I think this is a fine attempt, but I continue to believe that a pure 
relative ranking offers the most flexibility and is more like the way the 
process works in practice.  A separate list of desired behaviors, criteria 
etc can be used to guide discussion but I believe the ranking itself should 
remain purely relative.




Gina Corteselli
09/14/2000 06:04 PM
To: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven J 
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: PRC cluster descriptors - draft

All;

Aattached are a draft of the PRC cluster descriptors which we discussed 
several weeks back.  I has sent a first draft to Michelle and Dick, and both 
had some suggestions which I have tried to incorporate.  I am still awaiting 
Dick and Michelle's impressions of the below, but also  look forward to your 
impressions and input. Likewise I would appreciate your input on whether or 
not we need to change the ratings on the feedback forms to numerical ratings 
1-5 to mimic the clusters.  look forward to hearing from you,  Many thanks, 
Gina
---------------------- Forwarded by Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron on 09/14/2000 
05:54 PM ---------------------------


Gina Corteselli
09/14/2000 05:03 PM
To: dick@jeannerett.com
cc: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: descriptors again

Dick; here is another try at the descriptors.  I tried to apply the 
information you provided and to describe qualities of an employee's 
performance . I'm  not sure whether this is any better, but would appreciate 
your input.  What I am finding most challenging writing descriptors which are 
interchangeable with all levels and job groups within the company.  The 
behaviors these describe and measure need to be general in nature so that 
they can apply to a VP and an admin assistant, as well as to all four Peer 
Groups within Enron.  

Likewise, I would appreciate your thoughts on the necessity/value of changing 
the feedback forms to reflect the same numerical ratings.  presently the 
feedback forms use the same descriptors as the cluster (i.e. Superior - 
Issues).  In your opinion should these also be 1-5 ratings with one = to 
highest and 5= to lowest in scale?  
I look forward to hearing your thoughts and impressions.  You may either 
e-mail me or call me on 713 345-3377.  Many thanks in advance, Gina 
******************************************************************************
****************************************
1 = Relative to his/her peers, this employee is a visionary who identifies 
new ideas and methods, inspires and motivates others by example, embodies 
Enron's vision and values, and demonstrates a mastery of the business and 
technical skills necessary to excel in his/her position.   

2 = Relative to his/her peers this employee drives change, demonstrates 
vision and values, displays resourcefulness when faced with unexpected 
challenges, and comprehends and effectively uses the business and technical 
skills required to perform his/her job.

3 = Relative to his/her peers this employee supports innovation and 
improvement, understands Enron's vision and values, and continues to develop 
the core skills and business/technical skills necessary to satisfy the 
requirements of his/her position.  

4 = Relative to his/her peers this employee accepts change, demonstrates some 
independent thinking and can apply resources and business and technical 
skills to adequately perform his/her job.

5 = Relative to his/her peers this employee has difficulty accepting change,  
lacks resourcefulness, offers minimal contribution and  does not demonstrate 
the skills or knowledge to fulfill the responsibilities of the position  This 
employee must make changes or termination is likely.