My wife and I were very impressed with a touring Broadway musical we recently attended. Several performers stood out, but we agreed that one young man gave a star performance. He stole (in a good way) every scene he was in.
On the drive home, my wife decided to look up his bio in the playbill to see what he has appeared in before. After a minute or so, she realized that the person who had just given the most impressive performance of the day was, in fact, an understudy for that role. I smiled hearing that, as it supported something I've told friends for years.
When you see an established production, don't be upset if you learn there will be understudies (or "swing performers") that day. You are almost always going to see exceptional performances as these folks get the opportunity to make their marks.
Sure, some might think that if they were that capable, they wouldn't be understudies. But anyone who knows that world knows that everyone on the stage and in the wings is immensely talented.
In fact, some of the most talented performers are found in swing roles. These are people who learn the lines, blocking and choreography of several different roles. They must be ready to step in — at a moment's notice if needed — without missing a beat.
While managing and developing banking teams may not involve orchestras or quite as much blocking and choreography, the concept of developing and motivating talented understudies and "swing performers" is wise.
I didn't know that term in my first bank management role almost thirty years ago, but I was well aware of the benefit of swing performers. Of course, in our in-store banking world we called them "universal bankers."
While that job description has become part of the common banking vernacular since then, it was resisted by many bank leaders at that time. They believed that people in tightly defined roles with a limited set of tasks were more likely to become competent and efficient in those roles.
It's hard to argue that logic in certain contexts. If your focus was purely on operational efficiency, limited tasks gave folks fewer things to have to master.
However, if your goals were more focused on business growth and employee development, expanding banker skill sets and experiences was key. The fact that in-store branches typically operated with far fewer personnel than standalone branches made banker flexibility even more critical to operational success.
You couldn't purport to be a "full-service branch" and then ask customers to come back later once your "new accounts person" or loan officer returned.
The instant-payments rail, which was set to go live this month, has postponed its launch indefinitely. Experts say it's having trouble keeping the interest of the country's major banks.
A banker standing in the teller line one minute might find themselves assisting a customer with a new account opening or walking them through a loan application the next.
The interesting thing was that over time it became noticeable that in-store bankers were some of the best prepared to be promoted to higher positions within their banks (or recruited by another.)
In fact, one of the most common challenges of in-store branches has always been turnover caused by the internal headhunting of their bankers.
The organizations benefit from the in-store branches' talent development. The in-stores, however, are perpetually dealing with replacing good employees they trained and developed.
The value of continually preparing bankers for future roles within an organization is as high today as it has ever been. It's been my experience that organizations with similar turnover rates seem to be impacted differently by them.
Some seem to be perpetually having to find outside talent for key roles while others have a "deeper bench," so to speak. That said, a deep bench isn't built simply by hiring good people. It is built by purposefully preparing team members for bigger roles and future opportunities.
Oddly enough, some leaders appear to believe that conspicuously preparing employees for future jobs takes their focus away from their current ones. I've found just the opposite to be true. When folks see that their employer is as interested in their future as their current job, engagement levels in their current positions rise.
Through the years, I've asked leaders to think of the list of folks on their team whose departure tomorrow would be most disrupting to their business. I then ask if their lines of communication with those folks are as open and strong as possible. Most believe they are.
I then ask them to consider whether they've developed others to fill those vital roles if necessary. Are they actively and deliberately building their bench? How prepared are their folks in the wings to take on larger roles? Most aren't as sure about that.
Successful, long-running productions depend not just on the folks in the spotlight now, but also on the talent prepared to step up when opportunities arise.
