RENDY SETIADI MANGUNSONG

YP-56C
29116550
1. Company Profile:

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm headquartered in New York City serving a diversified
group of corporations, governments, financial institutions, and individuals. The corporation, formed by
J.P. Morgan & Co. partners Henry S. Morgan (grandson of J.P. Morgan), Harold Stanley and others, came
into existence on September 16, 1935, in response to the Glass-Steagall Act that required the splitting of
commercial and investment banking businesses. In its first year the company operated with a 24% market
share (US$1.1 billion) in public offerings and private placements. The main areas of business for the firm
today are Global Wealth Management, Institutional Securities, and Investment Management.

Morgan Stanley operates in 42 countries, and has more than 1300 offices and 60,000 employees. [2] The
company reports US$287 billion in assets under management or supervision.[3] It is headquartered in the
Morgan Stanley Building, in Midtown Manhattan, New York City

2. Case background:

The case is about a young banker named Rob Parson, who was hired for a very challenging job of market
coverage professional by the Paul Nasr, a senior managing director in Capital Market Services at Morgan
Stanley for his outstanding performance and energetic attitude. Nasr promised him to promoteto the
position of managing director. Rob Parson did very well and with his efforts, he pushed Morgan Stanley
from 10th position to 3rd within a very short span of time. With his efforts, he expanded the market share
from 2% to 12.5%, which was an evidence of his outstanding and influential performance. Unfortunately,
Rob Parson failed in building good relations with his peers and colleagues, which was of great importance
for the firm. At Morgan Stanley, team work was of much more importance than individual work and the
employees were not allowed to breach the rules of the firm for achieving a particular goal. In the situation,
Rob Parson broke too many eggs to achieve his goals and objectives which greatly affected his
relationships with his peers and colleagues.

Rob Parsons performance evaluation is on its course and it became difficult for Paul Nasr to promote Rob
Parson because of many negative views. At Morgan Stanley, a 360-Degree performance evaluation
process was implemented where the professionals were evaluated by the superiors, colleagues and
subordinates. Though, Rob Parson did very well in bringing clients to the firm but he had poor relations
with his colleagues and subordinates and everyone had commented negatively during his performance
evaluation. Rob Parson activities and qualities are not in agreement with the organizations mission and
culture. In the self-assessment exercise, he did concede that he is not exactly suited to the organizations
culture, and he would require some time to completely adjust. Thinking seriously about all these points,
it comes down to what is critical for the organization, its society, the mission and the qualities set for itself
or the fleeting money related profit.
 RENDY SETIADI MANGUNSONG
YP-56C
29116550
3. Problem formulation:

Rob Parson had been a super performer at Morgan Stanley. He had single handedly made significant gains
in building Morgan Stanleys reputation and revenues in a very short period of time. However in doing so
he had violated many of Morgan Stanleys norms and culture and had built a hostile environment around
him. Gary Stuart has to now decide whether to promote him or not. To promote Parson, Gary would have
to mobilize a lot of support internally in the firm. To not promote Parson would mean that he would lose
a valuable employee and star producer and would create an empty position in a very critical area within
the firm.

4. Performance evaluation process at Morgan Stanley:

Mack had introduced the 360 degree evaluation process at Morgan Stanley to encourage employees to
conform to a new way of doing business that emphasized team-work, cooperation and cross-selling. The
areas that the performance evaluation process aimed to improve were: Market/Professional skills,
Management and Leadership effectiveness; Commercial Orientation and Teamwork/One Firm
Contribution.

Parsons results in evaluation:

Parson was unique in his drive, ambition, pursuit of business, determination and knowledge of
the business. His clients loved him. He had excellent cross-selling skills, was aggressive and hard
working and responsive. He also showed tremendous progress in his team and interpersonal
skills. I strongly believe that Parson should be promoted for his stellar performance and for his
other qualities.

In addition to promoting Parson, I believe that he should be asked to read his evaluation reviews
and make a public acknowledgement of his deficiencies as a team player and a promise to try and
be a better one. This would help soothe the employees who will not be receptive of Parsons being
promoted and who have had a tough time dealing with Parson in the past. Parson should also be
made aware that the higher he goes up in the corporate ladder, the more administrative work he
will encounter. He should be assigned a mentor who will guide him and hone his rough edges so
that he continues being a star producer within Morgan Stanley in the future without being the
odd man out culturally.

5. Recommendation:

Parson should not be promoted. Not yet. Parson defies Morgan Stanleys mission statement and culture.
Its not feasible to promote someone who is a clear contradiction of what Morgan Stanleys moralize. He
also lack of teamwork, lack of respect to the others. Managing Directors must respect others and receive
a high level of respect from the others.

The solution is, Nasr should give a period of evaluation for Parson, for example 6 months. If Parson change
the attitude, he can promoted to be managing director.