Hayden Chong/hmc2323

ACC 312
Professor Brown
02 May 2021
Citibank Performance Evaluation
Citibank’s bonus structure was divided into six different categories: financial,
strategy implementation, customer satisfaction, control, people, and standards. Each
category was given one of three ratings: below par, par, and above par. By receiving a
par or and above par rating, employees were able to receive bonuses, with a par rating
giving 15% (up to 20% for branch managers) and an above par rating which would give
up to an additional 30%. The first category which is financial, measured the total
revenue and profit margins against specific targets. Strategy implementation tracked the
revenue for the different types of target customer segments relating to the strategy of a
branch. Control measures reported the evaluation by internal auditors of that branch’s
internal control process and had to receive a certain score to be eligible for any bonus.
People and Standards were ratings that did not have a quantifiable rating since it was
subjective to the branch’s manager. People measured the efforts of the manager being
proactive in their duties such as developing and communicating with subordinates,
putting emphasis on training programs, and being a guide for junior employees.
Standards used an assessment of the manager’s involvement in the community,
business circles, and ethical business practices. However, the most critical category
was the customer satisfaction score. This category was calculated through telephone
interviews with exactly twenty-five branch customers who had visited in the past month.
The questions would pertain to that branch’s service as well as other banking services
such as the ATMs and support through the phone. The reason why this category is
extremely important is because Seegers believed that by building a happy and content
customer base, the customers would continue using Citibank’s services which would
result in long-term success. The role of the performance score card served as an
indicator of nonfinancial measures that were imperative to Citibank’s overall success.
By looking into other measures, the company could use that data to implement
strategies to improve the areas they are lacking in which could lead to greater financial
success.
I assigned McGaran a below par rating for customer satisfaction. While McGaran
excelled in all the categories, his customer satisfaction scores were by far the worst. In
his evaluations throughout the four quarters, McGaran received a score of 66 in Q1, 63
in Q2, 54 in Q3, and 72 in Q4. To receive a par score in the customer satisfaction
category, one must earn a score of 74 or higher. However, in all four quarters, McGaran
failed to reach a par score once. While there are factors to consider, such as managing
the most important and influential branch in the Los Angeles financial district and
earning the highest revenue and profit, if Seegers believed that customer satisfaction is
as if not more important the financial success, then this category should not be given
any leeway when given a rating. While the numbers McGaran is bringing are extremely
positive for his branch and the rest of the Los Angeles branches, if the customers are
not happy in the end, then there is a chance that those numbers will start and continue
dwindling down in the future.
I gave McGaran’s overall par rating a par for the year. My reasoning is because
to receive an above par rating, you must get a minimum of a par rating on your
scorecard. While 5 categories were par and mostly above par for McGaran, his
customer satisfaction rating was a below par for the entire year. This means that
McGaran did not fulfill the requirements for an above par rating. While we aren’t able to
see exactly what transpired for him to receive such low ratings 3 out of 4 quarters, the
results show that within a month, 25 customers were not content with the customer
service. You can argue that the sample size is small since it’s 25 people and that the
time range was only one month, but the results indicate that they could be a potentially
worse customer satisfaction rating if they were to increase the time range from 1 to 2
months or if they included a larger sample size. Also, the questions are specifically
designed for the customer’s opinion on the service they received during the time they
were at Citi Bank and it seemed like until the quarter 4, customers did not have as
pleasant of an experience as they should have.
If my ratings were to follow at Citibank, I believe there would be positive and
negative repercussions. The negative repercussions would be that employees might
see the upper management as tough and uncaring, because even though McGaran did
everything well financially as well as the other categories listed on the scorecard, the
management showed no sympathy due to his low customer satisfaction rating. A protest
could occur and McGaran and other employees at his branch be extremely displeased.
However, a company should not have leeway for a specific branch, because if Citibank
were to do that and giver McGaran an above par rating for the year, then other
managers and employees could argue that they should receive a par or an above par
rating and use McGaran as a prime example. If one employee was able to receive
special benefits, then all the other employees would not feel as motivated and might be
unhappy. It is also not a good look for the company to treat once branch specially since
the other managers could argue that they should receive the same treatment. I believe
that if the company was going to set a rule that one must receive a minimum of a par
rating for all categories throughout the year to receive an above par rating, then it must
be followed through so that issues regarding the scorecard ratings don’t arise.