|
|
Enron Mail |
I think paul has a number of good suggestions here. I think that tying
rankings to clear objectives does not reflect the fluidity of our charge, though, and will lead to expectations which may not be met. I also feel strongly that the ranking needs to be a relative one -- I would go to a pure number system. We are going to need to assess at each PRC whether the organization is strong (in which case I think it's ok to have a disproportionate number of high ratings) or whether the organization has weaknesses that force us to grade tougher. You don't get that in an absolute system with preset expectations. I think your group in particular has done a good job of emphasizing team work ( and punishing those who don't play well) so we need not create a competitive or jockeying environment so long as that emphasis is communicated explicitly. I agree with Paul's points about giving clear, specific feed back (though I don't think we can give a clear target for what one must accomplish to be superior). I also like the idea of the abbreviated mid year PRC to deal with those we need to counsel more vigorously. I'm not sure we can get away with it but I am willing to give it a shot. I think Paul is to be complimented for taking time to focus on the larger organizational issues .... very vice presidential of him... no overstepping of bounds ... quite the contrary. Richard Shapiro@EES 10/31/2000 02:52 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: PRC Stuff Can we discuss? ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 10/31/2000 02:52 PM --------------------------- Paul Kaufman@ECT 10/27/2000 07:04 PM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: PRC Stuff Here's my effort to respond to the PRC discussion we had in Kohler. The criteria for evaluating folks is at the end of the presentation ... but I took the liberty to go a bit further and comprehensively address the PRC process. Hope I didn't overstep my bounds .... I'm around today, as well as Monday (ENA meeting most of the day) and Tuesday, but then traveling in Reno, Las Vegas and San Francisco for the remainder of the week. I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss the reasoning and rationale behind the document. As I said on my voice mail, I circulated the document to the attendees at Kohler (with the exception of Sue L. and Linda R.). I've had feedback from a number of the attendees, but I can't call it a consensus document. As always, thanks for the opportunity to make suggestions like this.
|