|
|
Enron Mail |
Doesn't really count for your group I just include you on all of those types
of messages - we have a lot of new people who have never worked the system before. I agree on the all or nothing - let's talk this afternoon. Its typical Enron execution I'm afraid - this is our HR departments we are talking about! Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. From: Sally Beck 01/24/2001 08:12 PM To: Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Bonus Communication Received your e:mail today about bonus letters not being ready until next week. Timing is fine. However, Brent Price (EGM operations) received bonus letters for his operations team this afternoon from his HR team. Brent will be out of the country on business next week, so he will distribute those letters right away. This highlights the issues that I raised earlier this week when I found out that not all operations personnel had been transferred to ENW as of January 1. Not only do we have different HR teams with apparently different directives, but some of my team is still defined as an integral part of a business unit (EGM and EIM) and the bulk of my team is operating as service providers through ENW (dedicated of course to the success of Enron Americas, but somehow starting to feel a bit removed). I think that Robert Jones is running down how I can get access to systems that give me information on operations employees who support EA, EGM and EIM. While necessary, that is really not addressing my point. My conversation with Greg Whalley on moving operations under Net Works was very explicit on making that an all or nothing proposition (i.e. we would move ENA, EIM and EGM operations employees under ENW). I asked about London, but he deferred at the time on that one. But there was not deferral on EIM and EGM. This movement out of the business units is not an insignificant change. I still believe that this needs to be all or nothing. We have now created two classes of operations staffs - one that is part of trading/origination operating companies and one that is part of Net Works. The company will benefit if we can freely move employees from operating company to operating company to capitalize on skills. We have done this quite frequently in operations in the past, moving people from gas to crude products or gas to paper. We have now made that hard, because we have operations personnel on three different payrolls - ENW, EGM and EIM. This creates assumptions around value judgements as well. EIM and EGM personnel are more integrally linked with their business units than those who support EA. Over time, this won't be a good message. The promotion memo that you plan to send out this week highlights this problem. When I asked whether operations personnel under Brent Price would be included in the memo, the answer seems to be "no", because "they are not ENW employees". And yet we ranked and made promotion decisions on Brent's staff jointly with ENA and EIM operations personnel. (I had actually drafted a promotion memo from me that would cover all operations promotions regardless of business unit that they service, but I will not move forward with that given that your memo will address those promotions - or at least some of them) This seems like a small issue but is just a great example of a myriad of complications that will arise . My question again is whether this situation is bad execution on someone's part, or is it reflective of a change in Greg Whalley's view on having all operations personnel under Net Works? Have McConnell/Shankman and McMahon/Bowen lobbied to have their operations personnel remain as an integral part of their teams, reflected tangibly through remaining EGM and EIM employees? If that is the case, I fear that this inconsistency won't serve the company well as the year progresses. We have time on the calendar on Friday, so we can discuss this further then. --Sally
|