Message-ID: <21945691.1075852351295.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:05:20 -0700 (PDT) From: greg.whalley@enron.com To: david.delainey@enron.com, cindy.olson@enron.com, david.oxley@enron.com Subject: FW: PRC Process Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Whalley, Greg X-To: Delainey, David , Olson, Cindy , Oxley, David X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \GWHALLE (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items X-Origin: WHALLEY-G X-FileName: GWHALLE (Non-Privileged).pst -----Original Message----- From: =09Humphrey, Gene =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:07 PM To:=09Lay, Kenneth; Whalley, Greg; Frevert, Mark Subject:=09PRC Process =09=09=09=09 =09I have long thought that the PRC Process needs to be changed in order to= better provide the appropriate feedback and motivation as well as rewards = that a good review process should. I hope you will consider my thoughts ca= refully since I have had active involvement in the process from its incepti= on and believe that I can offer some advice that should be considered. =20 =09It appears that the results of the process have become too demoralizing = to the employee being reviewed. Even those that do well are suspicious of = the process and don't particularly like it. It causes a great deal of stre= ss on employees and creates an atmosphere of cynicism among the people that= should be supportive of it. There is a belief that the process is arbitra= ry and that no one gets a fair hearing based on their performance but rathe= r the results are skewed by the negotiating skills and argumentative succes= s of any particular reviewer. The biggest single complaint seems to be the= fact that an employee can be told after one review period that they are ex= cellent and six months later be told they are only satisfactory or worse. = While the employee's performance may have suffered during that period of ti= me, the message that they hear is not necessarily that their performance ha= s declined but rather that they as an individual are not valued and are not= as good as they were six months earlier. We are mixing the message betwee= n the worth of the individual and the results of their performance. The fo= llowing is my recommendation to improve on this system: =09SEPARATE THE PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES INTO THREE MAJOR CATEGORIES =20 =09 =091. Employee Skill, Competency and Character - This category measures a= persons inherent skill, talent, intelligence and commitments to Enron's va= lues. This determinant should not change drastically between each review p= eriod since it measures whats inside a person and that should only change s= lowly or with the development of new skills or the hiring of new and better= qualified employees. In this category a person could be told whether they= are excellent or superior or average and know that they have an opportunit= y to improve on that ranking through their own effort while also realizing = that we are continually trying to raise the bar with new hires. This parti= cular performance measurement is also a measure of the success of our hirin= g and training program. =092. Employee Performance - This a measure of how well an employee is per= forming the tasks of any particular job. This measure could fluctuate much= more than the first since each person's performance can vary greatly over = time based on many different circumstances. This measure would also distin= guish those employees who may not be considered to have the best skills or = greatest intelligence but who through sheer hard work and determination are= outstanding performers. It should also help identify those who are under = performing and not living up to their potential as measured by the first ca= tegory. This category also measures our skill as managers and leaders of p= eople since it is often the managers job to motivate people to perform abov= e and beyond their own capability. =093. Results - This is a measure of the financial performance and result = of the effort of any individual employee. I believe this criteria is most = suited to the commercial employees and should be the major determining fact= or (but not the only on) in annual bonus payments. This should be closely = correlated to the Job Performance criteria but it may not always be since s= ome people may be working on a long term project which has a payback at som= e future date or in the other extreme someone could have lucked out by bein= g in the right place at the right time and gaining the benefit from it with= out the appropriate effort. =09In addition to these three categories I would also reduce the Job Descri= ptions that are included in the PRC process. I think it is a waste of time= to include clerks, assistants, accounting personnel and other non manager= commercial support people in the process. Very little is gained by them o= r by management and a tremendous amount of stress and ill will is created. = I would also reduce the amount of time spent on the PRC at mid year and on= ly focus on the first two performance categories at that time. I would als= o change the time when the PRC review is done since now it happens in the s= ummer when many people are trying to scheduled vacations and at year end wh= en there is so much other business activity going on. I think a March, Sep= tember schedule would work much better. =09There are probably many other ideas to improve the PRC process and I am = sure that you are working on them. Please give my ideas some thought and s= ee if they don't merit some consideration.