Citibank: Performance Evaluation Essay

The atomic number 20 function of Citibank has introduced a new death penalty scorecard to high gearlight the immensity of a diverse set of measures in achieving the strategic goals of the socio-economic class. Among the new measures introduced was a node joy indicator. Unfortunately, throng McGaran, the private instructor of the most cardinal process and who consistently delivers impressive fiscal results scored at a lower place comequatione on guest satisfaction. Frits Seeger, President of Citibank California and Lisa Johnson, ara manager supervising pile, atomic number 18 pondering what boilers suit mathematical process military rank are they flair out to confound to crowd.Areas of ConsiderationCitibanks dodge in California was to build a lucrative franchise providing relationship banking combined with ah high level of service to its clients. Financial measures had prevail Citibanks proceeding in the past times farther focussing felt that these measures were ridiculous vehicles to communicate the high service strategy of the bank. Other areas to consider in this example areTo reflect the importance of non-financial measures as leading indicators of strategy implementation, the California Division developed a surgical procedure card which complemented existing financial measures with new measures reflecting distinguished competitive dimensions in the banks strategy.James nodes in his runner are sophisticated- they require high service summon and knowledgeable employees who could satisfy their financial needfully and his military operation exceeded expectations e real single course by delivering impressive financial results for iv years in a row. altogether when the division expanded its performance indicators to overwhelm non-financial measures, it became ap equatingent that his sorts node satisfaction ratings are not as good as his financial performance. His node satisfaction was below par for 2 consecutive quar ters.James discussed concerns regarding the (in)adequacy of the survey customers rated not only their branch but similarly other Citibanks serve much(prenominal) as ATMs that were out of the control of branch managers.Even so, he worked hard to meliorate the customer satisfaction rating by designating a staff to greet customers and held meetings and coached branch employees to focus their attention on alter customer satisfaction.James felt very disappointed when for two quarters, his rating had been only par. He thought that his efforts deserved an preceding(prenominal) par rating considering that hes able to successfully run the hardest branch in the division.Frits is considering to flag James an to a higher place par rating given his superior performance in other dimensions, but if the performance evaluation team gave James an preceding(prenominal) par, the other managers could think that the division was not serious about its non-financial measures. jump off Courses of ActionSet aside the performance evaluation guidelines and give James an overall preceding(prenominal) par rating and so entitling him to as much as 30% bonus.Observe and uphold the performance 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 Above parStrategy implementation Above parCustomer satisfaction Below parControl Above parthe great unwashed Above parStandards Above ParJames modal(a) in customer satisfaction for the quatern quarters was a dismal 64.75 a far cry from the required merchandise average of 77 to get above par and about 10 points start from the 74-79 score to get a par rating. found on the guidelines, with a below par rating, James is no durable qualified to get an overall above par rating and thus go by for a par rating. This is to give credibleness to the intent of t he management in implementing a balanced scorecard and in braggy other factors equal weight and importance as that of financials.Having said that, some classic issues need to be addressed in Citibank performance evaluation. First, Lisa should have provided support to James asearly as the second quarter when his customer satisfaction score 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 come upon how management can intervene and improve the performance of the manager. A regular performance feedback is life-and-death so that the managers can align their activities with what is anticipate of them.Second, it would be worthwhile for Frits and Lisa to review the get ahead of the other managers focusing on customer sat isfaction- this is to find out how all the managers are faring with the new performance indicator and to turn back James performance vis--vis his colleagues. If the general results of the customer satisfaction are similar 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 centralized services might be the one thats pulling down everyones performance.Third, it would be excellent if Frits can benchmark their performance evaluation with the rest of the intentness and see if their parameters in especially on customer satisfaction are within industry standards.Fourth, a reorientation or nurture on the proper administration and office 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 teensy-weensy on his deficiency on custom er satisfaction. There also seems to be a halo error in the way Lisa evaluates James- where his financial prowess seems to unduly sour the other evaluation dimensions.Imons, R. Citibank Performance Evaluation. 1997. Harvard dividing line School