Mặc dù được đánh giá là có thu nhập

Mặc dù được đánh giá là có thu nhập khá cao tuy nhiên theo kết qủa khảo sát đa phần cán bộ nhân viên tại NHCT4 cũng cho rằng mức thu nhập này chưa xứng với công sức mà họ đã bỏ ra và hệ thống chỉ tiêu đánh giá nhân viên theo KPI là chưa phù hợp. Cụ thể mức điểm trung bình dành cho yếu tố 12 và 15 lần lượt là 2.44 và 2.3. Đây là một số điểm rất thấp, dưới mức trung bình.. Với cơ chế trả lương, thưởng và xem xét cơ hội thăng tiến đều được đánh giá qua KPI thì đây là một vấn đề khá nghiêm trọng đang tồn tại ở NHCT4. Nguyên nhân là do:
- Tương tự như tồn tại đang còn ở phần trên (thời gian làm việc chưa phù hợp với quy định), vì khối lượng công việc khá lớn nên hầu như phải làm nhiều hơn thời gian quy định trong ngày. Vì vậy, cán bộ, nhân viên cảm thấy đồng lương tính trên giờ làm việc của mình là chưa xứng đáng, thậm chí thấp hơn so với các ngân hàng khác.
Ví dụ: Nhân viên A tại NHCT4 có mức lương bình quân cho 1 ngày làm việc là 400.000 đồng, chia cho 8 giờ làm việc theo quy định thì mức lương bình quân trên giờ làm việc là 50.000 đồng/giờ, tuy nhiên để xử lý tác nghiệp các công việc phát sinh hàng ngày thì người nhân viên này phải làm việc bình quân tới 12 giờ nên mức lương thực tế trên giờ làm việc là 33.333 đồng/giờ. Trong khi đó, một nhân viên B tại ngân hàng khác chỉ nhận được bình quân 300.000 đồng/ngày, tuy nhiên hằng ngày người nhân viên B chỉ phải làm việc 8 giờ thì mức lương thực tế trên giờ làm việc là 37.500 đồng/giờ, cao hơn so với nhân viên A.
- Đối với việc đánh giá hệ thống chỉ tiêu thực hiện KPI, tác giả đã phỏng vấn nhân viên của hai phòng kinh doanh là phòng khách hàng doanh nghiệp và phòng bán lẻ, tác giả đã đúc rút được một số nguyên nhân gồm khách quan và chủ quan như sau:
Thứ nhất, việc áp dụng phương pháp đánh giá công việc theo KPI tại NHCT4 còn đang trong giai đoạn đầu triển khai nên khó tránh khỏi những điểm bất cập trong việc phân tích công việc của từng vị trí và áp dụng các chỉ tiêu đánh giá phù hợp với các vị trí này.
Thứ hai, việc đánh giá KPI phụ thuộc nhiều vào quan điểm và ý kiến chủ quan của lãnh đạo của từng phòng ban nên còn xảy ra tình trạng không công bằng giữa các nhân viên bên trong và ngoài phòng.
Ví dụ 1: Phòng bán lẻ được trưởng phòng quy định trọng số các chỉ tiêu phi tài chính ở mức khá cao và làm thấp xuống các chỉ tiêu tài chính. Trong khi đó phòng khách hàng doanh nghiệp thì trưởng phòng lại khá nghiêm khắc nên quy định trọng số của các chỉ tiêu phi tài chính thấp, nhưng chỉ tiêu tài chính khá cao. Do đó khi đánh giá KPI thì hầu hết nhân viên phòng bán lẻ có điểm số KPI khá cao vì điểm phi tài chính được đánh giá cảm tính bởi trưởng phòng chiếm trọng số lớn, còn phòng khách hàng doanh nghiệp thì ngược lại nên nhân viên trong phòng đều bị KPI khá thấp. Vì vậy, ban lãnh đạo cần đưa ra cơ chế thống nhất các chỉ tiêu và trọng số phù hợp đối với từng vị trí cho toàn thể CB, NLĐ tại NHCT4.
Ví dụ 2: Nhân viên A và nhân viên B đều có cùng 1 vị trí công việc giống nhau tại NHCT4, tuy nhiên lãnh đạo phòng phân cho nhân viên A nhận các khách hàng có khối lượng công việc phát sinh tác nghiệp khá nhiều, còn nhân viên B lại nhận các khách hàng có khối lượng tác nghiệp khá ít. Do đó thời gian hàng ngày của nhân viên A chỉ đủ để thực hiện các công việc tác nghiệp mà không có thời gian để phát triển khách hàng mới, đối với nhân viên B thì ngược lại. Trong khi đó, trọng số KPI về phát triển khách hàng là cao nhất trong bảng chỉ tiêu KPI, còn KPI xử lý công việc hàng ngày lại khá thấp. Do đó nhân viên A thường không có đủ chỉ tiêu phát triển khách hàng và thường có điểm số KPI thấp hơn so vói nhân viên B. Vì vậy, lãnh đạo cần xem xét đánh giá lại khối lượng công việc của từng nhân viên trong phòng để có sự sắp xếp lại cho phù hợp.
Từ những phân tích trên, có thể thấy yếu tố 14 cũng có mức điểm thấp dưới mức trung bình (2.48) là hợp lý. Quy trình đánh giá chưa thật sự khách quan và mức lương thưởng không tương xứng gây hạn chế việc cải thiện và nâng cao chất lượng công việc cho các nhân viên. Hơn nữa, tuy yếu tố 13 được đánh giá tương đối cao với điểm số trung bình là 3.04, nhưng với những đánh giá chưa thật sự chính xác như đã phân tích ở trên sẽ dễ dàng dẫn đến những định hướng, kế hoạch đào tạo phát triển sai lệch, không phù hợp với các cá nhân.
Môi trường - Điều kiện làm việc

Results (English) 1:

Despite being rated as high income, according to the survey results, however the majority of staff at NHCT4 also said that this level of income is not yet commensurate with the effort that they have put out and the system of employee evaluation criteria according to the KPI is not suitable. The average score in specific elements for 12 and 15 in turn is 2.44 and 2.3. This is a very low score, below average. With the mechanism of salary, bonus and promotion opportunities are evaluated through KPI then this is a pretty serious issue exists in NHCT4. This was due to:-Similar to exist are also in part on (working time not yet consistent with regulation), because of the large volume of work should almost have to do more than the specified time of the day. So, officer, employees feel the wages calculated on his work hours are not yet worthy, even lower than the other banks.For example, A worker at NHCT4 had the average wage for a day's work is the 400,000 bronze, divided 8 hours on the average wage in the regulations on working hours is 50,000 VND/hour, however to handle professional tasks arise every day, the staff must work an average of up to 12 hours so the actual wage on working hours is 33,333 Dong/hour. Meanwhile, an employee at another Bank B only got an average of 300,000 VND/day, but every day the staff B only have to work 8 hours, then the actual wage on working hours is 37,500 Dong per hour, higher than A staff.-For the evaluation of the target system implementation of KPI, the author has interviewed employees of the two rooms is the business enterprise customers and retail room, authors have cast the withdrawal are some causes include subjective and objective as follows: First, the application of the method of job evaluation as KPI in NHCT4 are still in the early stages of deployment should the unavoidable inadequacies in analyzing the work of each position and apply the appropriate assessment criteria with this position.Second, the evaluation KPI depends much on the views and comments of the subjective leadership of each departments should also not fair condition occurs between employees inside and outside the room.Example 1: the room was Chief of retail regulation weight targets non-financial rates quite high and make low down the financial targets. Meanwhile, the business client room head back quite strict rules should the weight of the non-financial indicators are low, but high financial targets. So when reviews KPI then most retail staff have to score high points because KPI non financial are sensory evaluation by the Chief of a large weight room, and the capture of enterprise customers, the reverse should staff the rooms were fairly low KPI. So, the leaders need to devise mechanisms to unify criteria and weights for each position for all, EMPLOYEES at NHCT4.Example 2: employee A and employee B have the same identical job 1 position at NHCT4, however leadership analyst for A staff member to receive the customer workload arising operation pretty much, also the staff B back on the client has the volume pretty little operation. By that time A worker's daily just enough to make the operation work without time to develop new customers, employee B, then vice versa. Meanwhile, the number of KPI client development is highest in the target KPI, the KPI is also handling the daily work again pretty low. Thus A staff often do not have enough customer development targets and KPI scores lower than often from employees B. So, leaders need to consider assessing the workload of each employee in the room to the rearranged accordingly.From the above analysis, can see the 14 elements also have a low point below the average (2.48) is reasonable. The process of reviews not yet truly objective and bonus wage disproportionately cause limitations in improving and enhancing the quality of work for their employees. Moreover, while the 13 factors are the relatively high rating with an average score of 3.04, but those reviews have not really exactly as mentioned above will easily lead to the direction, the training plan development discrepancy, do not fit the individual.Working conditions environment-

Results (English) 2:

Although is considered high income but according to the survey results the majority of staff at NHCT4 also said that this income is not a good value for the effort they have spent and the system evaluation criteria employees under KPI is not appropriate. Specifically the average score for the 12 and 15 elements respectively 2.44 and 2.3. Here are some points very low, below average .. The mechanism of payment, bonus and review opportunities for advancement are assessed via KPIs, this is a serious problem exists in NHCT4. The reason is that:
- Similar to exist is still above (working time is not consistent with provisions), because the workload is quite large, almost have to do more than the specified time of day. Therefore, officers, employees feel salary calculated on their working hours are not worthy, even lower than other banks.
Example: Employee A NHCT4 at the average wage for the first day of work was 400,000, divided by 8 hours of work under the regulations, the average wage per hour worked is 50,000 / hour, however, to treat operational management tasks arising daily, the staff must work up to 12 hours so the average real wage per hour worked is 33,333 VND / hour. Meanwhile, an employee at another bank B receives on average only 300,000 VND / day, but every day the employee must work 8 B only now that real wages per hour worked is 37,500 VND / hour , higher than the employee A.
- for the evaluation of system performance indicators KPI, authors interviewed two employees of the trading room is the living room and the room every retail business, the author has cast drawing a number of reasons including objective and subjective as follows:
first, the application of evaluation methods according to the KPI in NHCT4 work is still in the early stages should deploy is hard to avoid shortcomings in the division work area of each position and applying evaluation criteria consistent with this position.
Second, the assessment depends on the KPI views and opinion of the leadership of each department should also occur unfair situation among employees inside and outside the room.
Example 1: Retail Division Head key provisions of the non-financial indicators at a high level and lower financial targets. Meanwhile, the business customer room managers are quite strict regulations should be weighted by the lower non-financial indicators, but high financial indicators. Therefore when evaluating KPI, most retail worker KPI scores high because of non-financial point sentiments were evaluated by weight managers accounted for large, enterprise customers rooms, in contrast to employees KPI in the room were quite low. Therefore, the board should provide a uniform mechanism and weighting of indicators suitable for each position for the whole staff, the employees at NHCT4.
Example 2: Employee A and B have the same staff 1 position in NHCT4 equal work, but leaders of lab employee A customer receives the workload arising pretty much operational, the staff also receive customer B has relatively few operational volume. Therefore daily time A just enough staff to perform operational tasks that do not have time to develop new customers, for employee B is the opposite. Meanwhile, the number of customer KPI development is the highest in the table KPI indicators, KPI also handle everyday tasks is quite low. A staff so usually there is not enough customer development targets and KPI scores are usually lower than the employee B. Therefore, leaders should consider re-evaluate the workload of each employee in the room to have an arrangement to suit.
From the above analysis, we can see elements 14 also have lower scores below average (2:48) is reasonable. The evaluation process is not truly objective and the inadequate compensation limiting improving and enhancing the quality of work for employees. Furthermore, although elements 13 are rated relatively high average scores for 3:04, but the evaluation is not really accurate as analyzed above would easily lead to the orientation, training plans development misleading, inconsistent with the individual.
Environment - Working conditions

Results (English) 3:

Although it is considered a high income, but according to the survey results of q a majority of cadres and workers in the income level of nhct4 also think not worth the effort, and the evaluation indexes system of their staff are not suitable according to KPI. Specific to the center for 12 and 15 factors were 2.44 and three.. This is a very low score on average. Mechanisms and wages, bonuses and promotions are considered KPI evaluation, which is a serious problem in the presence of nhct4. As a result of：The same is the existence of the top (working time does not meet the requirements, because the quality is almost) considerable work should do more work hours a day. So, cadres, staff wages feeling is not worth it in my work time, even lower than the bank.For example: a nhct4 in the average wage of employees, a day job is $400000, divided by 8, the average wage in accordance with the provisions of the work is $50000 per hour per hour of work, however, dealing with the day-to-day work of developers who have to work 12 hours, so the average wage per hour is the actual work 33.333 dollars / hour. Meanwhile, an employee in other banks B received an average of only $300000 / day, while people B employees only need to work 8 hours a day, hourly wage is actually working $37.500 / hour, A.Your evaluation of the work was carried out systematically by KPI, the author interviewed two salespeople whose customers were room rooms and retail businesses, and the author drew some of the reasons for casting including objective and subjective as follows:First, the application of the method to evaluate the deployment of KPI nhct4 in the test phase should also be difficult to avoid access points are in the analysis of the previous work location and application metrics evaluation suitable for this position.Second, assessing KPI dependence on more subjective opinions and leading views of the Department should have an unfair state of occurrence between employees inside and outside the room.For example, a room has: retail department provides all important non-financial indicators at a high level, reducing your financial indicators. There, the customer business department is very strict, so some important non-financial indicators of low financial indicators, but very high. Therefore, when evaluating the personnel KPI, KPI retail point of very high scores in most rooms, because of non financial evaluation by the Ministry of emotional occupy an important number of rooms, customers employees, on the contrary, the rooms are very low KPI. Therefore, the board of directors of the whole NL CB for each position of the important index of unified mechanism and the corresponding numbers in nhct4.For example: 2 A B employees and employees the same position have the same work. In the nhct4 room, however, many leaders give employees a customer to obtain quality work of the influence of the staff, and B to accept the customer quality work industry a lot. Therefore, the staff every day time to perform a job site no time to develop new customers, for staff, B is the opposite. At the same time, some important KPI development customer is highest in KPI and KPI quota list to deal with daily work, and Very low. So an employee is usually not enough and limits the development of customers often have lower scores than the KPI B. staff so that leaders should re evaluate the quality of the staff had a corresponding arrangements.From the above analysis, you can see the level of the element has 14 points, the lowest average level (2.48) is reasonable. The evaluation process really not objective and disproportionate wage bonus limits, to improve and enhance the quality of the staff. In addition, although the 13 evaluation factors of relatively high scores an average of 3.04, but there is no real evaluation of the development orientation, training plan is easy to cause the body in such a mistake, not for the individual.