An interesting situation has arisen at UK bank The Royal Bank of Scotland. A letter obtained by union Amicus appears to say that staff salaries must be paid into an account owned by the banking group. If this does not occur, it is ‘a breach of group policy’.
RBS claims that this is industry-wide policy and part of an overall reward package for staff; the bank also says that employees are free to open other accounts with different banks for other purposes. It apparently explains the situation to employees at interview, according to the BBC.
But the union says that it has been contacted by staff unhappy with the policy, who believe that it is their own personal business where they bank and not a matter for employers (despite the employer being a bank itself).
So what do you think? Internal branding rules tell us that you want your employees to ‘live the brand’ by using your company’s services. It does the brand no good if even the internal audience is not buying into the services on offer – how can they effectively convince an external audience if they don’t believe it themselves?
But should you require employees to do this? Or does that move too far into people’s own personal space? How much should people reflect their employer brand?
Perhaps RBS should take time to sit down with employees that don’t have their accounts with the company and convince them that the brand is right for them. If the company is able to make an impact on the internal audience, surely this could only be good for the external brand too. Employees who feel valued and have switched because of the brand’s good deals are likely to be more motivated and invest more in their work.
What do you think? Let us know your views….
