Subject: comments on Jan Haizmann
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT)

I will only make this pitch once, but did want to pass along some thoughts after reflecting on what I understand to be Jan's rating at yesterday's functional PRC.  First, I have no issue with the criticism of his behaviours and interpersonal skills.  I have sent him several notes of coaching/admonishment when he copied me on e-mails that were too strongly worded.  While some account should be taken of his being "Bavarian", I do not think that is an excuse or cover for what is clearly an area for improvement.  Having said that, I would add the following:

1  This is his first rating with the company, I think.  After the 6-8 months he has just turned in, I think a rating of 4, which is what I understand he got, is going to be a bit demoralising.  In additon, people rarely move up two notches between periods.  If he is rated a 3, and fixes his behaviours, there is no doubt he would be a 2 at year-end, if he continued to perform substantively as he has.  If he is rated 3 now, and continues to behave as he has, he can go down to a 4, and suffer the financial penalties associated with that.

2  Jan has had a half-year of results that most people hope for. He fixed a number of erroneous license applications initiated by Donald Lassere, and in so doing, secured licenses for EBS Europe in Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Spain, I think (and I think all or most were from about mid-December onwards).  

3  BIG WIN:  After much to'ing and fro'ing, Jan (not Tax, not Legal, not outside counsel, not Accounting) came up with the business structure for trading bandwidth in the Far East.  The first deal done there, before Jan's approach, required 6 contracts with multiple entities.  It may now seem obvious, but Jan came up with the idea that each of the national telco's trades in its own name, across borders, securing licenses in the name of the same entity in each country, so why not EBS Asia.  This was a huge breakthrough for EBS Asia.

4  Jan helped secure the Pioneer Tax Status (zero corporate tax for at least 5 years, maybe ten) in Singapore, thus helping to secure Singapore as our Asian location of choice (as opposed to more expensive Hong Kong), along with the big success noted in my item 5, below.

5  Jan secured the necessary clarifications on the license fee assessed in Singapore to make Singapore our location, and EBS Asia, licensed in Singapore, our vehicle, for Asian bandwidth trading.  There was initially a clear and justified concern that we would be charged 1% on gross turnover.  This has now been reduced to 1% of the fees associated with Singapore traffic (physical, not financial) only.  The repeated exchanges between Jan, Tax (Wayne Gardner), and Fred Cohagan did get snippy, so I would not be surprised if this elicited bad feedback.  My explanation (not an excuse) is that Jan asked for "final" issues/questions several times, and after each clarification from Singapore regulator (IDA), he got a barrage of questions internally, and had to go back to IDA.  Some of the questions were legitimate, some should have been thought of earlier, so Jan's frustration was partly understandable, partly not.  Second, I think Jan got all the clarification he could in a farely opaque regulatory regime (at least on the license fee question; remember, IDA was not too sure what we were up to, and what they were opining on).  I think Jan, and me, recognised that regulation is not always as transparent in Europe and Asia as in the US.  Conversely, you had a trader (Fred), who I think has not had a big trading responsibility before, and he was seeking transparancy that simply was not going to happen.  Jan told him so, again, after a few tries, perhaps too abruptly.

6  As a team player, Jan made the effort to support the Asian effort (long, hard travel), including going out to interview the EBS regulatory affairs candidates (we ended up with two qualified candidates, even if we have now chosen to go with yet another/third candidate).  His willingness to help/be a team player seems completely overlooked in focussing on his other behaviours.

7  Finally, Jan's biggest problem, is also his biggest asset.  There is no doubt in my mind that he knows more about the telecomms industry, technically as well as the substance of regulation, than anyone else in the Company.  He does not suffer those who know less than him very easily.  This is wrong, and needs to be addressed, but I am concerned that he is effectively being taken down two notches for his interpersonal skills.  It seems the message we are sending is that we are, in effect, valuing good interpersonal skills over results.  A commercial person who has a big year, but acts out of line (gee, can we think of any?!), would not get a rating below acceptable for being abrasive.  It seems to me too harsh to rate Jan below acceptable for being abrasive, if we also consider his "Bavarian" background, and, as I have shared with Rick, the fact that Jan got a heightened sense of urgency from Jim Fallon that I think made Jan think his (Jan's) behaviour was acceptable, if all that mattered was getting results, "yesterday" as Fallon put it.  

Enough said.  Thanks for considering my views.   mcs