FirmWide 360 Degree Performance Evaluation

This case was developed by M. Burton with his senior assistant for class discussion and its
published on October 29, 1998. s the i!portance of perfor!ance evaluation cannot be denied
because it provides an opportunity to every e!ployee to "now about how well they are wor"in#
and throu#h this, fir! can also #et an opportunity to develop its e!ployees which can proved to
be a "ey ele!ent for the success of the fir!.
This syste! i!ple!ented at Mor#an $tanley nearly 2%%% e!ployees all around the #lobe at the
cost of &1.' !illion. (t was the end result of the efforts started by a tea! under the supervision of
newly appointed )hief *evelop!ent Officer To! *elon#. +,% de#ree feedbac" is a procedure in
which e!ployees as"ed for a feedbac" re#ardin# their perfor!ances either fro! their clients,
superiors or subordinates, peers etc.
The procedure of #ettin# this feedbac" consists of few steps. -irst of all, all the e!ployees have
to select all those people fro! which they can #et feedbac" on the basis of interaction with the!.
n evaluation re.uest for! /01-2 has to filled by evaluate in which list of evaluators will be
ree3a!ined by the !entioned evaluation director on 01- for! and then it will be sub!itted to
the develop!ent office. The develop!ent office will collect the evaluations by sendin# it to all
listed evaluators and then a data pac"et will be for!ed.
The bi##est challen#e was evaluation criteria. Mor#an $tanley cate#ori4ed it into four
perspectives includin# tea!wor", professional s"ills, leadership and co!!ercial orientation. -or
all four cate#ories, stren#ths and wea"nesses as"ed fro! the evaluators. (nvest!ent ban"in#
division /(B*2 introduced a five point scale to ran" individuals in which 1 leads to unsatisfactory
and ' leads to outstandin#. 5erfor!ance standard was entirely ri#id as its understood that
!ana#er always have hi#h standard as co!pare to any other say analysts and secondly all the
subordinates used to answer their superiors leadership capabilities related .uestions.
The ne3t procedure will be processed by the director !ana#er. The office of develop!ent will
#ather the whole data into a boo"let of 1% to 2% pa#es called either as 6the boo"7 or data pac"et
at year end. The evaluation director will process and sy!phoni4e the unprocessed data. Thou#h
evaluate cannot see the co!!ents #iven by director !ana#er but can see the co!piled survey.
This survey used to be a brid#e between director !ana#ers and evaluate to discuss and review
the perfor!ances. Mana#ers ran"ed this discussion tou#hest tas" a!on# their overall 8ob tas"s.
Many e!ployees pro!otion and co!pensation criteria also rely on these su!!aries.
This syste! has few pros and cons within it. The first and fore!ost advanta#e was !ostly
e!ployees found this evaluation process very effective as in old process9 to #et an individual
feedbac" was not possible for the!. The data content and the written for!at of new syste! lead
towards the fairness and e.uality as well. This syste! was also helpful for all those !an#ers that
were not able to #et self:pro!otion.
;u!ber of issues was also there to #ear. (n co!parin# individuals too !uch to be #iven to
nu!bers in spite of the fact that these were as sub8ective as the co!!ents. nother concern in
this syste! was people were not too honest while #ivin# feedbac". Besides this, very few
divisions too" this process as a base of co!pensation and pro!otion rather they paid attention on
only personal develop!ent. $o!e opposed the syste! 8ust because they thin" it contains
unnecessary co4y .ualities.
To be concluded proble!s, .uestions or pu44les persisted as fir!s supposed to twist the syste!
every year. But overall, this evaluation process proved to be pro!isin# towards the entire
syste!.