In this paper the discussion will be based on Citibank’s performance review process, James McGaran’s feedback for last year’s appraisal & approach to give that feedback, and my recommendations of changes in processes and procedures that I am recommending. James McGaran has been employed by Citibank for the last eleven years and started as an Assistant Branch Manager and was promoted quickly through the ranks to Branch Manager. He has delivered exceptional results during his time as Branch Manager of one of the most important branches in the Los Angeles area. In 1995 a decision was made to update the performance evaluation to drive not only financial results but also drive strategy implementation, customer satisfaction, controls needed in banking, and leading people. Based on what is presented as the current Citibank performance review template in the Harvard Business School article changes should be made to reflect a more rounded feedback loop.
Performance Review Session with James McGaran
James is going to receive an overall Par rating for his performance review based on the criteria set out in the Citibank review procedure. The procedure lays out that if you have any area in the review that is below par the highest overall score can be only Par. (Harvard, 1999)
Approach to the feedback session with James The approach to give James feedback on his performance for 1996 would be to follow the performance review form. And go over the criterion that was used to select each rating in the performance review section. In James’ review, his performance and selected ratings setup a good news start and low point in the middle, followed by good news. Then leaves with what will be a disappointing overall review rating to a leader like James, with a Par rating. In the text of the article it states that James has been disappointed about his three Par quarterly ratings in the past year.
Facts and Observations used to support James ratings In the area of Financial performance James’ rating was based on the fact that his branch exceeded revenue and margin by 10% and 16% respectively.
On Strategy Implementation the branch showed strong growth in all segments. Retail improved $2.4 million, business & professional grew $34.9 million.
Customer Satisfaction service scores were below the goal of 80, with second and third quarters showing a decline to 54 from first quarter. James did come up with a plan that showed improvement in the Customer Satisfaction score in the fourth quarter, but that is only one positive data point and data point is not a trend.
Controls in the branch were strong as evidence by the audit ratings of 5 on two audits. However the branch had operating losses and fraud losses of almost $138,000.
People Performance rating facts are James strength as evidenced by the minimal turnover in his branch. He is quick to help his peers with projects.
Standards is another strong area for James in that he hold himself to high performance standards, looks for ways to improve metrics, and is out in the community bringing visibility to Citibank.
These will be the fact reference as support for the ratings in James’ feedback session.
James’ feedback session for his 1996 review The following is what would be said to James in his performance review for 1996.
James 1996 has been a good year for you and your branch at Citibank. In the area of financial performance on your review your rating is Above Par. The reasons for this rating are that both revenue and margin both exceeded goal by 10% and 16% respectively. The next area is strategy implementation and your rating was Above Par. Reasoning behind this rating was retail improved $2.4 million, business & professional grew $34.9 million. The area of customer satisfaction scores has been a concern in your branch all year, as they are not meeting the goal of 80%. In the 1st quarter the score was 66%, 2nd quarter the score was 63%, 3rd quarter hit a low of 54%. Now it appears once you saw that the trend was not changing that you developed a plan and took action that improve the score to 72% by year end. With only one positive data point your rating for this performance metric is Below Par. I understand in previous quarter review you have stated that some of the reasons for low scores were out of your control, but you developed a plan an executed scores changed. Also correcting things that are out of your control demonstrates the strength of your influencing skills. In the area of controls in your branch your rating is Par due to the losses of close $138,000 dollars. People are an area of your strength in your leadership skills. Your branch had minimal turn over and your meetings are regarded as well plan and effective. Your rating in this area is Above Par. Last Standards are an area that your performance is Above Par. James you hold you and your team to a high standard in ethics, community involvement, and leadership.
James you understand now after the four quarterly reviews and reading the guidance manual for the Citibank performance review process, that if you have any area that is Below Par that the highest overall rating can be is Par. So James is has been a good year and your overall rating is Par due to the need to improve your customer service scores out of the Below Par range. James now do you have any questions about any area of this review?
At the end of each section I would open up for questions on the facts that were the basis for the rating that was selected.
Changes to the Citibank Performance Review Process
The current performance review model is a negotiation of performance targets for the” Area Manager which is cascaded down to the Branch Manager”. (Harvard, 1999) These targets are then reviewed each quarter by the Branch manager’s Area manager. Now this formal quarterly review process is a good thing to continue. The following changes should be made: 1. Expand the feedback to involve peers and subordinates along with the leader. 2. Have agreed upon targets that Par ratings are based upon for each objective 3. Include an area for Manager over all comments 4. Last once this review process has been in place for a few years start a differentiation process
The reason for the 360 feedback is it gives each person the chance to get feedback on competencies from everyone around them they affect and support. According to Dowell “we can be blind to the effect that are behaviors have on the people we lead”. (Dowell, 2010)
Having agreed upon targets that Par ratings are based upon for each objective establishes what Jack Welch says is “tell them what good looks like in your eyes as the leader”. (Welch, 2005)
Including an area for manager overall comments gives the manager the chance to clearly explain were they need to improve and how the following rating period and what good looks like.
Last we are back to differentiation; we have seen that at great companies relies on having great people to be successful. Leaders that have great people on their team win more often than they lose. Leaders that can develop “A talent and then they get promoted spread the reputation of the leader to other areas of the company.” (Dowell, 2010) A recommendation would be to have a “Nine Block System” for differentiation (Slater, 2000). A Nine Block System is based on values on one axis and performance on the other axis. This is then divided into nine blocks and one of the values axis it is ranked A, B, C, and then on the other axis is ranked 1, 2, 3. A1 20% | A2 70% | A3 10% | B1 70% | B2 70% | B3 10% | C1 10% | C2 10% | C3 10% |
The differentiation follows the “20-70-10 principle” of Jack Welch that 20% of your team is A players, 70% of the team fit into A2, B1, B2, and last you have your bottom 10% on the outside blocks. A1’s are your stars that get the greatest of rewards because they get results and they have the values that the companies want in the employees. B1’s may get the results but have some issues with how they get the results. It may that they are not a team player or they offend by being arrogant. B2’s are your steady get it done people that you can depend on but will not necessarily be the next leader. A2’s & B1’s are the employee’s in the 70% group that you invest your efforts to grow into the 20% group of A1’s. (Welch, 2005) With people decision being the most valuable decision that most managers make due the cost structure of most products or services. Managers need the best tools to review and determine the players that need to be on the team and the ones that are better on another team.
Summary
In this paper Citibank’s performance review process has been reviewed along with James McGaran’s performance was reviewed and recommendations were made on changes to Citibank’s review process. Last were people decisions performance and risks and individual leaders' chances of getting promoted will depend on the people decisions made within the organization.
.
References:
Simmons,R Citibank: Performance Evaluation, Harvard (1999)
Dowell,& Silzer (2010), Strategy Driven Talent Management : A Leadership Imperative. CA : Jossey-Bass.
Welch, J. & Welch, S. (2005). Winning. NY: HarperCollins, Inc.
Slater, Robert (2000). The GE WAY FIELD BOOK. NY: McGraw Hill
