The cost of employing a banker in Ghana is no longer determined primarily by the size or traditional prestige of the institution. Instead, it increasingly reflects the strategic choices each bank has made about its business model, customer focus, and use of technology.
An examination of audited financial statements for the 2025 financial year reveals that average personnel costs per employee now differ by more than four times across the industry. The disparity exposes a widening gap in how lenders treat their most expensive and most valuable resource—their people.
At the upper end of the range, Standard Chartered Bank Ghana recorded the highest figure, spending an average of GH¢931,000 on each employee. Absa Bank Ghana followed with GH¢724,000, while Ecobank Ghana posted approximately GH¢700,000.
At the opposite extreme, Guaranty Trust Bank (GTBank) Ghana spent only GH¢216,000 per employee—less than a quarter of Standard Chartered’s average.
These figures were derived by dividing total personnel expenses reported in the audited accounts by the year-end headcount. Only institutions that published both sets of data in a consistent and comparable format were included, producing a sample of 14 banks.
Across that sample, the industry average stood at roughly GH¢457,000 per employee. The average, however, conceals substantial variation in underlying workforce strategies.
Bernard Obeng Boateng, data analyst, founder and lead trainer at the research firm Finex Skill Hub, observed that the rankings initially appear to confirm the familiar narrative that multinational banks pay more. Closer inspection shows the picture is more complex.
While Standard Chartered, Absa and Ecobank occupy the top positions, ownership alone does not account for the differences. Access Bank Ghana and Zenith Bank Ghana, both subsidiaries of Nigerian banking groups, reported personnel costs below the industry average. GTBank Ghana, another Nigerian-owned institution, registered the lowest cost per employee of any bank in the analysis.
The data therefore point to institutional strategy rather than nationality as the decisive factor. Banks that concentrate on corporate and investment banking typically maintain smaller teams of highly specialised professionals—relationship managers, structured-finance experts, risk specialists and technology talent—whose scarce skills command premium pay.
Retail-oriented banks, by contrast, operate larger branch networks and employ more customer-facing staff. Their total payrolls may be substantial, yet the average cost per employee is lower because the workforce is structured differently.
Digital transformation is further reshaping these economics. Institutions that have invested heavily in automation, centralised processing centres and digital delivery channels can handle growing transaction volumes with fewer people. The result is a lower headcount and, in many cases, a lower average personnel cost, without an automatic decline in service quality or revenue.
Personnel cost per employee is becoming a useful lens for investors seeking insight into operational efficiency, yet the metric must be interpreted with care. Higher workforce expenditure does not automatically signal inefficiency.
It may represent a deliberate decision to recruit experienced professionals capable of generating disproportionately higher revenues. Conversely, lower average costs should not be read as proof of superior cost discipline. They may simply reflect a different mix of roles, lower average salaries or an operating model built around scale and technology.
The more meaningful question is whether the returns generated by those employees justify their cost. When personnel expenses are examined alongside revenue per employee, cost-to-income ratios, profitability and return on equity, they become a powerful indicator of how effectively a bank converts human capital into shareholder value.
The 2025 accounts also reveal ongoing shifts in labour costs. OmniBSIC Bank recorded the sharpest rise in personnel cost per employee after a restatement of personnel expenses in its audited statements. CalBank and Ecobank Ghana also posted notable increases.
These movements may stem from annual salary adjustments, workforce optimisation exercises, organisational restructuring or accounting reclassifications rather than simple changes in staff numbers. Whatever the precise cause, they underline the extent to which Ghana’s banking sector continues to recalibrate its labour model after years of regulatory reform, heavy digital investment and evolving customer behaviour.
Banks are trying to reconcile rising wage expectations with the imperative to protect margins in an environment where technology is steadily displacing routine functions.
The analysis simultaneously highlights a transparency shortcoming. Two of the country’s largest institutions—Stanbic Bank Ghana and GCB Bank—could not be included because their published financial statements did not disclose employee headcount in a form comparable with their peers.
Personnel expenses are routinely reported, yet inconsistent disclosure of workforce numbers prevents investors, analysts and shareholders from benchmarking productivity and human-capital efficiency across the industry.
That gap is becoming more material as environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting gains prominence. Investors increasingly expect workforce metrics to sit alongside traditional financial indicators. More consistent publication of employee numbers and related productivity measures would strengthen transparency and improve comparability throughout Ghana’s banking sector.
Ultimately, personnel cost per employee is neither a ranking of generosity nor a definitive verdict on efficiency. It is a window into the strategic bets banks are placing as the industry is reshaped by digitalisation, changing customer expectations and sustained pressure to improve returns.
Those spending the most on talent are wagering that specialised expertise will deliver superior value.
Those spending less are betting that scale, technology and operational leaness will prove the stronger competitive advantage. The 2025 data show that both approaches coexist, and that the price of employing a banker in Ghana now depends far more on the model a bank has chosen than on the size of its balance sheet.
