Banks as Instruments, Bankers as Shock Absorbers, Everyone Bears the Hidden Cost

The recent tragic death of a chief manager in a large public sector bank, reportedly linked to severe work pressure, should not be dismissed as just another headline.  In a nation of 1.4 billion, there is always the risk that such human tragedies are seen as statistical footnotes to a larger growth story. 

Yet it is precisely this human cost, often unseen and uncounted, that forces us to ask what kind of system quietly drives those who keep it running to such despair. It is not numbers alone that demand scrutiny, but the culture that makes such loss possible.

In the hierarchy of power that runs from government to banks to citizens, everyone becomes both victim and enforcer of someone else’s urgency. The state sets targets shaped by policy and politics. Bureaucrats translate them into directives. Bank leadership and middle managers convert them into dashboards and campaigns. Branch heads push teams to deliver, often against practical odds. And citizens at the end feel the push to borrow, spend or sign up for financial products, sometimes beyond their need or means. Pressure flows downward, compliance flows upward, and urgency intensifies at every layer.

The pressure we see today did not emerge overnight. Over decades, public sector banks evolved from instruments of national development and social justice into institutions expected to be commercially competitive, socially responsive and politically accountable. Liberalisation widened their mandate. Digital transformation accelerated it. Yet the people carrying these mandates often remain the same in number, using the same branch infrastructure, and sometimes even fewer staff.

Urgency Without Alignment

Banks by design are meant to be agents of social engineering, opening millions of accounts, funding priority sectors and reaching areas untouched by commercial banking. Yet they are also capitalist institutions that must stay profitable. Nowhere is this tension sharper than in public sector banks, where the government acts as both shareholder and promoter, defining direction and driving politically-sensitive campaigns. Yet the culture of such large organisations cannot be reshaped in the brief tenures that most MDs have. Pressure quietly builds, and boards, often constrained by the weight of overwhelming state ownership, may not always have the gumption to demand deeper culture change. After all, few wish to be seen as telling the state uncomfortable truths about its own institutions.

Working for a state-owned bank once meant a secure job, predictable hours and steady if modest pay. That assurance has quietly faded. Today’s banker faces rising targets, dashboards that refresh by the hour, and a culture where performance means business above all else. The line between public and private sector banking cultures has blurred, shaped by competition and policy urgency. Staff shortages stretch teams thinner. And while some banks have started mental health programmes, many employees still speak of relentless stress that leaves little time for family or rest.

And yet, the pull of these jobs among the youth remains strong. Is it because broader opportunities remain limited despite official figures? Or is it the hope of a career where dismissal is rare, offering a security few other sectors now promise? Perhaps it is simply that demand for public sector roles still outpaces supply. Whatever the reason, the prestige attached to these jobs persists, even as daily reality drifts further from perception.

The officers’ federation letter notes that branch heads can spend nearly 40% of their time fielding calls from regional offices, leaving limited space for the needed banking activities. At the same time, up to 22 campaigns may run in parallel, each tied to broader policy goals, yet together stretching capacity thin. What should be exceptional, late-night calls, daily targets, and pressure to push out loans, has quietly become routine.

The Hidden Costs 

Yet the hidden cost of this pressure is not borne by bankers alone. Consumers feel its weight when service quality declines, grievances remain unresolved, or credit assessments become mechanical. Targets meant to deepen inclusion can end up creating superficial inclusion — accounts opened but left dormant, or loans sanctioned without enough diligence, risking defaults later. Only last year, one large public sector bank faced scrutiny for allegedly opening thousands of fake accounts to inflate digital penetration numbers. Had this happened at a major private bank, public and regulatory response might have been sharper. The issue is less about ownership than about the culture of relentless targets that can push caution aside.

For regulators and the broader system, the risk is deeper though less visible. Pressure to show volume can mask asset quality issues, distort reporting and lead to short-term strategies that seem sound until stress surfaces. Over time, this can weaken balance sheets, complicate supervision and erode trust in institutions meant to serve the public. The Reserve Bank of India, while independent within democratic norms, has acted quickly when risks appear, even if that means asking the government itself to intervene. Yet governance issues unique to public sector banks remain. Board and committee seats sometimes stay vacant for months, an anomaly in a country of over 1.4 billion. Why this persists remains unanswered.

And there is another stakeholder often forgotten: the taxpayer. Every rupee that shores up a strained balance sheet comes from public funds. While much of the NPA burden has been addressed in recent years, the harder task, shifting culture so new slippages do not arise, remains. When lending becomes imprudent under pressure, it is taxpayers who ultimately bear the cost. Cultural reform and governance are not only HR questions. They go to the heart of public accountability.

Rethinking governance, trust and leadership

The sovereign does not act out of malice. It must balance electoral promises, social equity, fiscal returns and systemic stability. Independent directors must weigh long-term prudence against policy urgency. Bureaucrats shaping banking policy face pressure to show outcomes. These trade-offs happen not in theory but in meetings week after week. It is also fair to expect government nominees on bank boards to engage deeply, bringing knowledge and time, not just signing minutes. Many inside will quietly share stories that this ideal is not always met.

Public sector banks remain governed differently from private ones. The state is both owner and policymaker. It appoints bank chiefs, key directors and even the leadership of the regulator. This concentration of power makes the expectation of fairness and transparency not rhetorical but reasonable. Because in these banks, the boundary between policy, ownership and supervision is deliberately thin. Balanced and open governance becomes all the more critical.

Boards and regulators too must look beyond capital ratios and quarterly numbers. They need to ask if current frameworks reward short-term volume over long-term resilience. Human capital and mental well-being should be real topics in boardrooms, not just part of HR reports. What boards choose to measure and question shapes institutional culture far more than what managers alone can change.

Banks are meant to be professional institutions built on rigour and empathy. Yet too often, HR works like an administrative back office, processing paperwork rather than guiding culture. What is missing is a people-led vision that helps staff manage pressure and sees them as an asset, not a cost. Dashboards alone cannot shift culture. That must come from leadership and be sustained every day by middle management.

It is worth asking whether a culture built on constant urgency truly serves the larger purpose. Modern banking should rely on data, alignment and empowerment, not faster emails and dashboards that punish more than guide. Resilience cannot rest on fear alone. This is not about lowering ambition, but about sequencing it carefully and trusting managers to use judgment.

India’s banking ambitions, increasing MSME credit, deepening digital banking and reaching further into rural markets, cannot rest on exhausted branch staff. Technology and policy should support them, not overwhelm them. Real change will come when the system trusts managers to decide what matters each day, rather than treating them as execution arms for every new campaign.

Even those at the top — MDs, chairpersons, senior banking staff and bureaucrats incharge — face pressure of their own. They answer to committees, auditors, political leadership and the media. Missed targets can cost careers. Everyone carries urgency and passes it on.

A resilient financial system is not built on dashboards and targets alone. Its real strength lies in the people whose trust and dignity quietly uphold every number reported upwards. That is the sovereign’s challenge: to be a capitalist shareholder seeking returns, a social catalyst guiding public sector banks, and an employer who protects dignity and fair reward. This balance is not new, but it is now urgent.