Working at a branch may not be a viable means of getting an entry-level bank job anymore.

Branch traffic is down, costs are up, and sales are flat. That’s the familiar story from America’s bank branches, and the industry is calling for employees with both broader and deeper skillsets to right the ship. Those workers are not easy to come by, and may require a year of training to do the job, according to a new survey of 137 banking executives from BVS Performance Solutions.

Branches are expensive to operate no matter how they are run. Banks with large networks are shedding branches, if slowly. JPMorgan Chase closed 32 branches in the first quarter, but still has more than 5,500. Bank of America’s branch network shrank by 20 in 1Q, but it still has more than 4,800.

Smaller branches are one alternative (or supplement) to closing banking centers. Another is “universal bankers,” staff trained to handle many different kinds of interactions who can staff smaller branches with fewer employees. Banks are shedding staff faster than they are closing branches — JPMorgan Chase was reported in March to be considering laying off 5% to 7% of its workforce, while it closed just 0.6% of branches. Those left working in the branches need to do more.

A recent survey from BVS Performance Solutions, whose business is in part staff training, indicates that bankers approve of the universal banker idea, but believe it is resource-intensive to pursue. Here are some of BVS’s survey results:

• 72% of bankers say their branch traffic is declining
• 49% say revenue is declining per branch
• 55% say branch expenses are too high for the revenue they produce

Of those bankers who answered yes to any of the above questions:

• 36% have reduced branch footprints
• 78% have reduced staff

Nearly all agree that “individual branch employees need more knowledge and skills than they needed two years ago” (96%), and that “more flexible employees with a broader range of skills” would enable more efficient branch operation (98%).

Bankers were asked how long it would take to properly train a universal banker:

• 6 months – 29%
• 12 months – 44%
• 18 months – 15%
• 24 months – 12%

Associated Bank in Wisconsin began the process of closing branches several years ago, and was able to divert the money to mobile without losing out in overall revenue. “If we close four branches,” CFO Christopher Del Moral-Niles said, “assuming an annual spend of $2.5 million per branch — that’s now $10 million we can invest in mobile.”

Associated closed nearly 1/3 of its branches, using analytics to maximize efficiency from those that remained. Any bank that hopes to survive is likely to follow the same path, and sooner rather than later.

But there are those who still argue for keeping branches, pointing to their sales volume, but there are several issues with this. Customers usually begin their sales journeys online today, but may not able to complete their purchases online. They have to report to a branch in this case. Even sales completed in other channels may be assigned to the customer’s “home branch,” due to outdated accounting procedures, and thus the in-branch channel. Brett King has been pointing this out for years.

Even those sticking up for branches don’t deny they should be smaller, with more skilled employees.

But a year sounds like a long time to train someone in an industry as fast-moving as banking is — or should be.

This story was updated to indicate the correct number of bank executives surveyed. Though the survey was sent to 600 executives, 137 submitted responses.