FIRMWIDE 360 DEGREE PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION
AT MORGAN STANLEY

SUBMITTED BY -
ANUBHAV ANAND
KATYAYINI KESHARWANI
ASHESH MATHUR
SHAMBHAWI SINHA
ABOUT
MORGAN
STANLEY
•TIME :1993
•REVAMPED EVALUATION SYSTEM:360
DEGREE
•PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES :2000
•COST OF SYSTEM : 1.5 Mn $
•NEW CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER : TOM
DELONG
WHY 360 DEGREE WAS
NEEDED
•To know the blind and hidden area of development for employees – JoHari
window
•Blind and hidden area assessed by employees with whom regular interaction
•To overcome issues with old system :
1. Verbal assessments in large group
2. Oral meetings lead to assessments
3. No individual feedback
4. Better decisions by seeing who are good /not good at self promotion
KEY ELEMENTS OF
SYSTEM

•360 Degree Feedback

•Self assessment
•Explicit evaluation criteria
•High quality data and Evaluation Director
Managing process
360 DEGREE FEEDBACK

Identify regular interaction people and provide feedback for them

List of evaluators in ERF was reviewed and discussed
ERF submitted to office of development
Evaluation forms distributed to people listed on ERF
Collection of forms from evaluators
Processing of collected evaluation into Year –end data packet
 Each professional did own assessment –
Why self assessment ?
to reflect on their performance
SELF ASSESSMENT to incorporate perspective into
evaluation
To highlight blind and hidden area of
development for employees– JoHari
window
EXPLICIT EVALUATION
CRITERIA
4 broad categories :
Market /Professional Skills
Management and Leadership
Commercial Orientation
Teamwork /One firm Contribution
Pros of explicit evaluation:
Performance criteria was rigorous as one moved
up in hierarchy
Detailed and specific information of employees
present with managers
Supervisor bias elimination
Evaluators could freely express themselves
HIGH Office of development collected forms
and combined into 10-20 page doc

QUALITY –”book”
Raw data – interpreted by evaluation

DATA AND Director

Evaluation and development summary

EVALUATION created
Summary – Template for performance

DIRECTOR review discussion

Problem with summary – complete

MANAGING
disconnect between person’s self
perception and other’s self perception –
blind and hidden areas of Jo hari
PROCESS window
EFFECTIVENESS
CHECK
Task – to assess effectiveness of 360
degree performance evaluation system
Problems:
Biggest problems - how to weight the
criteria and the input from different
evaluators ?
Complete qualitative info not provided –
grade inflation
How to achieve correctness of
questionnaires
Comparison was thought to be real -
leading to fighting for points
Compensation and development
discussions separate
SOLUTION- EVALUATION CRITERIA

10 point scale rather than 5 point scale to be more specific

Communicate to people – KRA, KPA,KPI after every project
ends
Evaluation criteria will be divided into categories, so they will
be more suitable for different kind of jobs.
Categories:
Personal skills - interpersonal relations, communication,
flexibility, creativity, initiative and commitment
professional skills - job experience, knowledge and skills,
training and transferring new knowledge and skills,
Teamwork skills -work participation (mentoring, coaching,
job enlargement, job rotation), evaluating others
Organizational skills - sense of belonging to the organization
Negative - absenteeism, investment returns on person.
 Correctness of
Questionnaires

•Simple and pointed questions – yes/no

•Prepare another test for the evaluated employees which will examine their
abilities to carry out duties. Questionnaire results can be compared with this
type of survey
GIVING HONEST FEEDBACK TO
OVERCOME GRADE INFLATION

Evaluators must get training about how to provide constructive

feedback.
Supervisor must be capable of understanding the feedback for
better clarification
Quarterly feedback should be given
Supervisor must also know attitude of person receiving feedback –
knower/ understander/thinker/learner
Appeal process should be in place for less criticism for feedback
Supervisors, HR staff, and other critical managers must assist the
employee to understand and develop action plans based upon the
feedback
 To
Group Division : Individuals will not get exact numbers, but
based on numbers, evaluator will divide them into several
groups (excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory).
avoid
fighting
This will help to avoid comparisons across individuals.
Employees will only know on which level in each category they
are

BARS method of evaluation

for
points
Compensation Defining SMART goals and obtain
agreement on same
and Mentoring for career path
Quarterly discussions instead of annual

Development Compensation handbook to employee

as soon as they change job roles / enter

Discussions organization
Thank You