Team Paper Mgt611

[pic 2]

[pic 3]

Summary:

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. Paul knowing the strengths of Rob, decided to hire him as a ‘Principal’ with an understanding to eventually promote him to the title 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. He expanded the market share from 2% to 12.5%, which was an evidence of his outstanding and influential performance.

Unfortunately, Rob failed to build good relations with his co-workers. 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 their goals. Rob Parson ‘broke too many eggs’ to achieve his goals and objectives which greatly affected his relationships with his peers and colleagues.

At Morgan Stanley, a 360-Degree performance evaluation process is implemented where the professionals were evaluated by the superiors, colleagues and subordinates. Rob Parson did fairly well in his reviews with regards to external clients. However, he was rated poorly by his colleagues and subordinates.

Rob Parson activities and qualities are not in agreement with the organization’s mission and culture. In the self-assessment exercise, he did concede that he is not exactly suited to the organization’s culture, and he would require some time to fit in.

Defining the problem

The immediate problem at hand is Rob Parson’s poor performance evaluation and the way forward, specifically pertaining to his promotion from Principal to Managing Director at Morgan Stanley (MS). The core issue stems from the fact that Parson’s personality and working style do not align with MS’s team oriented culture. Parson, though street smart with effective client relationship skills, is hard on the edges and is unique from other MS bankers since he does not have a superlative academic background. Unfortunately, his ability to rake in top business is not valued by his colleagues, as his behavior dilutes his performance.

Contributing factors

                There is a multitude of contributing factors to the underlying problems surrounding Rob Parson’s situation. Firstly, the ‘MS way’ of conducting business is to build a consensus. The process and the integrity of this process are considered crucial. Parson operates in a tough environment, dealing with banking and insurance clients focused on the fixed income market. The time frames associated with executing the ideal product for a potential client are limited and decentralized decision making is key to winning business. This creates a conflict for Parson who is a hustler, between adhering to MS norms and bringing in revenue quickly.

        The second key issue for Parson was the performance evaluation methodology itself at MS. The investment bank followed on of the most effective methods of 360-degree evaluation, which is an all-round comprehensive evaluation conducted by superiors, colleague and subordinates. Paul wanted to support Parson, especially since he was the one who recruited Parson. However, this method allowed for negative feedback to pour in from colleagues and subordinates which created a dilemma for Paul. Some comments mentioned that Parson undermined traders, he was not a team player and his behavior was volatile and abrasive. Thirdly, Paul’s lacked foresight of Parson being a mismatch to MS’s work culture and ethos. He overestimated Parson’s receptiveness to changing his ways and did not deliver effective and timely feedback to Parson. He often relayed indirect, soft and unclear messages to Parson which did not provide a measurable way for Parson to make any alterations to his working style or the way he interacted with others. Paul failed to assess the gravity of the damage since he feared Parson might leave which would adversely affect business in one of the difficult segments MS operated within. It might have proved to be a story of too little too late.

Key Stakeholders:

Paul Nasr - Senior Managing Director, Morgan Stanley

Rob Parson - Principal, Capital Markets Services division, Morgan Stanley

Employees of Morgan Stanley

Clients of Morgan Stanley

Question: Should Rob Parson be promoted to the title of Managing Director?

Yes. Rob Parson should be promoted to the role of Managing Director at Morgan Stanley.

Reasons: Parson can be termed as a “star performer”. He was recruited to join Morgan Stanley because his reputation precedes him and he proved to be a cut-above the rest. Parson stepped into a position notorious for the challenges it posed and was able to turn around Morgan Stanley’s market share position from tenth to third in rank. He was instrumental in increasing the market share 10.2%. Some of his major career highlights at Morgan Stanley were securing first time business and major deals with existing clients, which in turn lead to considerable revenues.