Rob Parson at Morgan Stanley Performance Evaluation Process Write Up
What is your assessment of Rob Parson’s performance? Should he be promoted?

You can’t make an omelet without breaking an egg….This seems to be the Rob Parson approach to handling business. While there is certainly no denying that Parson is unparalleled in his ability to deliver results; his overall demeanor and approach to others contradict everything that Morgan Stanley is trying to stand for. Morgan Stanley aims to establish an environment that fosters teamwork and innovation. Parson has certainly succeeded in the latter of the two helping Morgan Stanley move from the tenth ranked position to third and expanding the market share from 2% to 12.2%. Despite these results, Parson’s actions compromise the internal culture of Morgan Stanley. Being described as “cocky”, “abrasive”, and “volatile” are words that aren’t typically associated with somebody meriting a promotion. With a promotion comes further unchecked power. There has to be real trepidation with the notion of giving somebody who has already created a “hostile environment” in his current capacity. If Morgan Stanley was merely a results based company then Parson should be promoted. But Morgan Stanley has explicitly highlighted and placed an emphasis on consensus, interpersonal teamwork, and treating each other with dignity and respect. Parson’s fundamental failure to coexist with in the guidelines of Morgan Stanley make him a poor candidate to promote. The professional skills/responsibilities for the managing director role calls for someone who “displays leadership by clearly, credibly and consistently articulating departmental visions and strategies.” Parson though does not operate by the Morgan Stanley mantra.
Using the data in the case, please complete the evaluation and development summary presented in Exhibit 3 of the Rob Parson (A) case.

Strengths:
1. Outside the Box Thinker - Rob has the ability to complete difficult tasks that otherwise wouldn’t happen.
2. Drive – Rob brings a passion and energy that is needed for deal with intimating clients. Rob’s drive allows him to not get discouraged when clients are difficult.
3. Client Relations – Rob has developed a strong rapport with clients leading to successful growth with
Development Areas:
1. Approachability – Rob needs to make himself more welcoming to fellow employees.
2. Commitment to the Morgan Stanley Mission Statement – While Rob’s work output has been strong, his interactions with fellow employees creates a negative atmosphere going against Morgan Stanley’s code.
3. Patience – Rob needs to work on his patience as he often neglects team consensus and acts as a maverick.
Business Goals:
- Continue strong networking with clients.
- Further development of the Capital Market Services at Morgan Stanley.
Personal Development Goals:
- Create weekly team meetings: By creating weekly team meetings Rob, will have a better sense of how his employees feel.
- Create Weekly Suggestions: Allow fellow employee perspectives which will help expand the CMS business at Morgan Stanley.
Career Goals:
To advance in the ranks within two full business cycles, through demonstrating a more approachable and openness to fellow coworkers.
If you were Paul Nasr, how would you conduct plan to conduct the performance appraisal conversation? What would your goals be? What issues would you raise and why, and how you raise them?
It is imperative to have a calm and conducive conversation with Parson. Parson needs to understand that his abrasive demeanor will ultimately prevent him from getting promoted. The goal of this conversation is to make Paul understand his harsh actions while motivating him to continue his excellent work.
As Paul, I would first ask Rob Parson how he thought his performance was. What his goals were and what he thought that he could improve upon. I would come him with two separate game plans based off of Parson’s answers. Scenario one is Parson displays a conscience understanding of both his success, but more importantly his areas for room for improvement. From this point on I would actively talk with Parson about how he can improve his interpersonal skills. Together we can development a plan with how Parson can work on fellow employee treatment. We would also need to identify the root of Parson’s poor treatment towards others (ex. stress, undermanned team, etc.) to see if there is something that management could perhaps do to help alleviate the situation. This would certainly be the most ideal situation, since Parson himself recognizes his room for improvement and has an understanding of what he needs to do.
Scenario two is Parson seemingly not recognizing the hostile environment that he creates. It would be the most important message of this conversation to show Parson how his actions actually negatively impact his work output. While Parson most certainly perceives his work as excellent, his interpersonal skills will be his demise if he continues this kind of behavior. Explain to Rob that if he communicated in a better manner with his fellow employees he would be able to more easily delegate tasks and focus on other projects.
If you were Rob Parson, how would you conduct yourself in the performance evaluation meeting? What are your goals? How would you try to influence the process?
As Rob, I would understand that I am a results driven kind of employee and I have delivered that much. My goal is to get the promotion that I deserve. I believe that I truly have the leverage since Morgan Stanley has made such tremendous progress as a direct result from my work. Not only do I want that promotion, but I deserve that promotion. Nobody in the company has been able to push the needle forward as far I have. Further management delivers a conflicting message of wanting change yet unwilling to bend on teamwork and interpersonal skills. While I understand the importance of interpersonal skills, at the end of the day, Morgan Stanley is still a bank and results truly do trump all. This isn’t a day camp where everybody is expected to play nice. If Morgan Stanley wants to be a camp, then so be it, and Morgan Stanley can slip back to the tenth ranked position.
Further as Rob I would point out to Paul Nasr that he is the one who hired me. He very well knew who I was before he hired me and knew that this is exactly what I bring to the table. Paul explicitly promised me a promotion and I fully expect for him to honor it. Additionally the role that I (Rob) currently fill is extremely difficult and understaffed. This further gives me leverage because for Morgan Stanley to be able to replace me, they would have to take a step back and actually may never be able to make up the progress that I have established thus far at Morgan Stanley.