Subject: Re: PRC Cluster Descriptors
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT)

I realize the group may go a different way with this, but I remain convinced 
that we should go to a pure number system (ie a pure relative ranking) and 
use the behaviors and skills descriptions as a way of discussing the 
differences between people.  Just adding the qualifier "relative to peers" 
glosses over what's really going on.  The behavior and skill descriptors tell 
everyone what is valued here and guide the discussion.  The relative ranking 
lets us have the flexibility to meet business needs by getting tighter or 
"looser" on performance rankings, terminations, and comp.

	Gina Corteselli
	10/16/2000 01:31 PM
		 
		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrea 
Yowman/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: PRC Cluster Descriptors

Steve, 

We have revised the PRC Cluster descriptors again, in an attempt to include 
"relativity" into the language.  Likewise,  for consistency we opted  not to 
change them too drastically at the year end.  Instead we will look at making 
other changes (for example, reducing the number of clusters from 6 to 5 
and/or changing the wording)  at the mid-year 2001.

The VP PRC Committee had a chance to look at the revised clusters at last 
week's meeting.  However, I apologize that I did not send them to you in 
advance of that meeting.  

Cindy has asked me to send them to the Executive Committee after you have had 
a chance to review them.  

Please let me know what you think.  

Thanks in advance,

Gina Corteselli