Re: proposed cluster descriptors

Davie --

Meets many, but may have some developmen needs works just fine.

I just don't want people to say someone is satisfactory and meets
requirements when, in fact, there are developmental needs that are obvious
when compared to persons in strong.

So, I am happy with your proposal (although I suggest that your second
proposal does not meet the "fairly up" goal).

Cheers. Mich

David Oxley
10/09/2000 12:34 PM
To: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: proposed cluster descriptors

Mich,

What's middle ground. I would prefer to keep satisfactory wording fairly up.
This is what caused most concern at mid year in conjunction with our 20%
guideline for that cluster "We don't feel comfortable putting Joe in here
given what it says - he really does an OK job".

My orginal pitch was meets many but may have some development needs relative
to peers, or meets most or exceeds some and sucks in others.

The latter is my personnel favorite.

David

Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

From: Gina Corteselli @ ENRON 10/09/2000 11:49 AM

To: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: proposed cluster descriptors

Do you agree?
---------------------- Forwarded by Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron on 10/09/2000
11:43 AM ---------------------------

Michelle Cash@ECT
10/09/2000 11:31 AM
To: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: proposed cluster descriptors

Gina, I am not sure that the "Satisfactory" descriptor is accurate. "Met"
expectations probably does not fit the average person's view of a person in
Satisfactory. Perhaps "met most, but not all" or something like that would
be more accurate.

Where are we on the total revamp? Has that been postponed until next year?

Thanks. Michelle

Enron North America Corp.

From: Gina Corteselli @ ENRON 10/09/2000 11:11 AM

To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: proposed cluster descriptors

Hi Michelle;

I have attached the latest version of the proposed cluster descriptors for
year end-2000. We would like to have these reviewed by the VP/MD PRC
Committee tomorrow , but wanted to ensure that you saw them first. They
comprise merely a refinement of the present descriptors, with an effort to
demonstrating "relativity". let me know your thoughts, thanks, G