Message-ID: <9024120.1075854457061.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:22:00 -0800 (PST) From: david.delainey@enron.com To: rob.milnthorp@enron.com Subject: Reporting Structure Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: David W Delainey X-To: Rob Milnthorp X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \David_Delainey_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: Delainey-D X-FileName: ddelain.nsf Rob, independent of dotted/solid lines, you already have the primary and complete responsibility to manage the office and the business. At the risk of being bold, I think the undercurrent of your note and your discussions with Haedicke over the last couple of days is a matter of absolute control. Ownership and passion are important characteristics of our best commercial people but so is fostering a diversity of opinions and ideas. With the back and mid office, the current Enron model is based upon scale and standardization which generates tremendous operating leverage. Further, it helps us manage risk and is a board mandated control issue. In the long-run, it is actually less costly (ie) systems that don't work together, less transferable human capital, un-managed legal risks, etc. A lot of your points are very valid and Haedicke has never and never will get in the way of managing commercial business; however, Mark, Wes, Sally, Beth et al have a mandate to provide a flexible, scalable but standardized delivery mechanism, that manages our risk across the broad empire. Don't quit protecting the business and your people; however, please help accomplish some of these goals as well. In short, I would like to keep the reporting structures the same. Lets take the earliest opporunity to discuss this. Regards Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 11/02/2000 09:41 AM --------------------------- Rob Milnthorp 11/02/2000 09:17 AM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Reporting Structure Dave, at the risk of rocking the boat, I would like you to consider the following. As you know, with the exception of Origination & Finance, all other Canadian departments (Trading, Legal, Ops, Acctg, HR, Govt, & IT) report directly to someone in Houston while having a dotted line to me. In my mind, this is completely backwards (ie. it should be a solid line to me, and a dotted line to their respective counterparts in Houston) for the following reasons. First, performance feedback is not communicated to these individuals in a timely manner if at all. Even when it is, more times than not, it is perfunctory in nature. In fact, I think that feedback is given somewhat reluctantly because the manager in Houston has really no idea whether the individual in Canada is doing a good job or not. Second, it is sub-optimal. I seem to be spending more and more time dealing with issues between the Canadian employee and their respective manager in Houston. Many of these conversations revolve around my first point. Case and point, we almost lost Laura Scott earlier this year because she was feeling unappreciated and felt that her boss had no idea the hours/effort she was putting in. And just yesterday, I had a very unsatisfactory phone call with Mark Haedicke regarding Peter Keohane. The result - I now have a very demotivated lawyer on my hands. Third, it is costly. Having senior people fly up to Calgary/Toronto to "stay in the loop" and to complete performance reviews is both costly from both a dollar and time perspective. Frankly, I'm not looking for more performance reviews to do, but I do think its important that staff receive meaningful feedback in a timely fashion. I know what these people do - I work with them every day. It is my job to lead, inspire, and motivate but lately it feels like it is my job to liase between Houston and the employee. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Regards Milnthorp