Message-ID: <7575266.1075860501277.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 05:39:00 -0700 (PDT) From: michelle.cash@enron.com To: david.oxley@enron.com Subject: Re: proposed cluster descriptors Cc: gina.corteselli@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: gina.corteselli@enron.com X-From: Michelle Cash X-To: David Oxley X-cc: Gina Corteselli X-bcc: X-Folder: \Michelle_Cash_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: Cash-M X-FileName: mcash.nsf 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