Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

CASE STUDY- ROB PARSON AT

MORGAN STANLEY

BY GROUP 12
At Morgan Stanley, an investment bank,
its mission or vision statement clearly
defines what it values as an organization -

“ exceptional performance, absolute


integrity, teamwork, innovation, dignity
and respect towards others”
Evaluation summary:-

Strengths
Development areas
Comments/views
Strengths
Excellent selling skills
Highly Aggressive
Professional drive
Perseverance
Resourcefulness
Knowledge of Markets
High on initiative
High on CRM with HNI’s
Accepts challenges
Excellent on cross selling
Relentless in pursuit
Development Areas
Poor team player
Individualistic
Arrogance
Volatile temperament
Low on management skills
Disrespect towards colleagues
Tactless
Nonconformist
Poor interpersonal skills
Impatience
Impulsive
Lacks leadership skills
Views
Psychological Contract during recruitment. Paul needed
someone to take on a challenging job and Parson
wanted the opportunity to be creative as well as the
chance to achieve a promotion to managing director

Parson is a Type “C” manager because he’s interested in


his own opinion rather than those of others. The majority
of the time he was right. When he was, it made his co-
workers feel undermined which created animosity.

Role conflict Paul Nasr, hired Rob Parson, an


aggressive individual who’s not necessarily a team
player, to fill a position that required his unique
personality characteristics.
Views
Rob seemed to be exactly what they needed and wanted
but now he isn’t . The company’s hiring practices should
be in sync with its culture.

Expectancy theory : Parson was only interested in


producing results which he expected would result in his
promotion to managing director.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory of motivation is also


present. Parson’s dissatisfaction (extrinsic) factor was
company procedures and his satisfaction (intrinsic) factor
was responsibility, possibility of growth, and
advancement.
Views
Everyone shouldn’t be evaluated on the same criteria
and the evaluation shouldn’t be the only factor in
determining promotions.

A Principal shouldn’t be evaluated using the same


criteria of a managing director or an associate.

A principal in the capital market services division


shouldn’t be compared to a principal in another division
since the job requirements are different.

One downfall of using only the 360 degree evaluation is


that animosity can sometime cloud a fair and impartial
judgement by co-workers.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen