Organizational structure that supports collaboration between the risk management and quality management departments.
Organizations have tried several different approaches for creating an organizational structure that supports collaboration between the risk management and quality management departments. Which structure do you think would be most effective? Should the departments be combined? Should each department have a manager that reports to the same director? Is there a better alternative? Be sure to explain your answer.
Sample Solution
I believe the most effective organizational structure for supporting collaboration between these two departments would be to have a dedicated director overseeing both of them, with each department having its own manager that reports to the director. This approach maintains a clear chain of command and allows for greater accountability within each department, while at the same time allowing for direct communication between those in charge of risk management and those responsible for quality management. Additionally, this setup encourages collaboration by creating an environment where ideas can be more easily exchanged and preferences respected without feeling as though one party is overstepping their bounds or undermining authority.
Excessive competition from deregulation and universal banking practices can engender insolvency and instability of the industry as banks fall prey to moral hazard, information asymmetry and pursue riskier strategies to mobilise more deposits. World Bank (2014) indicated that with GDP of USD 38.62 billion and population of 26.79 million, Ghana could boast of 29 universal banks whereas Nigeria had GDP of USD 568.5 billion, population of 177.5 million and 22 universal banks. Beck (2008) and Claessens (2009) opined the necessity of restraining competition in the banking system in order to sustain stability since undue competition could result in vulnerability to systemic risk (Allen & Gale, 2004; Carletti & Hartmann, 2003).
The energy crisis that plagues Ghana adversely affects economic growth culminating in increasing operational costs, declining business income and profitability (Adom, 2011; Anane, 2015; Andersen & Dalgaard, 2012; CEPA, 2007). The 2012-2016 energy crisis contributed to decline in real GDP growth rate from 8.8% in 2012, 7.3% in 2013, 4% in 2014 to 3.9% in 2015. Banking industry operating assets dropped to 19% in 2015 from 38% in 2014 (Anane, 2015, PwC, 2016). Rising average inflation rates from 9.1% in 2012, 11.5% in 2013, 15.5% in 2014 to 17.1% in 2015 coupled with depreciation of the cedi and imbalances in other macroeconomic variables impede development of the banking sector. Athanasoglou, Brissimis and Delis (2005), Kosmidou, Pariouras and Tannz (2005), Kutsienyo (2011) and Sibindi and Bimba (2014) documented empirical evidence of GDP growth impacting positively on the banking sector and rising inflation adversely affecting banking sector growth. IMF (2011) reported the possibility of poor asset quality of Ghanaian banks should the macroeconomic imbalanced linger on.
The 70% growth on non-performing loans from 2015 to 2016 is undesirable for bank profitability, solvency and economic development (BoG, 2016, IMF, 2016). Baabereyir (2009) and Ngwa (2010) opined that credit risk is the most significant risk banks are susceptible to and Ghanaian banks are no exception.
Provision of mobile money services by telecommunication companies is viewed as a threat by 55.6% of Ghanaian banks in the 2016 banking survey. While mobile money balance on float grew 2,695 times from 2012 to 2015with transaction volume of 266.3 million, traditional bank deposits grew by 116% from