Rob Parsons -Promote Not Promote

This circulate presents an independent analysis addressing the insights for measurable anxiety issues associated with exercise appraisal and exploit management in the Capital trade Services of Morgan Stanley. The analysis will be focused on identifying the major problems, analyzing the situations, and fashioning feasible and thorough recommendations for the shape up of Morgan Stanley to make better the brisk situations. 2. hassle Statements. Rob diplomatic minister was a brainiac producer in the Capital Market Services discussion section who had been recruited from a competitor two old age ago and had generated substantial r counterbalanceues since joining the unshakable.I would bid to address more proper(postnominal) and come out of the clo traffic circle problems for this situation as follows 2. 1 caper 1 -Rob diplomatic ministers Performing Issues. parsons succeeder at gene valuation blood line was offset by public presentation reassessments from internal co-workers that painted him as a poor fit in the riotouss collaborative culture. ministers military operation issues had been making his two fast executive programy programs, Paul Nasr, the senior managing director in early 1996 and Gary Stuart, the just elicitd managing director in early 1997 faced the dilemma whether to promote Rob minister of religion as managing director. 2. Problem 2 -Rob as Irreplaceable Staff. Stuart mat certain that subgenus Pastor would leave the firm if he was not promoted in 1997. This would nasty losing a valuable employee and a star producer and creating an empty seat in an ara important for the firms business. Morgan Stanley needed diplomatic minister to attain the firms strategic business objectives and even Stuart felt strongly that Parson would be impossible to replace. 2. 3 Problem 3 Little consensus for the 360- grad evaluation mould The role of 360- item evaluation is to emphasize teamwork, cooperation, and cross selling.However, at that place was little consensus on what the 360- arcdegree evaluation real meant in practice since its implementation in 1993. 3 Issues / Problem Analysis. It is doubt that the 360 degree performance evaluation process at Morgan Stanley yield information that were valid and reliable. It is lively to figure out whether the 360 degree performance management system well adjust with Morgan Stanleys strategic objectives. It is also important to swear the two performance evaluation results and bjectively start the implications so that Gary or the board could in effect manage the situation. 3. 1 Not a real 360 degree performance revaluation Nasrs time. The performance comment raw entropy including the quantitative, qualitative, and anecdotal none of which is perfectly undifferentiated from the 360 process. It is doubt that raters knew how to effectively participate in the process and the Paul knew how to use the data. thither was no indication of raters interaction with Parso n and how for each one raters rating contributed to the just tons awardn on Summary of Performance Ratings.The arithmetic average for the collage average piss is 3. 6, how ever the overall rate is at 2. 8. It seems that quiet a number of Parsons supervisor and colleagues were admiring his cross-selling skill but it was hard to run to the result of Downward Average 3. 0 and colleague Average of 3. 7. What were the criteria to evaluate situation 4A in the Summary of Performance Ratings. -Team pretender Skill and how the comments from Parsons supervisors and colleague tied to the average rating.Rater Parson Es comments in the Development testimonial sections did not include cover usage but just stating rather congenital observations and feelings. The rates were not interpretable and in that respect was no scale identification for the rates. What a 2. 0 different was from a 4. 0 average score? What were the benchmarks? in that location was no explicit indication of manag ements arithmetic means for Parson, such as specific sales target and client satisfaction index that are measurable and be able to described in concrete terms.It seems that there was no preceding communication of the expectations of the paint performance indicators with specific values to Parson. There was no cause to hark back deep the unique qualities of Parson that bring him to achieve excellent business sales. There were no indications of key success factors for Parsons that would link to the performance evaluation process. There was inherited bias from Nasr that he interact Parson harsher because he wanted to show to everybody in Morgan Stanley that he would not get over a subordinate who was hired from his prior life better. . 2 Improved 360 degree performance review Garys time In early 1997 during Gary Stuarts time A revise performance review raw data including the quantitative, qualitative, and anecdotal was come up in different ways. The process had been mendd wh en equalised with the hold up year exercise in the next ways Indication of directment from each rater and excludes the ratings from evaluators who had limited interaction with Parson when climax up with average score in every performance criteria to en certainly neat evaluation.Indication of rating scale from 1-6 and with interpretations for each rating. However, there is no in-depth explanation on how to pose Top 10%, Top 20% and Top 50% etc. individually rater provided a rating with corresponding comments and valid ex amples for each performance requirements category ejection of the Team Player rating which was old seen as a subjective and board term. However, the review showed an extraordinary amount of Parsons come on on the team player front man by examples. The overall rating from down(prenominal) and colleague at 5 and 5. independently which is in the category of Outstanding -Top 20% It was credited by Stuart that he need to bed with the politics in the firm, it is time to think of whether Parson was confronting the culture or he a gear to help the firm to change some of the rooted culture. 3. 3 What are the alternatives? After illustrating the underlying causes of the problems, we drop to consider whether the efforts Parson had made were adapted to be promoted, promoting Parson would mobilizing a curing of support from within the firm. The main alternatives are as follows * Be prepared to expect Parson 2 for replacement and come alive Parson. No to promote and increase compensation for Parson and let him tender his resignation. * instigate Parson to the managing director and further do and develop his weak area. 4 Solutions and Recommendations. Morgan Stanley changed its corporal strategy to focus on organism a one-firm firm, the use of the 360 degree performance evaluation procedures at Morgan Stanley has been designed to reinforce the change in culture which is right off emphasizing teamwork, corporation, and cross selling. T he firm should come back those who acting in accordance with the mention notions as well as ample business generators.The main purposes of carrying out an effective 360 degree performance assessment in Morgan Stanley are to develop, to manage and to pay amp promote. The effectiveness of the performance assessment did displace the job satisfaction of Parson and the presidential term effectiveness. Therefore, it is critical to come up with a fair judgment for Parson, review and improve for any loop holes in the existing performance assessment process. I would standardised to recommend promoting Parson to the managing director, further motivating, recognise and developing his weak areas.It was hard to analyse the results from 2 consecutive years because it is hollow to use some misleading or ill-defined rates from Nasrs time and compare to a more representative set of result this year. However, the revised process in the recent year provided more aware data, it is worthwhile to focus on the review result of this year as determination making base. The Summary of Performance Ratings and scattering showed that nearly all (except 33% of his supervisor rate 3 for leadership and management skills) Parsons supervisors rated 4 to 6 for all 4 perspectives include the Overall Downward.These implied most of the Parsons higher(prenominal) up did recognize Parsons contributions. It should be easier to razz a consensus on Parson advance this year. The management needed to reconsider the motivation elements and to come up with a finished career development plan for Parson rather than just focus on using the review result as a promotion justifications. Actions Plans * A shaping and through feedback session to be held by Stuart with Parson and mentioned that he will be promoted to the managing director on condition that Parson need to further improvement on certain areas from leadership and management skills.Quote concrete example for his weak areas. * Make accr edited a detail job specifications (expectations) and key performance index for the managing director role be in placed. To communicate managements expectation to Parson clearly. * To carry out after(prenominal)(prenominal) promotion review with Parson in three months time and make sure he will still be in good shape after his promotion. * Stuart has to tender a promotion recommendations report to the management with support and firm smack that Parson is ready to promote ground on this years performance assessment results. * To involve those being rated in the development of the rating scheme.Continuous to carry out performance appraisals reproduction to make sure all the module understands the logic behind. To fine tune the process with more specific definition for each of the ratings. In conclusion, with proper implementations, a 360 degree performance assessment process sight provide a more completed assessment of an employees performance and help draw accusations of fa voritism. It will definitely lead to round-the-clock learning, team building, growing self-confidence and amend productivity. I look forward beholding a more constructive and generative team lead by Parson in the coming future.