Citibank

The rational for introducing a performance scorecard falls within two extremes (1). At one end, some firms may see scorecards as simply a “framework for grouping existing measures into categories, and displaying the measures graphically (1)” which permits senior management to track items of interest and gauge operational performances. On the other end, a scorecard can be used as a “robust organization-wide strategic planning, management and communications system” which among other things “align the work people do with organization vision and strategy (1)”. In the case of Citibank, although the rational for the scorecard may lean towards the strategic planning end, the manner in which it was developed and the manner in which it is ultimately being used currently, as a bonus determinant, falls much more in the end of gauging operational performance. In order to ensure that the scorecard is also useful to Citibank as a strategic planning tool, it is important that the senior managers not only use the results to improve their management techniques but also to identify areas of weakness of the organization.

Citibank’s approach in California was geared towards providing “relationship banking coupled with a high level of customer service (2)”. They recognized that there was a strong correlation between customer satisfaction and the profitability for the bank due to the fact that the customer’s expectations and demand for high quality services increased simultaneously with their increasing net worth (2). Therefore, the intent of the scorecard was to evaluate branch performance on both financial and non-financial metrics in the hopes that Citibank managers would align their branch management approaches with the Citibank strategic mission to prioritize relationship banking and customer service. Including customer service on the scorecard underlined the importance of customer service in Citibank’s approach to business.

Despite James’s stellar financial performance,...