Rob Parson Analysis

CASE STUDY – ROB PARSON AT MORGAN STANLEY

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 Highly Aggressive Professional drive Perseverance Resourcefulness Knowledge of Markets High on initiative High on CRM with HNI’s 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 he’s 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 who’ not necessarily a team

Views
 Rob seemed to be exactly what they needed and wanted but now he isn’t. The company’s 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.  Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory of motivation is also present. Parson’s dissatisfaction (extrinsic) factor was company procedures and his satisfaction (intrinsic) factor was responsibility , possibility of growth, and advancement

Views
 Everyone shouldn’t be evaluated on the same criteria and the