The first brief explains the details of Morgan Stanley's new 360-degree performance review process that the company adopted as part of its restructuring efforts. Feedback would be solicited from the employee's peers, subordinates, superiors, and internal customers as well as the employee himself. Employees would be assessed in the areas of business and professional skills, management and leadership skills, business orientation and teamwork/single company contribution. All response data from these responses would then be compiled into an evaluation and development summary that would serve as the basis for future promotion decisions for the employee in question. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The second feature details the journey, successes, and struggles of a recently hired market coverage professional for Morgan Stanley named Rob Parson. Paul Nasr, Parson's supervisor, had difficulty interpreting the results of Parson's evaluation as he considered the role Parson should play in the organization's future. Morgan Stanley's restructuring focused on building a team spirit and respect for company processes. Parson, while highly successful in generating new business and closing deals that benefited Morgan Stanley's bottom line, seemed to have difficulty adopting the company's culture. This was often noted by those who participated in his evaluation process and as a result, responses regarding Parson's performance for the organization were mostly negative. He was found to be too aggressive and unwilling to “follow procedure” and “play by the rules”. Nasr had to determine whether or not Parson's suggestion for a management position would be beneficial to Morgan Stanley's long-term goals. Personally, I like many aspects of the new 360-degree review system. I like the fact that everyone in the organization involved with the employee, whether bosses, peers, or lower-level workers, has the opportunity to provide feedback. I also like that the system model clearly provides four structured areas on which the employee should be classified. This should make it very clear to the employee being evaluated in which areas they are highly competent as well as areas in which they could use improvement. I think there could be potential issues with the accuracy of the comments though. Although the text of the case mentions that positive comments are often worded clearly while negative comments are sometimes worded in a "soft" manner, I will refer to what I mentioned in this week's discussion post. If the reviewers know the employee at a level outside the organization (which is very likely in most cases), it is possible that the comments will be biased to represent that reviewer's positive or negative opinion of the employee. employed on a non-organizational basis. This could make it difficult to determine what comments and feedback are truly accurate. I believe Rob Parson's three strengths could be summarized as: 1) strong ability to communicate with potential and existing customer base, 2) high success rate in building business deals and generating additional revenue for the company, and 3) demonstrating a high commitment to growth and developmentof the organization through individual achievement (pulling one's own weight). I believe Parson's three areas of development could be summarized as follows: 1) must show more interest and initiative in working with team members to achieve goals rather than pursuing an approach also individualistic, 2) must treat colleagues with more respect; specifically, must solicit their input and efforts when necessary, as dictated by organizational policy, and 3) must learn to understand that Morgan Stanley's organizational mission is not solely to grow the business from a perspective financial. There is no doubt that Parson's style and personality differ greatly from that of a typical investment banker. So it's no surprise that his actions caused so much friction. I find it interesting that numerically, Parson's scores are relatively good, both from managers and his peers. However, there seem to be many negative comments in the open section. Perhaps this would amount to the following statement: "He's doing what he's supposed to do, but we just don't like the way he's doing it." » From managers and peers alike, it seems that the quantitative and qualitative assessments of one's technical or "technical" skills are formidable. However, it is clear that his people or “soft” skills need to be further developed for Parson to maximize his organizational effectiveness. I think Parson should be promoted to a senior position within Morgan Stanley. He has proven that his ability to drive growth and revenue for the firm is unlike any of his peers, and his guidance could create the opportunity for Morgan Stanley to gain greater market share across all different industries in which it serves its customers. However, I believe that Parson should participate (voluntarily and passionately) in a series of leadership development and communication strengthening activities in order to become a fully effective manager. In other words, I think Morgan Stanley should recognize the value he brings to the organization (hard skills) by providing him with methods to acquire the elements of value that the company believes he should use more regularly (soft skills). Training and development activities aimed at improving Parson's soft skills are the only thing standing in the way of the current situation and Parson's full ability to make a significant impact at Morgan Stanley. If you were Paul Nasr, how would you plan to lead the performance review conversation? What would your goals be? What issues would you raise and why, and how would you raise them? If I were Nasr, I would definitely realize that it's time to be a little tougher on Parson regarding his areas of development and improvement. I would argue that developing his leadership and communication skills was absolutely crucial to his advancement, and that any suggestions made to him now needed to be taken seriously in order to best position himself for promotion. I would almost aim to scare him a little: “make the changes we have asked of you, otherwise your future within this organization will be bleak”. I would mention that he needs to treat his colleagues with more respect and include them more in projects so that a sense of teamwork can be instilled. I would mention that he needs to embrace the company's mission statements and goals more by softening his style and "playing by the rules" on.