Morgan Stanley, Becoming One Firm
Morgan Stanley becoming the “One-firm firm”
1. What, if any are the deficiencies in the Morgan Stanley performance evaluation plan? * A common “firm-wide” evaluation matrix is generic and risks eliminating division specific competence demand evaluation criteria. For example, the investment banking métier is quite a different business and requires quite different skill sets to succeed compared to trading and sales * The skill sets to succeed are quite different on different levels of responsibility in the firm. Nevertheless, in the introduced performance management model the evaluation criteria for Juniors, Associates, Vice Presidents, Principals and Managing Directors remain the same. * The model goes very explicit and is based on a direct business and professional culture of Anglo-Saxon type. If implemented in a more “tacit” culture like in South-East Asia, problems might occur with comments not being clear and actionable. * The fact that the evaluated individual can himself select the respondents/evaluators (even if the Evaluation Director has to approve), can possibly limit and leave out some of the most critical evaluators. * The process is annual, and could thereby possibly lose out to provide timely feed-back to the evaluated person (immediately upon finalization of a project/deal). Learning is always strongest if set directly into a context.
2. What would you maintain, eliminate or improve? * In general, we would recommend to continue pursuing the implementation of the “One-firm firm” performance management model. In particular maintain the strong encouragement from top management for the new model introduced, the communication, the continuous development of the concept and the stressing of its importance to the organization * We would recommend further enhancing the new vision and mission statement that sets the direction for the new performance management model. Since “Culture always beats strategy”, we would recommend in
1. What, if any are the deficiencies in the Morgan Stanley performance evaluation plan? * A common “firm-wide” evaluation matrix is generic and risks eliminating division specific competence demand evaluation criteria. For example, the investment banking métier is quite a different business and requires quite different skill sets to succeed compared to trading and sales * The skill sets to succeed are quite different on different levels of responsibility in the firm. Nevertheless, in the introduced performance management model the evaluation criteria for Juniors, Associates, Vice Presidents, Principals and Managing Directors remain the same. * The model goes very explicit and is based on a direct business and professional culture of Anglo-Saxon type. If implemented in a more “tacit” culture like in South-East Asia, problems might occur with comments not being clear and actionable. * The fact that the evaluated individual can himself select the respondents/evaluators (even if the Evaluation Director has to approve), can possibly limit and leave out some of the most critical evaluators. * The process is annual, and could thereby possibly lose out to provide timely feed-back to the evaluated person (immediately upon finalization of a project/deal). Learning is always strongest if set directly into a context.
2. What would you maintain, eliminate or improve? * In general, we would recommend to continue pursuing the implementation of the “One-firm firm” performance management model. In particular maintain the strong encouragement from top management for the new model introduced, the communication, the continuous development of the concept and the stressing of its importance to the organization * We would recommend further enhancing the new vision and mission statement that sets the direction for the new performance management model. Since “Culture always beats strategy”, we would recommend in