Case Analysis: Rob Parson at Morgan Stanley

Case Analysis: Rob Parson at Morgan Stanley

The main issue in this case is the dilemma that whether to promote Rob Parson or not. From the perspective of work achievement, there is no doubt that Parson should be promoted since he has made much contribution to the development of the Capital Market Services division. However, teamwork and unification are core concepts under the valuation of Morgan Stanley. Those aspects are exactly what Rob Parson is criticized for. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the firm to promote Parson without the recognition from his colleagues.

From another side, the firm should also evaluate the consequence if the final decision is “No promotion”. The firm should think about whether Parson will perform as well as he did, even whether or not he would stay in Morgan Stanley.

In my opinion, this dilemma results from the influence of three different factors: the consistency of enterprise culture, the impact of this promotion on other colleagues, and the concern of Paul Nasr.

First of all, it is obviously that the firm cares a lot about the integrity of the process. As shown in the firm’s mission statement: “Morgan Stanley’s people are the source of our competitive advantage. We distinguish ourselves by creating an environment that fosters teamwork and innovation, by developing and utilizing our employees’ abilities to the fullest, and by treating each other with dignity and respect.”(Burton, 1998)

Under the guidance of this statement, the firm is heading toward an appropriate way of operation. As a result, it is reasonable to believe that this principal policy is a key contribution to the firm’s progress. Thus, a change of this firm culture would be unacceptable.

Then, it can be easily understand that why an exception can harm the whole firm so much. Once an employee whose behavior deviates from the core value of the firm gets promoted, others would not take the firm’s culture seriously. Employees without cohesiveness will reduce the competitive advantage—human resource—of Morgan Stanley. It may be the last thing the management of this firm would like to see.

Moreover, Paul Nasr’s personal concern also contributes to this dilemma. From Nasr’s point of view, he is afraid to be said as Rob Parson’s “protector” or “godfather” since Parson is the only one he hired through a prior personal connection. As Nasr Covering Parson’s misbehavior is a sign of distinction between those employees who previously work in the firm and a person who was brought in the firm by Nasr. Also, Nasr feels it is difficult to direct Parson towards Morgan Stanley’s culture. Like he said, “If I’d hired him after having been at Morgan Stanley a year or two, I would have talked to him more aggressively about the differences between him and the culture of the firm. But I wasn’t yet in a position myself to articulate the differences from that point of view.”

...