Going on interviews while noticing my former employer's shakeup
I've been busy during the first half of this week, so sorry about the light blogging. I've been interviewing at a couple of places and tending to necessities of real life.
Incidentally, since I'm currently in-between jobs, I'm all ears if someone knows of a good staffing service that deals with New York City, Westchester County, and the western edge of Connecticut (like Greenwich and Stamford). I have a B.A. in economics, good analytical, math and writing skills, and lots of IT experience (I consider myself quite expert in Windows and Office). After almost a couple of years at Morgan Stanley (working in operations at a retail branch), it was time to go when they cut my hours. It wasn't my first "real" post-grad job after returning to college and completing my degree, but it paid the bills and was an easy job while I waited for my "big break."
The New York Times has an update on the Morgan Stanley management fracas: a third top executive has resigned. Yesterday, Chief Executive Philip Purcell changed the top management structure by replacing the president with two "co-presidents." That prompted two top executives, the heads of the Institutional Equity Division and Institutional Securities Group, to resign.
I'm not really going to comment on the particulars of this corporate intrigue, but I'll say this. I believe that company executives are worthy of their hire, if they produce results. Right now there are a former Morgan Stanley chairman and former president, backed by some big shareholders, who are less than pleased with the company's direction. They're bluntly saying Purcell should go. Do they think Purcell is rearranging the top management structure like FDR was trying to stack the Supreme Court? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless I think Purcell had better take care, lest the shareholders get "annoyed" if he gets more lucrative rewards for what they perceive as poor performance. As I recall, last year he received $2 million in stock options alone.
Meanwhile, at least at our branch, operations personnel haven't received a pay raise in over three years, coming up on four. I'm not calling specifically for "efficiency wages," but Morgan Stanley will continue to lose good people (from all rungs of the corporate ladder, operations up to presidents of entire divisions) if they don't get on the ball.
Update: corrected "Individual Investor Group" to just "company" (the IIG is the division where I worked).
Incidentally, since I'm currently in-between jobs, I'm all ears if someone knows of a good staffing service that deals with New York City, Westchester County, and the western edge of Connecticut (like Greenwich and Stamford). I have a B.A. in economics, good analytical, math and writing skills, and lots of IT experience (I consider myself quite expert in Windows and Office). After almost a couple of years at Morgan Stanley (working in operations at a retail branch), it was time to go when they cut my hours. It wasn't my first "real" post-grad job after returning to college and completing my degree, but it paid the bills and was an easy job while I waited for my "big break."
The New York Times has an update on the Morgan Stanley management fracas: a third top executive has resigned. Yesterday, Chief Executive Philip Purcell changed the top management structure by replacing the president with two "co-presidents." That prompted two top executives, the heads of the Institutional Equity Division and Institutional Securities Group, to resign.
I'm not really going to comment on the particulars of this corporate intrigue, but I'll say this. I believe that company executives are worthy of their hire, if they produce results. Right now there are a former Morgan Stanley chairman and former president, backed by some big shareholders, who are less than pleased with the company's direction. They're bluntly saying Purcell should go. Do they think Purcell is rearranging the top management structure like FDR was trying to stack the Supreme Court? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless I think Purcell had better take care, lest the shareholders get "annoyed" if he gets more lucrative rewards for what they perceive as poor performance. As I recall, last year he received $2 million in stock options alone.
Meanwhile, at least at our branch, operations personnel haven't received a pay raise in over three years, coming up on four. I'm not calling specifically for "efficiency wages," but Morgan Stanley will continue to lose good people (from all rungs of the corporate ladder, operations up to presidents of entire divisions) if they don't get on the ball.
Update: corrected "Individual Investor Group" to just "company" (the IIG is the division where I worked).
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
3:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home