Citibank Performance Evaluation Case Study 1. Analysis of the Citibank’s new evaluation system In order to deeply understand the Citibank’s new performance evaluation, first we need to clarify the purpose of C performance scorecard. It’s basically an attempt to highlight the importance of a diverse set of measures instead o in achieving the strategic goals of the division. Specifically, from Frits Seeger’s point of view, the high service qu dimensions were critical to the long-term success of the franchises. The customer satisfaction and strategy implem were introduced into the new performance scorecard. Consequently, the new scorecard has consisted of six diverse perspectives. And the objective for implementing th measurement was to figure out what need to be done to meet the measurement perspectives from a balanced view established for each perspective, for example the customer satisfaction has been set for achieving a rating of at le However, looking deep into Citibank’s new evaluation method, we could spot several big weaknesses: - Subjectivity plays an important role in the new evaluation system. First there are two ratings related to people a appropriate objective indicator and largely be determined by branch manager’s superior. This leak leaves a big ro causing unfair results according to personal relationship between branch managers and their superiors and other d However, from the case, we could hardly know what James really did on these two perspectives because his high significantly due to the Lisa Johnson’s one-sided praise. Another issue is how the quarter evaluations combine in supervisor has way too much power to change the annual evaluation result that really affects managers’ benefits, of using mathematic average for quarter evaluations or giving a new overall evaluation to each branch managers. - Bias and efficiency problem of the evaluation system. The customer satisfaction, for instance, also has underlyi that all branches from entirely different customer and competitive environments use same standard, say scored 74 customer satisfaction. Given the diverse customer base along with their sophisticated and complicated needs, and the financial district area in California, James’s branch faces overwhelming challenges of customer satisfaction. - The evaluation process of customer satisfaction is also less defensible. In spite of the bias and efficiency problem telephone interview results would arise some adequacy concerns as well. First of all, playing as the sole measurem interview from a small pool of 25 customers seemed too biased and unreliable because they have only represente James’s customers. Second, the customer feedbacks were largely depending on the questions asked by the intervi interviewed. However, the results might be somehow different if the customers were interviewed face-to-face or the out-of-control factors should be considered. Specifically, the customer would also evaluate the 24 hour phone which couldn’t be improved by James, combined with the branch service together in the interview. - The scorecard still lacks the “leaning and growth” perspective that plays an important role in the balanced score particularly significant for James’s branch due to the intensive competition in that financial district area. For the i branch, Citibank California would consider to add another measurement of growth of market share for branches. 2. How to deal with Lisa’ dilemma From my point of view, under the current company’s written policy, Lisa shall give James “par” rating for annua consistency of company’s policy and shows the attention to non-financial measurements given by company. Seco bad model among the other over 30 branch managers who may have conflict opinion if James receives an “above branch also needs to improve its customer satisfaction more for long-term success. 3. Recommendations for Citibank’s evaluation scorecard -The company would add more perspectives to improve its scorecard more fair and comprehensive. For example, turnover rates and competitive power against its rivals. -Improvement of evaluation process is firstly needed. The company would apple more than one method to genera instead of single telephone interviews. They could add randomly face-to-face interview among branch’s custome branch sent by the independent research firm and mix these results together to get an average customer satisfactio -Survey firm should separate the branch services and out of branch services, such as ATM service and give score quality provided by a branch. -Lisa and Frits should first talk to James and explain their dilemma and why they have to give “par” rating. This c to prevent losing James as a competent and excellent manager for the whole company. More importantly, they sh improve his customer satisfaction in the succeeding year and what specific activities and changes would be done they would consider making more efforts on community and public activities than now, offering wide financial p retail customers, adding new program for employee training to improve their service manner, or evaluating each customers on their service, with tied their personal bonus based on their own evaluation.