• Control Measures: Based on the banks internal control processes. If rating < 4, bank is said to be at risk.
• People and Standards: Focused on the efforts of the manager to develop and communicate with peers/employees. .
Based on the employees performance in these factor, a rating of above par, par, or below par was given. Finally, an overall rating for the manager was awarded. .
Due to the change in performance evaluation criteria, two major complications flared up: First and foremost, Lisa Johnson has to decide the rating of James. According to bank's rule an employee can be given above par rating if and only if he is performing at par in all the criteria. John has been excellent at five performance measurement statistics, but lags in one area, customer satisfaction. So, as per the rules, he can be given "at par" rating at best. But Lisa believes that John deserves an above par rating because of his excellent work when it comes to revenues. Second, if Lisa decides to give him an "at par rating," she also has to decide the best possible way to communicate her decision. She has to inform him in such a way that it does not have any negative effect on James. Lisa wants James to stay with the company. Thus, she has to make sure that the message is communicated properly to achieve this goal, as Citibank cannot afford to lose an employee of James' stature. .
This is a typical people management related situation that has to be dealt with extreme caution, else there can be dire consequences. Should James' ego be hurt, there is a good chance he will quit the company and with his credentials, he should not have much trouble getting another job. At the same time, should he be given an "above par" rating, it would go against the long term vision of the company. In the end, a decision has to be made.
Based on James' quarterly performance, I would assign the following scores:.
