MANAGING PEOPLE IN ORGANIZATION

CITIBANK: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Group – 1
•MBA19179 Arijit Saha
•MBA19197 Kumar Safal
•MBA19205 Nikunjbhai Dabhi
•MBA192016 Priyanka Mittal
•MBA19222 Rohan Bhagat
 CRITICAL EVALUATION

Parameters of New The scale for performance

There was no consideration There was no synergy among
evaluation only had 3 options
Performance – Above Par, Par and Below
about the working conditions the various parameters with
Scorecard of the branch the organizational goals
Par
• Financial
• Customer satisfaction
• Strategy Implementation
• Control The goals came from the top
• People with no involvement of the Effectiveness of Survey was
branch managers when it not adequate owing to its
• Standard came to customer satisfaction small sample size
and control
 CAN THIS BE USED IN OTHER
BRANCHES?
"One size doesn't fit all" - What works in one
branch is not guaranteed to work at another
The financial goals for this branch are more
branch. The criteria should be discussed with
aggressive than those of other branches
managers and performance metrics should be
tested periodically using statistical means

The client base for James' branch was diverse The level of customer service expected by these
with mostly business-people with few retail customers was different due to diverse customer
customers base.
 ALTERNATIVE MECHANISM FOR
APPRAISAL

Each branch will get targets on the

The goals would be in line with An yearlong performance basis of their particular needs –
360 degree feedback when it
one another i.e., the achievement management system instead of the James' branch will have high
comes to evaluation of someone's
of one goal would not come at the current performance appraisal financial standards with a target to
performance
expense of another  system improve on the customer
satisfaction level gradually

Monthly meetings to discuss

Sample size for Customer Learning and Growth value pair
progress on the goals set for an
Satisfaction should be adequate has been added
individual
 James should be given a ‘par rating’ with 20% bonus for the
year because of the following reasons:

• Although he achieved his financial goals, he did not show

much improvement on the people and standards parameter
throughout the year
BONUS FOR • The customer satisfaction index actually declined for two
consecutive quarters
JAMES • Had he been given bonus as per ‘above par’ rating, it
would set a bad precedent among other employees.
• However, the performance appraisal process had
loopholes as discussed in the previous slides. It is for this
reason that James should be given the benefit of the doubt
and given a 20% bonus which is possible when one gets a
'Par' rating
THANK YOU