Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

360 Feedback at

Morgan Stanley
Group 4: Section D

Group D-4

Individual is rated by all colleagues he works with


Feedback provided by superiors, peers,
subordinates and internal clients
All information about an individual collected and
transformed into a more meaningful summary by
the evaluation director
Evaluation director was usually the line manager
Self evaluation also solicited to get a sense of an
individuals self perception
The evaluation director to give the Evaluation
and Development Summary (EDS) to the
evalautee

Group D-4

The Process

Criteria for Evaluation


Market/Professional Skills
Skills as an individual contributor
How well can one do their job
People management, interactions with the rest of
the company

Commercial Orientation
Outward orientation and abilities as a salesperson

Teamwork/ One Firm Contribution


Direct contribution towards team building and
progress of the company

Group D-4

Management and Leadership

Assigning weights to criteria


Assigning weights to different evaluators
The perceived and the real link between
performance evaluation for feedback and the
compensation (rewards)
Reading between the lines to get the understated
feedback about negative attributes of individuals
Link between performance evaluation and the
results obtained by an individual

Group D-4

Challenges

Recommendations

Create a team of evaluation directors who lead individuals


with similar roles and at similar levels to assign weights to
evaluation criteria
Flexible range of weights (e.g. 25-40% weightage for
Commercial Orientation) This will help in protecting the
interests of individuals who have predominantly worked on
horizontal/ team projects with no direct financial impact.
Weights to be decided at the beginning of the review cycle
by the evaluation director and the individual

Assigning weights to different evaluators


To be left to the discretion of evaluation director depending
on the time spent working in conjunction with the
evaluatee

Group D-4

Assigning weights to criteria

Recommendations (Contd.)

Go ahead with the same process while making the


expectations clear that the evaluation would also be used
for compensation review
Potential Concern- Unwillingness of peers to provide honest
feedback while being concerned for their relationship with the
evaluatee
This is countered by the fact that many people might not spend
enough effort for the feedback if they feel that it doesnt have any
implications

Will save the transaction cost of evaluating the individual


afresh

Effect of the process on closely working groups


A part of the rewards should be kept dependent on the
group performance to incentivize collaboration

Group D-4

The perceived and the real link between performance


evaluation for feedback and the compensation (rewards)

Recommendations(Contd.)

Educate the evaluation directors about the problem,


with time theyll get better at reading between the
lines
Create a provision for consulting with the peer in case
of ambiguous feedback before anonymizing it

Link between performance evaluation and the


results
Keep results as an additional parameter while
evaluating the individuals for compensation
The weight of result in compensation review to be
decided based on the role of the individual

Group D-4

Reading between the lines to get the understated


feedback about negative attributes of individuals