Citibank: Performance Evaluation

1428 WordsOct 16, 20116 Pages
CASE “Citibank: Performance Evaluation” Harvard Business School 9-198-048 rev: October 14, 1999 The Performance Scorecard: a strategic management tool Frits Seegers, President of Citibank California, is convinced that “in a competitive marketplace where businesses compete for customers, customer satisfaction is seen as a key differentiator and increasingly has become a key element of business strategy”1. Fulfilling customers’ expectations is a critical issue for the long term business sustainability and profitability. This realization is what underlies the decision of the top management to develop and complete the former Citibank’s performance evaluation system mainly based on financial measures. In 1996, a new Performance…show more content…
James is consciously making efforts to improve service results14. I left a blank for customer satisfaction in James’ performance scorecard (cf. attachment 1) since I think the score scale does not reflect James involvement and implication and as James’ supervisor I am partly responsible for that since it is my job to provide him some support. And I need to keep him fully dedicated to his job; he is my, our, best branch manager. I know that all the six targeted measures are interrelated and the global rating have to be consistent. But if we cannot introduce some flexibility in the bonus rules I am afraid that we can lose James and that will be a significant loss for our company and for its future. Customer satisfaction is a corporate teamwork responsibility not an individual matter. Be careful to not create a misunderstanding “on the folly of blaming A, while hoping for B”15. The Performance Scorecard shall remain a tool not a blind judge. Why to build a more flexible and more effective Balanced Scorecard I think the balanced scorecard should be implemented to all of Citibank since it establishes a “sense of urgency”16 about competitive realities to all employees. But I would like to suggest some changes in it for 1997. Indeed, since everyone in the top management agree that James is an “outstanding manager”17 we should conclude that there is something wrong with the scorecard since if we strictly follow the
Open Document