CITIBANK : Performance Evaluation

CITIBANK : Performance Evaluation

Group 9

FT151018 ANUJ KHANDELWAL

FT151066ARJUN NAMBIAR

FT151052 ROHAN M SHAH

FT154011 SIDDHANT PARNAIK

FT151082 VAIBHAV JOLLY

Case Facts- Character Introduction

Frits Seegers : President of Citibank California

Lisa Johnson : Area Manager

James McGaran : Branch Manager of Los Angeles Area Branch.

Lisa Johnson

Los Angeles area Manager.

Joined the company in 1978 in Chicago and moved to California in early 1988.

Her area was the biggest in the division and included two regions that had previously been managed separately.

Supported many managers and was well versed with the events in each branch.

Working in the banking industry since 1977.

Joined Citibank in 1985 as assistant branch manager.

Promoted as Branch Manager of Los Angeles area branch.

The branch in which he was working had very diverse customer base.

He had delivered impressive financial results for four years in a row from 1992.

James McGaran

Purpose of Balanced Scorecard

Set clear goals for appraise and provide specific measures for the person doing appraisal

Includes both quantitative and qualitative parameters

Provide organization with tools to do strategic management and operational control

Helps executives to focus on several important measures that drive the strategy

Introduction of Performance Scorecard

Financial Measures : Focused mainly on total revenue and profit margin against targets.

Strategy Implementation : Measures tracked revenue for different types of target customer segments relevant to the strategy of the branch.

Customer Satisfaction : Derived from questions that focused on branch service as well as other Citibank services .

Control Measures : Reported by evaluation by internal auditors on the branchs internal control processes.

People and Standards : Non quantifiable ratings determined subjectively by the branch managers boss.

implemented performance scorecard specifying goals and measures managers performance in 6 areas:

Performance Evaluation Method

3 types of ratings for each performance indicator.

Below-par, Par and Above-par.

Evaluation was determined jointly by a team led by Frits Seegers.

Bonus linked to final performance score card rating.

A manager could not get an above par rating without minimum par ratings in all the component.

Problems with the current appraisal process

Highly sophisticated client base.

Including the component of services evaluation like 24 hours phone banking and ATM services.

While measuring the customer satisfaction the survey was done with a small sample size.

Q1Q2Q3Q4OverallFinancial measuresAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParStrategy implementation ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParControl measures Above ParAbove ParNot reviewedAbove ParAbove ParCustomer SatisfactionParBelow ParBelow ParParBelow ParPeopleAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParStandards Above ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove ParAbove Par

James Performance

Practical Constraints faced by James McGaran

Diverse set of customers.

The branch that was handled by James was the largest and toughest branch in the division.

Had a demanding clientele and challenging competition.

Final Evaluation Rating for James

Overall Evaluation: Above Par

This is the first year the balanced scorecard was implemented. It will take sometime to insure that all the areas are measured appropriately

He has done exceptionally well across the scorecard and he is consciously making efforts to over come the issues in customer evaluation rating

Management should also have a look on James peer group ratings to ensure customer satisfaction is fair indicator which can be linked to overall performance

As this is the highest revenue generating branch any decision which may have an impact on revenues generated from this branch should be with utmost surety

James should be aware that his concerns with the customer survey and consistently exceptional performance were the main reason for managements decision

He should also be told that in the future he will not get an above par rating if he fails to score par on all the measures

Also the importance of non quantifiable measures should be communicated to James and across the organization

How would you communicate the decision to James?

Expected Impacts on James

Unsatisfied with Appraisal:

Complaint that top management assess behavior without knowing practical constraints

Decreased dedication towards the areas in which he is a top performer

Satisfied with Appraisal:

Perception of being valued and being part of organizational team

Highly motivated for the improvement towards points mentioned in feedback

Thank You!!!!!