Message-ID: <3788186.1075848238040.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 03:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: gina.corteselli@enron.com
To: steven.kean@enron.com, cindy.olson@enron.com, david.delainey@enron.com
Subject: Employee comments received via the PEP system
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Gina Corteselli
X-To: Steven J Kean, Cindy Olson, David W Delainey
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_June2001_5\Notes Folders\Prc
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

=01;
=01;

 To date we have received 125 comments via the pep system.=01; These can be=
=20
generally grouped into three categories:=20
Philosophical issues with PRC(see below for additional detail), technical=
=20
system/process issues (which Help desk responds to immediately) and issues=
=20
which HR needs to address such as incorrect source data, etc (which we refe=
r=20
directly to the appropriate HR rep).=01; In addition we received a lot of=
=20
positive comments about the improved system and the interface, as well as=
=20
several very useful suggestions for improving the system at year-end (detai=
ls=20
below).=20

 Philosophical issues (28 comments):=20

 ?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Perceived unfairness of the process especially a=
s regards Preferred=20
Distribution-to harsh, unfair=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; PRC too frequent (reduce from 2=01,x a year to on=
ly once a year=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Perception that PRC meetings are popularity conte=
sts and are=20
ineffective in judging our talent=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Disclosure of ratings should be mandatory across =
all categories=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Process inhibits/destroys teamwork=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Unsolicited feedback should not be permitted sinc=
e it provides an=20
opportunity to exact revenge or intentionally sabotage an employee, without=
=20
permitting that employee to defend himself.=01;=01;=01;=01;=20

 Useful suggestions for improvements:=20

 ?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Notify employee if supervisor amends reviewer li=
st=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Implement two separate deadlines for PEP, one for=
 selecting reviewers=20
and one for completing feedback=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Implement a formal grievance process to appeal PR=
C ratings=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Add =01&subordinate=018 to the drop down list whi=
ch asks for your=20
relationship to the employee being reviewed.=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Brief newly hired employees more thoroughly=01; o=
n the PEP/PRC Process=20
(perhaps in newcomer orientation)=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; Increase number of reviewers an employee may sele=
ct to maximum of 10=20
(vice seven).=20
?=01;=01;=01;=01;=01;=01; In self evaluation add section for employee to ou=
tline his/her=20
professional goals and objectives.=20
=01;=20
=01;=20