Situation
A 22-branch retail bank had implemented a performance management system two years prior that produced no behavioral change. Appraisal scores clustered between 88% and 93% for all branches regardless of actual performance. Bonuses were being paid regardless of outcomes. The executive committee suspected the system was being gamed but had no analytical evidence.
Complication
Six months of branch-level operational data existed but had never been connected to the appraisal system. No calibration mechanism existed. Iraqi labor law made formal performance-based dismissal legally complex, producing a cultural norm of inflated scores to avoid conflict. When I analyzed the score distribution, I found that three area managers were responsible for 94% of the clustering: they had consistently awarded scores above 90% to every branch in their areas for two consecutive years. The problem was not systemic — it was concentrated in three individuals who had established a norm that others had adopted to avoid comparisons.
The Critical Decision — What Almontather Rassoul Saw and Did Differently
I recommended to the CHRO that the three area managers be included in the calibration design process rather than being trained to use a system designed without them. That recommendation was uncomfortable because it gave influence over the new system design to the people who had most undermined the previous one. My reasoning: their resistance was the primary implementation risk. If they co-owned the design, implementation resistance would be eliminated. All three participated constructively. The calibration requirement they helped design was stricter than what I would have proposed unilaterally.
Methodology — Why This Approach and Not Another
I chose objective branch scorecards over competency-based assessment because the bank already had six months of relevant operational data that was not being used. Building the appraisal around data the bank already collected eliminated the most common objection to new performance systems — the burden of data collection. The scoring used a composite index rather than equal weighting of indicators, because branch performance in different markets is not comparable on the same absolute scale.
Resolution — Delivered by Almontather Rassoul / MRC Firm Ltd.
Objective branch scorecards with 14 weighted indicators drawn from existing operational data, producing a composite branch performance index with full auditability. Calibration sessions for area managers using paired branch comparisons, designed and facilitated by the three co-designing area managers. Score distributions required to fall within defined statistical ranges. A legally compliant performance improvement framework negotiated with HR and legal. Six-branch pilot conducted before full rollout.
What Was Not Fully Resolved — and Why
Two branches in the pilot scored significantly below the network average under the new system, triggering formal performance review processes. One branch manager appealed through the bank's internal grievance mechanism. That appeal was ongoing at time of document production. The legal framework was being applied as specified.
“Rassoul identified that our problem was concentrated in three individuals and recommended including them in the solution rather than imposing one on them. The calibration standard they co-designed is stricter than anything we would have accepted from an external recommendation.”
— Chief Human Resources Officer, Iraqi Retail Bank
Consultant: Almontather Rassoul, PhD · MRC Firm Ltd. · montather-rassoul.com · linkedin.com/in/montatherrassoul