|
|
Enron Mail |
Gina, I will leave this to your discretion. I agree that the OD&T people
could help us in the communication/training side of any changes that are made. Comp. probably will not be affected much, since Needs Improvement and Issues both are no bonus/no merit categories. Thanks. Michelle ---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT on 08/28/2000 03:29 PM --------------------------- Andrea Yowman@ENRON 08/27/2000 09:48 AM To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: Potential Change of Cluster Descriptors for PRC Reviews Thanks Michelle. One question: Since this issue surrounds compensation and OD&T, have we considered a compensation and OD&T person to participate in this review? I would recommend the leaders of the appropriate councils be involved. Michelle Cash@ECT 08/25/2000 10:22 AM To: Andrea Yowman/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: Potential Change of Cluster Descriptors for PRC Reviews Andrea, You are right. I remember that you wanted to be included, but somehow, as I was trying to get away for vacation, I failed to remember to tell Twanda, who was setting up the meeting. I apologize for the oversight -- it was not intentional. I will make sure that you are included in any subsequent meetings. I am sorry about this one. Basically, the discussion revolved around the purpose of the PRC -- is it a compensation system or a feedback system? Because the process tries to address both, there is a tension between the organization's interests (comp, promotion, etc) and that of the employee (feedback, development, etc.) This tension is really reflected by the current categories and descriptors and the fact that we have a comparative rating system. This tension has given people lots of heartburn. To address this tension and to provide an immediate tweak that doesn't create too much change, Gina is going to draft new descriptors that reflect that comparative nature and also that reflect a more consistent view of how we evaluate employees. The preference was to go to numbered categories instead of a descriptor because of the possible disconnect between the descriptor and the comparative rating. For example, a "strong" performer really could be excellent, but compared to others in the group, ended up in the third category. For this reason, the descriptor identifiers were found to be problematic. Also, there will be a revamping of the explanations of the categories to get away from the old "HR" language. For example, a category 1 performer would have a descriptor that said something like: "Always raises the bar; franchise player," etc. rather than a "HR" definition relating to demonstrating criteria. Also, people had the view that needs improvement and issues probably should be collapsed because there wasn't much difference between the two. There was a general discussion about whether going to numbers made it seem more competitive. Also, there was discussion about the fact that the PRC appeared to be a "black box," and the desire to explain and communicate more about the process. This was only the first meeting. I will make sure that you are invited to attend any subsequent ones, and I apologize for the first one. Let me know if you have any questions. Michelle Andrea Yowman@ENRON 08/25/2000 06:13 AM To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: Potential Change of Cluster Descriptors for PRC Reviews Michelle, I had previously asked to be involved in this meeting but do not recall getting a invitation. Would you please send me a copy of the details of this meeting? Are there any other follow-up meetings scheduled? Gina Corteselli 08/24/2000 05:28 PM To: Candi Stanley/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Berghout/NA/Enron@Enron cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrea Yowman/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Potential Change of Cluster Descriptors for PRC Reviews As I noted, I attended a meeting yesterday to discuss the possibility of changing the current descriptors used in PRC (Superior through Issues) to a numeric rating 1-6 (or possibly 1-5 by combining the Needs Improvement and Issues categories). The numeric ratings would be based on more relative behavioral descriptors to categorize an employee's performance, and not the absolute standards that the current descriptors represent. I have been tasked with drafting the verbiage for this possible change which will, of course, require review and approval by the senior levels of the organization. In the interim I would appreciate knowing how this change might affect the system and current development and compatibility of the data from mid-year to year end, assuming the change is approved. I look forward to your comments and input. Thanks in advance, Gina
|