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 HNIs
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 hes 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 whos 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 isnt . The companys 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.
Herzbergs Two-Factor theory of motivation is also
present. Parsons dissatisfaction (extrinsic) factor was
company procedures and his satisfaction (intrinsic) factor
was responsibility, possibility of growth, and advancement.

Views
Everyone shouldnt be evaluated on the same criteria and the
evaluation shouldnt be the only factor in determining promotions.
A Principal shouldnt be evaluated using the same criteria of a
managing director or an associate.
A principal in the capital market services division shouldnt 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.