Who will fare well & why?

Courtesy: dilbert.com

With nearly 75 years of his­tory, a ma­jor na­tion­al bank was strongly defined by its con­ven­tion­al prac­tices. Over the past dec­ade, they have been re-inventing them­selves to be an or­gan­iz­a­tion with a mod­ern out­look. This change in cul­ture has caused huge vari­ation in em­ploy­ee per­form­ance. The man­age­ment was keen to un­der­stand vari­ance in the per­form­ance across vari­ous di­men­sions like em­ploy­ee loc­a­tion, ESOPs etc.

Over a peri­od of 6 months, Gramener stud­ied factors from dif­fer­ent chan­nels try­ing to map em­ploy­ee per­form­ance to their loc­a­tion of work, busi­ness seg­ment, edu­ca­tion back­ground, age, pro­mo­tion his­tory etc. The team ana­lyzed the vary­ing per­form­ance across each of the factors to un­der­stand how they played a role in em­ploy­ee per­form­ance.

Insights:

Factors im­pact­ing at­tri­tion across busi­ness units
  • Giving stock op­tions drives per­form­ance sig­ni­fic­antly – par­tic­u­larly in Retail Sales
  • Stock op­tions have little or no im­pact on Retail Banking Performance is rather defined by the grade the em­ploy­ee is in.
  • The per­form­ance levels across grades is ex­tremely dif­fer­ent. This in­dic­ates a clear ex­pect­a­tion mis­match between grades and people that are pro­moted in­to these grades.
  • Level of edu­ca­tion, how­ever, is uni­ver­sally un-correlated with per­form­ance across busi­ness units.

These in­sights chal­lenged the tra­di­tion­al thoughts about the reas­ons for em­ploy­ee at­tri­tion in the or­gan­iz­a­tion.

Leave a Reply