Citibank Case
Citibank Case
Citibank Case
Submitted by:
Group 10
Abhijit Sahoo MBA19164
Vraj Kamodia MBA19196
Priyanshu Goyal MBA19217
Rahul Singh MBA19220
Sourabh Mukherjee MBA19231
Looking deeply into Citibank’s new evaluation method, we could find several big weaknesses:
First there are two ratings which are related to people and standards that lacks an acceptable
objective indicator and largely be determined by branch manager’s superior. This can cause unfair
results and is largely related to personal relationship between branch managers and their superiors
and other drivers instead of real performance.
Another question is how the quarter assessments are incorporated into the annual assessments. The
supervisor has far too much power to change the outcome of the annual assessment.
Customer survey was conducted only among 25 customers which seems too bias and unreliable
Critical because they have represented relatively a small portion of James’s customers. Second, the
•Specifically,
customer from
feedback relied
quality strategy
Frits Seeger’s
primarily
and other
point ofquestion
on the interviewer's view, the high
and the service
interview
were dimensions were critical tosome
the other
long-questions,
Evaluation of
process.However,if the customers interviewed face to face or asked
term success
the findings of thedifferent
could be slightly franchises.
. Third,The customershould
considerations satisfaction
be given toand
the factors
whichstrategy
are out ofimplementation
control. Specifically,indicators, therefore,
in the interview the customerwere
would also discuss the 24
An exceptionally good performance in one area was not enough to satisfy a slightly bad
Process performance
The scorecard also lacks the perspective of “leaning and growth” which plays an important part
in the balanced scorecard. This calculation is particularly significant for James’s branch because
of the intense competition in that financial district area. In the interest of of the branch’s long
term growth, Citibank California will consider to add another indicator of growth of market share
for branches.
The customer satisfaction, for instance, has bias issues. It’s unfair because all the branches have
entirely different customer and competitive environments but use same standard.
Yes, this appraisal process can be used in other branches but there
should be some changes
The performance appraisal process should take into account the
following important aspects of a branch when assessing the
manager:
Use in Other
1.Branch size in terms of area and diversity should be taken into
account as they can potentially affect the internal management of
a branch and may get reflected in an employee’s performance.
An alternative
Managers will be given training on strategies to retain
customers
More than one method will be used to calculate the customer
you
Random face-to-face interviews will be conducted among the
customers of the branch.
Branch services and out of branch services will be surveyed
separately.
James should be given “par” rating i.e. bonus up to 20 % of
basic salary for the annual evaluation. This is because it
preserves the continuity of company’s policy and
demonstrates the attention given by the company to non-
Should James financial measurements.
Second it won’t hurt morality and set a bad precedent among
be given a the other branch managers who may have conflict of opinion
if James receives an “above par” rating. More ever this would
bonus if so
damage the reputation of the company.
Lisa and Frits are supposed to talk to James about their
problem and why they have decided to give “par” rating.
how much? This is incredibly necessary to avoid losing James as a
competent and outstanding manager for the organization as a
whole.
More specifically, they should explore how to help James
improve his customer satisfaction in the following year.
Thank You