I have watched Mr Pandit carefully since he became Chief Executive Officer of Citigroup in December. Though not a banker I am in business in a modest way and am affected by the fallout of the sub-prime crisis. It is my understanding Citigroup have lost $18 billion and stand to lose the same again. In light of this Citigroup needed an analyst such as Mr Pandit and not a flamboyant leader. He has set about his task quietly. I am not qualified to say if he has been right in his plans as they are technical matters such as combining Citigroup’s consumer and wealth management divisions. To judge from the stock market’s cautious valuation of Citigroup the jury is out. I am indebted to Ms Corkindale for setting out an element of Mr Pandit’s planning that I was not aware of. This is to encourage teamwork in an industry of individualism. Though an Indian by birth Mr Pandit is not “mystical” in his approach to business. He is hard headed and realistic. Though he lives modestly he has amassed a huge fortune in banking. We can assume with safety he knows making money for themselves is one of the key motivators of bankers. He also understands successful bankers are very competitive. Can he change or amend this culture? I think I see where he is coming from. He wishes to teach his staff to think of the company as a whole and not only their own bonus cheques. If they do this they may make fewer mistakes of the sort that led to the sub-prime crisis. The downside is that banking at the cutting edge of capitalism is a complex form of gambling. Risk-taking is the oil of the free market. I do not believe Mr Pandit will succeed unless he also changes another fact of banking life. Those who make big deals should be rewarded richly. The flip of the coin is that failure should carry a penalty. In my own business I prosper if I make good decisions and am penalized if I make the wrong ones. It is the carrot and stick of many walks of life. Do other readers agree?

The idea of bankers happily cooperating with each other for the greater good of Citigroup (let alone the community!) is laughable. They will resist any system linking bonus payments to their performance as team players. But all is not lost. The bank hired Mr Pandit because it was in meltdown. It must give him his head to tackle the dog eat dog and me me culture that fuelled sub prime. If staff don’t like it Mr Pandit will let them go. Such is the climate of fear in the financial sector most will do as he wishes.

> If staff don’t like it Mr Pandit will let them go.

Makes sense to me. Am I correct in thinking that there is a surplus of talent these days?

I wonder what Vikram Pandit thought about the tens of millions of dollars in bonuses paid in March to the top executives who had led the bank into the sub prime disaster. I presume there was nothing he could do about this as he had only become CEO in December the previous year. I hope that is the case because it bodes ill for the bank and his reform plans if he approved these payments. How can the bank justify paying a vice chairman a bonus of over $8 million and a bonus of $14 million to the chief financial officer after a year that saw write offs of $20 billion and shares lost 47 per cent of their value? What does this say to staff? It says: it doesn’t matter how the bank performs because you can still make a fortune if you play the game correctly. Instead of being paid millions on top of their salaries these people should have been relieved not to be fired. In the real world people have to be competent to get paid. Mr Pandit must teach Citigroup staff that hard work, properly carried out, will be rewarded and stupidity and selfishness will have repercussions

I wonder if there are any lessons for Citigroup in the operating methods of banks in Moslem countries. Because of local culture they must emphasise their commitment to the community in ways that banks in the West do not feel necessary. I am not saying these Moslem banks are perfect. Far from it. What is interesting is how financial institutions in the West are having to adapt so they can deal with Moslem investors and companies since so much money is now coming out of regions such as the Middle East. As someone who comes from India Mr Pandit knows that Western methods are not necessarily superior to those of other parts of the world. Perhaps he could borrow from other cultures to improve that at Citigroup.

I dont understand why asking bankers to be a team "will create a facade of where managers give the outward appearance of cooperation and will end up with hidden agendas and covert operations.” What makes bankers so different from the rest of the working population? The rest of us would not last long in our jobs if we only thought about ourselves. Dare I suggest it is because many bankers are Alpha Males who are competitive and used to getting their own way. The challenge for Mr Pandit is to convince Citigroup's Alphas the way ahead lies in team work.

Good luck to Vikram Pandit but I agree with Gill Corkindale, that certain sorts of people become bankers. It is their genes to be individualists and materialists who make other business types look saintly. The guys in my class who went into banking were smart but not what you'd call socially aware. Maybe the other readers are right when they say the fear in the financial sector over cuts means people will do anything to save their jobs. Lets watch with interest.

Robert's right. Citigroup bankers at the sharp end of the business are in it for the adrenalin rush and the money of course. No way can you ever get people like them to collaborate. That is not saying this is right. Bankers shifting billions around the world daily are gamblers. Except they are gamblers who never lose. Mr Pandit should deliver a culture where losing hurts.

Why are bankers subject to a disconnect between perforamnce and reward, failure and punishment? Could greater shareholder rights break this reality distortion field? Business should focus solely on maximising shareholder value, let the regulatory mechanism do its own job? Set the invisible hand free?

In a turmoil scenario, path breaking steps are inevitable. But what is most importnat is revisting the old values such as co-operation , respect , love & affection among staff memebrs, family culture, transparency, integrity,etc to reinvent the organisation.

I think its a step in the right direction. though its a paradigm shift in the banking industry, I think collaboration between the various arms to make the business better is a very promising strategy.

What can make this step make or break, is the way it gets administered.. it will take time. but if it succeeds , then it can be their game changer..