Thanks for your message. I do think we need to talk this through.  In the 
meantime, though, let's not make anymore VPs until this is resolved.  As I 
said in my original message, I am not looking to undo what has been done, but 
to make sure we don't do it again unless the process is followed.

 I understand that there are significant title differences across the regions 
we operate.  In fact, one of the people in my organization who did not make 
VP is Dennis Vegas, who has done an extraordinary job in Latin America.  
Notwithstanding his regional focus (and the significance of a VP title in his 
region) he was put through the company wide process and he, David Haug, and I 
submit, everyone else on the Exec Comm, understood that every new VP would go 
through the same process regardless of regional assignment (with the 
exception of certain joint venture companies). But, I maintain that we need 
some consistency in the VP title in particular -- i.e. that it remain an 
Enron-wide title, granted only through the PRC process.  Though I don't 
personally feel this way, for many people in the organization the VP title 
means something separate from the compensation structure; it implies 
something like "making partner" in a legal or consulting firm. Making that 
cut should not vary based on where you live or what region you support.

 I also understand the point about needing a certain title for external 
purposes.  In my organization we are dealing with very title-conscious 
elected officials and media.  I can make the case for every one of my 
directors and senior directors that they would be more effective externally 
if they carried a more senior title, regardless of any change in 
compensation.  As an executive committee, we elected to make such an 
exception only for "legacy" title holders -- i.e. people who had previously 
made VP outside the process.  Everyone in my organization


To: Cindy Olson@ENRON, Steven J Kean@EES
cc: Sanjay Bhatnagar/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Job Titles and Job Banding

From reading the e-mails on the issue regarding Regional Vice President at 
Enron India, it sounds like there will be more discussion on this issue. I 
know that issues like this generally come up at the Enron ExCom level. There 
are a few issues that need to be kept in mind, and although Cindy and I have 
discussed these in the past, I have not had an opportunity to pursue them 
further (but would be happy to help out on this). I have noticed these not 
only in India but also in the other international settings where I have 
worked for Enron during the past several years.

1. International job titles and domestic job titles do not correlate. For 
example, in India, the title "Director" implies a very senior person within 
the organization (well above VP), whereas in the Enron domestic world, it is 
a position below VP. "Managing Director" within Enron is below the most 
senior levels, but in India a MD is the Ken Lay equivalent. For this reason, 
I cannot use Managing Director in my title or on my business card, although 
this is my title for Enron Houston purposes. 

2. Job titles are much more important in an international setting than in a 
domestic setting. For example, in Houston, we have people at the director 
(and probably manager) level who lead deal teams and bring deals to 
successful closing. In an international setting, particularly India, to get 
to the decision-makers in your counterpart organization, an officer title of 
VP or above is very often required. To a certain degree, this is form over 
substance, but that's what works over here.

3. To solve some of these problems, Enron should consider doing what some 
other international companies have done (and I think Cindy and her team may 
already be working on this). A job banding study should be done and based on 
responsibilities, everyone globally should be placed in a band. It would not 
be a title band of VP or director or manager, but rather a band with a 
non-title classification. I hate to suggest a band with numbers, such as 1 
through 15, because that sounds way too much like the government, but 
something like that would work. Once this is done, communication is made to 
employees that the band is what is key in determining their compensation and 
level within the organization. Then, the business units can rely on their 
particular market dynamics or on what their competition is doing to determine 
job titles. Thus if the Global Origination group needs to have a title of 
Senior Trader and EECC needs a title of Project Leader and Enron India needs 
a Regional Vice President, all can be accomplished while keeping these same 
people at a consistent level for global Enron purposes.

I will be happy to discuss this further with any of you. Plus, I will 
volunteer to participate in finding a solution that works for all of Enron 
while taking into account  the specifc business unit and/or global function 
needs.

Wade