Is anyone using a process, tool...to measure and identify the high performers and low ones? Trying to determine how management can objectively determine who to promote and not. Stuck currently with emotions and longevity...not sure that works best in these times. Any info or comments would be appreciated.

Unless you are dealing with workers that produce widgets, that is the pretty tall order.

You could do this for call center staff or staff whose job requires them to handle calls within a certain range and staff that process cash or other paper transactions, not sure how you could do this with any other banking position.

And i'm not sure promoting just based on how much someone processes is any better than doing it on longevity and emotions. There are many intagibles that should be taken into consideration - professionalism, leadership, acceptance and adherance to bank culture, ownership, teamwork, integrity come to mind.

There are other examples were it could work, such a proof department. It is a little harder with positions like new acct reps and tellers, as volumes are somewhat dictated by the amount of actual foot traffic. But I agree, it is just part of the puzzle.

Plus, promoting people based on productivity, unless it is just a higher rank within the same job description, is not always the best. I have had very highly productive people work for me in my day and they did a great job and liked what they did. If you wanted to promote them to a supervisor or a manager however, it would have been an immediate disaster.

I spent several years as an actual productivity analyst - up to my eyeballs in queuing theory and regression analysis. That stuff is great for determining appropriate staff size, but it still leaves a lot to be desired when looking at individuals.

I've used productivity and accuracy reporting in loan operations.
i.e.
Number of loans documented
Number of loans boarded
Number of loans QCd
Number of credit reports pulled, flood determinations pulled, etc.

For most there was an associated accuracy tracking component as well.

It really only worked for me in institutions where everyone is more of a specialist than a jack of all trades. You also need to find a way to track all of this quickly, without impacting productivity itself.

We used all of the information to provide SMART goals for employees and delivered the information to them monthly for their review. They also had the ability to review their own work at any time through the database.

The first couple of years we did it, we had to make adjustments as some of the goals were unobtainable and some were much too easy.

We wouldn't neccessarily promote based on any of the results, although they may have been a piece of the puzzle. As rlcarey said, sometimes someone does a great job at what they do and we don't want to Peter Principle them.