Citibank Budgeting
1. Analysis of Budget Process at Citibank
Direction and control of Citibank’s international branches are conducted via two formal management processes. Each year, top management sets sovereign risk limits for its independent branches based on proposals by country managers. Country managers may choose to operate with self-imposed limits below this upper guideline. Following, there is the budget setting process, where headquarters only provides administrative guidelines but not specific targets, with operating managers being responsible for budgets for the following year. Indonesia often set their targets above these long-term goals. Performance is measured and compared against the budget each month, and a new forecast, which will be reviewed by the division manager, is drawn up each quarter for the remainder of the year.
This structure of bottom-up budgeting is appropriate for a decentralized firm like Citibank. This is evident from the freedom Mr Mistri has over Indonesia’s operations and the different business segments and divisions, as shown in Exhibit 2 & 3. Such a participative process is likely to increase management commitment to achieve the targets since country managers are responsible for influencing their own targets. More importantly, country managers know the local business environment and culture better than group managers, therefore their targets are likely to be more accurate and realistic.
Furthermore, bottom-up budgeting is a form of action control while the frequent reviews of the budgets serves as preaction review. Both facilitate information sharing within the organisation, with long-term strategic goals of the firm being communicated downwards and local business potentials and risks conveyed upwards via the budgets and forecasts. They also encourage managers to think further ahead about what they want to achieve in the near future.
However, Citibank’s budgeting process appears to have an imbalanced focus with most of the
Direction and control of Citibank’s international branches are conducted via two formal management processes. Each year, top management sets sovereign risk limits for its independent branches based on proposals by country managers. Country managers may choose to operate with self-imposed limits below this upper guideline. Following, there is the budget setting process, where headquarters only provides administrative guidelines but not specific targets, with operating managers being responsible for budgets for the following year. Indonesia often set their targets above these long-term goals. Performance is measured and compared against the budget each month, and a new forecast, which will be reviewed by the division manager, is drawn up each quarter for the remainder of the year.
This structure of bottom-up budgeting is appropriate for a decentralized firm like Citibank. This is evident from the freedom Mr Mistri has over Indonesia’s operations and the different business segments and divisions, as shown in Exhibit 2 & 3. Such a participative process is likely to increase management commitment to achieve the targets since country managers are responsible for influencing their own targets. More importantly, country managers know the local business environment and culture better than group managers, therefore their targets are likely to be more accurate and realistic.
Furthermore, bottom-up budgeting is a form of action control while the frequent reviews of the budgets serves as preaction review. Both facilitate information sharing within the organisation, with long-term strategic goals of the firm being communicated downwards and local business potentials and risks conveyed upwards via the budgets and forecasts. They also encourage managers to think further ahead about what they want to achieve in the near future.
However, Citibank’s budgeting process appears to have an imbalanced focus with most of the