Sedgwick was right, but now what?
How to redesign banking scorecards in a way that meets the seemingly-competing needs of the Regulator, Shareholders and Customers
In the wake of the Royal Commission, ‘sales’ has become a dirtier word than ever. ‘Sales target’ has devolved to the KPI that shall not be named. Fear and uncertainty abound, and sales teams are hamstrung. They want to do what they do best (help their customers) but are receiving mixed messages.
On one hand, rather than pushing numbers, their leaders are now coaching on ‘behaviours’ – only we know from our Behavioural Analytics data that few leaders are able to translate desired results into observable, coachable micro-behaviours. Without understanding the relationship between cause and effect, input and output, action and reaction, leaders are flying blind. They’re coaching their people on ‘behaviours’ because that’s what KPIs look like in Banking 2.0, yet these aren’t necessarily the inputs that will drive sustainable outputs.
On the other hand, sales teams know that there are financial imperatives they’re simply not satisfying, no matter how well they’re ticking off their behaviour-based KPIs. This is creating friction and dampening morale in banking workplaces across Australia.
Let’s also not forget customers are rational agents who interact with the bank out of free will (despite how it may sometimes feel). Customers expect banks to help them. So imagine their frustration when it seems no one is willing to find out about their needs and point them in the right direction. No wonder NPS and CSAT results haven’t miraculously catapulted in line with this new ‘customer-centric’ paradigm.
Sedgwick was right: an over-reliance on sales commissions absolutely contributed to a toxic culture within the banking industry, one that often failed to place the customer’s need at the centre and satisfy the best-interests test. However, the current standard of sales and service in the industry has a long way to go before being considered truly customer-centric.
The solution, while not easily executed, is simple in theory: identify the micro-behaviours that are proven to drive bottom line results and design scorecards around these. The problem is most organisations don’t know what these micro-behaviours are, much less how to coach on them. The good news is that it is entirely possible to align scorecards in a way that satisfies the needs and wants of the Regulator, the Shareholder and the Customer alike.
GRIST’s behavioural analytics and consulting services help unlock the puzzle. Get in touch to find out about the success we’ve helped our clients achieve by aligning their scorecards with proven micro-behaviours.