pay scale (Figure 4).
Figure 4: First-year Associate Attrition
Source: Curinos Analysis
In addition, associates that have transitioned from traditional teller and banker to universal banker tend to remain in their comfort zones and lag in their development of complementary skills. Even banks that have hired expressly for the role have experienced the same dynamic. As one bank executive has noted, universal bankers “have the ability to do both roles but are expert in neither.” It’s hardly surprising that some financial institutions that had implemented the concept have since reverted to traditional tellers and bankers.
Still, some would argue that the universal banker model is irresistible. In an age of rapidly advancing AI, it’s entirely plausible that one individual, armed with the right sophisticated tools, will be able to do both – offer tailored advice and process transactions, especially as the number of transactions continues to wane at the branch. The question is, can it be done efficiently to scale and, if so, how quickly?
Where’s the Benefit, and Where Might it Be?
As the role of the branch continues to shift toward the provision of advice, a non-expert banker seems ill–suited, today anyway, to the needs of the customer and the objectives of the financial institution. This is not to say all universal bankers are “non-expert,” but thus far it’s clearly a challenge to ask individuals to be exceptional at the broad range of responsibilities that the position requires. More important, the acid test for deploying universal bankers has to be improved productivity, and there’s no conclusive evidence that banks are passing. In Curinos’ benchmark analysis of 15 FIs from its Distribution Analyzer, the four banks that haven’t deployed universal bankers exhibit no worse sales and service productivity than those that have (Banks D, F, I, J in Figure 5).
Figure 5: Staffing Levels by Role – Small Branches (2-4,000 Txns/Mo)
Source: Curinos Distribution Analyzer
To be sure, Curinos recognizes the benefits of staying flexible in role-setting and staffing, but we also acknowledge the challenges of effectively delivering advice and guidance to clients using a Universal model. Each financial institution needs to think about where deploying the role is most effective.
To that end, we recommend a range of branch models based on the combination of transaction volume and the opportunity for advice (Figure 6). In relatively low-volume branches with simple advice needs, the universal banker role can be effective in achieving low minimum staffing floors. But as transaction volumes increase, it’s easier to staff for dedicated tellers and bankers without impacting productivity levels. And as the need for more complex advice increases, the introduction of mass affluent and/or business specialists can complement the skills of traditional branch bankers.
Figure 6: Branch Operating Models
But because some consumers still have the expectation of transaction services in a branch, advice-only branches have experienced mixed success. Still, it’s a model that’s worth considering, especially as technology evolves and in de novo locations where the expectation for transaction services is established when the new branch is opened.
But getting the staffing model right is critical. Banks that have figured this out have realized twice the level of sales productivity as underperformers and half-again as much teller productivity (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Client Performance Impact
Performance Segment | Teller Productivity (Txns / Teller FTE / Mo) | Sales Productivity (Sales / Non-Teller FTE / Mo) | Branch Staffing Model Decisions |
Optimized Staffing Models | >1,500 | >1.3 | Uses mix of staffing models based on different branch archetypes |
Average Bank | ~1,200 | ~1.0 |
|
Underperformers | <1,000 | <0.7 |
Source: Curinos Analysis
It’s About More Than Just Staffing
In addition to thinking about where universal bankers should be deployed, financial institutions should be investing in tools to better equip them to be “experts,” both today and tomorrow. Many are using AI-based tools in their contact centers for improved problem resolution, but banks have many more customer-facing staff in branches, where AI-based tools can help both problem resolution and financial advice. Amplero CRM, for example, offers branch personnel a complete view of a customer’s interactions, including those that are digital, so branch bankers can respond and make recommendations with complete, up-to-date information on each customer. With these capabilities, financial institutions can start to close whatever experience or expertise gap that exists at the branch.
Universal bankers may be necessary to provide staffing flexibility in low-volume branches, but they’re not yet sufficiently equipped to meet the increasingly complex advice needs that customers expect when they visit a branch, however rarely. FIs need to deploy them where it makes sense, while at the same time equipping them (and other frontline staff) with the tools to make them effective in meeting the advice and servicing needs of the customer. As AI-fueled decision intelligence grows, that may well become more realistic, and more efficient. And if the recent past is any indication of the near future, it could happen sooner rather than later. Our message to banks: be prepared.
Decision & Action Takeaways
Decision to be Made | In what capacity to engage universal bankers as branches continue to face productivity issues and how to arm them with the tools they need. |
How It Affects Total Customer Value | Maximizes value that can be derived from branches as they continue to migrate from purely transactions to transactions and (mostly) advice. |
Action Recipes
|
|
Guardrails | Monitor performance for early signs of staffing attrition. |
Expected KPI Lift
| Retention of most valued customers, as measured by lifetime value, as opposed to number of transactions effected or products sold. |
Your Runbook: Click here to discuss your institution’s runbook with a Curinos expert
