|
|
Enron Mail |
I think this is a fine attempt, but I continue to believe that a pure
relative ranking offers the most flexibility and is more like the way the process works in practice. A separate list of desired behaviors, criteria etc can be used to guide discussion but I believe the ranking itself should remain purely relative. Gina Corteselli 09/14/2000 06:04 PM To: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: PRC cluster descriptors - draft All; Aattached are a draft of the PRC cluster descriptors which we discussed several weeks back. I has sent a first draft to Michelle and Dick, and both had some suggestions which I have tried to incorporate. I am still awaiting Dick and Michelle's impressions of the below, but also look forward to your impressions and input. Likewise I would appreciate your input on whether or not we need to change the ratings on the feedback forms to numerical ratings 1-5 to mimic the clusters. look forward to hearing from you, Many thanks, Gina ---------------------- Forwarded by Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron on 09/14/2000 05:54 PM --------------------------- Gina Corteselli 09/14/2000 05:03 PM To: dick@jeannerett.com cc: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: descriptors again Dick; here is another try at the descriptors. I tried to apply the information you provided and to describe qualities of an employee's performance . I'm not sure whether this is any better, but would appreciate your input. What I am finding most challenging writing descriptors which are interchangeable with all levels and job groups within the company. The behaviors these describe and measure need to be general in nature so that they can apply to a VP and an admin assistant, as well as to all four Peer Groups within Enron. Likewise, I would appreciate your thoughts on the necessity/value of changing the feedback forms to reflect the same numerical ratings. presently the feedback forms use the same descriptors as the cluster (i.e. Superior - Issues). In your opinion should these also be 1-5 ratings with one = to highest and 5= to lowest in scale? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and impressions. You may either e-mail me or call me on 713 345-3377. Many thanks in advance, Gina ****************************************************************************** **************************************** 1 = Relative to his/her peers, this employee is a visionary who identifies new ideas and methods, inspires and motivates others by example, embodies Enron's vision and values, and demonstrates a mastery of the business and technical skills necessary to excel in his/her position. 2 = Relative to his/her peers this employee drives change, demonstrates vision and values, displays resourcefulness when faced with unexpected challenges, and comprehends and effectively uses the business and technical skills required to perform his/her job. 3 = Relative to his/her peers this employee supports innovation and improvement, understands Enron's vision and values, and continues to develop the core skills and business/technical skills necessary to satisfy the requirements of his/her position. 4 = Relative to his/her peers this employee accepts change, demonstrates some independent thinking and can apply resources and business and technical skills to adequately perform his/her job. 5 = Relative to his/her peers this employee has difficulty accepting change, lacks resourcefulness, offers minimal contribution and does not demonstrate the skills or knowledge to fulfill the responsibilities of the position This employee must make changes or termination is likely.
|