Citibank: Performance Evaluation Essay

The California Division of Citibank has introduced a new performance scorecard to highlight the importance of a diverse fasten of measures in achieving the strategic goals of the division. Among the new measures introduced was a customer satisfaction indicator. Unfortunately, James McGaran, the manager of the most important branch and who consistently delivers impressive financial results scored under score on customer satisfaction. Frits Seeger, President of Citibank California and Lisa Johnson, area manager supervising James, are pondering what boilers suit performance range are they acquittance to join to James.Areas of ConsiderationCitibanks strategy in California was to build a profitable franchise providing relationship banking combined with ah high level of service to its customers. monetary measures had dominated Citibanks performance in the past but management felt that these measures were poor vehicles to communicate the high service strategy of the bank. Other are as to call up in this case areTo reflect the importance of non-financial measures as leading indicators of strategy implementation, the California Division developed a Performance Scorecard which complemented animate financial measures with new measures reflecting important competitive dimensions in the banks strategy.James customers in his branch are sophisticated- they require high service reference and knowledgeable employees who could satisfy their financial needs and his performance exceeded expectations every single year by delivering impressive financial results for four years in a row.But when the division expanded its performance indicators to include non-financial measures, it became ap scoreent that his branchs customer satisfaction ratings are not as good as his financial performance. His customer satisfaction was below par for 2 consecutive quarters.James discussed concerns regarding the (in)adequacy of the survey customers rated not only their branch but also sepa rate(a) Citibanks services such as ATMs that were out of the control of branch managers.Even so, he worked hard to improve the customer satisfaction rating by designating a staff to greet customers and held meetings and coached branch employees to focus their attention on improving customer satisfaction.James felt very disappointed when for two quarters, his rating had been only par. He thought that his efforts deserved an in a higher place par rating considering that hes able to successfully run the hardest branch in the division.Frits is considering to give James an above par rating given his excellent performance in other dimensions, but if the performance evaluation team gave James an above par, the other managers could think that the division was not serious about its non-financial measures.Alternate Courses of ActionSet aside the performance evaluation guidelines and give James an overall above par rating thus entitling him to as much as 30% bonus.Observe and uphold the perfo rmance guidelines and give James an overall par rating and get a bonus of up to 15% of basic salary.RecommendationsI recommend that the evaluating team follow the guidelines they set forth and give James the following ratingsFinancials preceding(prenominal) parStrategy implementation Above parCustomer satisfaction Below parControl Above parPeople Above parStandards Above ParJames average in customer satisfaction for the four quarters was a dismal 64.75 a far cry from the required market place average of 77 to get above par and about 10 points shy from the 74-79 score to get a par rating. Based on the guidelines, with a below par rating, James is no longer qualified to get an overall above par rating and thus settle for a par rating. This is to give credibility to the intent of the management in implementing a balanced scorecard and in giving other factors equal weight and importance as that of financials.Having said that, some important issues need to be addressed in Citiba nk performance evaluation. First, Lisa should have provided support to James asearly as the second quarter when his customer satisfaction scores began to slip from 66 to 63 (then further down to 54 during the 3rd quarter). Performance evaluation should not be a static document- it should be a reference for the employee and superior to identify deficiencies and gaps during the rating period. It should be revisited regularly, identify areas of improvement and see how management can interpose and improve the performance of the manager. A regular performance feedback is crucial so that the managers can align their activities with what is expected of them.Second, it would be worthwhile for Frits and Lisa to review the scores of the other managers focusing on customer satisfaction- this is to find out how all the managers are faring with the new performance indicator and to determine James performance vis--vis his colleagues. If the general results of the customer satisfaction are simila r with that of James, then his concerns are not unfounded- it may be that while the branches are doing their best in extending excellent customer service, the modify services might be the one thats pulling down everyones performance.Third, it would be excellent if Frits can benchmark their performance evaluation with the inhabit of the industry and see if their parameters in especially on customer satisfaction are within industry standards.Fourth, a reorientation or training on the proper administration and use of the performance evaluation is in order. Based on the scores and comments that Lisa gives to James, it appears that she is lenient with him. She overemphasizes James financial achievements but mentions too little(a) on his deficiency on customer satisfaction. There also seems to be a halo error in the way Lisa evaluates James- where his financial prowess seems to unduly influence the other evaluation dimensions.Imons, R. Citibank Performance Evaluation. 1997. Harvard Bus iness School