Re: Forced ( yes FORCED ) Rankings

Thanks. Will do. Did you need something the other day?

Jeff

Charlene Jackson@ENRON
12/06/2000 08:04 PM
To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Gary Hickerson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Forced ( yes FORCED ) Rankings

Jeff,
As you are aware, in Houston, there is a preferred distribution for the
entire company. That being said, I am not involved in the process for the
Associates and Analysts in London. We simply receive a copy of their
results. I am not sure how they are handling their process. I suggest you
contact John Sherriff, Drew Lynch or Sophie Kingsley in the London office.

From: Jeffrey A Shankman @ ECT 12/06/2000 07:25 PM

To: Charlene Jackson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Forced ( yes FORCED ) Rankings

What's the story with this
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000
07:26 PM ---------------------------

From: Gary Hickerson 12/06/2000 02:13 PM

To: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Forced ( yes FORCED ) Rankings

Gentlemen,

Attached is a memo from Shane (he runs my group in London) describing how the
London AA representative conducted the PRC process. They ranked everyone
ordinally then simply applied the distribution and --- end of process. This
is a forced distribution and two of my people fell one rank. As you both
know, I have a problem with this and I think you should as well.

Gary

---------------------- Forwarded by Gary Hickerson/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000
01:59 PM ---------------------------

Shane Dallmann
12/06/2000 01:29 PM
To: Gary Hickerson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

Gary,

The pre-ranking meeting was held on Friday. The analysts and Associates for
our group were assessed with the Traders for the first time.
The process was that a piece of paper was handed out showing the number of
analysts and associates for each different class i.e trading, origination,
finance, tech support etc and the forced distribution of rankings that would
be followed for each group (I will get a copy of the sheet and fax it to
you). We were told to rank all the Analysts (then after the Associates) from
top to bottom and these were fitted to the distribution according to the
sheet we were given with no deviation from the distribution shown on the
sheet. We were told the names of the categories meant nothing and were just
groupings ie "Has Issues" did not mean this it just meant the bottom two or
three people of the distribution.The electricity desks had already had
pre-meetings in which they fitted their own people and they expected every
other group to fit their people similiarly.

The three A&A people we have here in London were all allocated "Excellent"
ratings prior to the meeting but due to forced ranking of people to the
defined distribution two of these were moved down to "Strong".

I am sorry that I did not send this email on Monday.

Regards,
Shane