I know, but that doesn't change the fact that we should articulate the standards that we are using -- I know that they use some criteria that are based on solid business reasons, so let's capture them!  That way, we at least can explain why we did things.  Michelle

-----Original Message-----
From: Oxley, David 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:13 AM
To: Cash, Michelle
Subject: RE: 


Agreed. But this is what we did last year.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cash, Michelle 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:33 PM
To: Oxley, David
Subject: RE:


I like that there is some sort of formal process based on peer group.  
 
I also like that they have made a decision to have ranking in the commercial groups.  It looks like they are being ranked to measure performance, not for compensation.  If so, then it would be nice for there to be some rough correlation to compensation.  If not, then what are the criteria for determining the bonus amounts?  If it is P&L and some other components, then let's specify what they are.  My biggest concern with all of this flexibility is that decisions will appear arbitrary with no clear basis for distinguishing between persons at the top of the bonus range and persons in the bottom.
 
On non-commercial, will there be a further breakdown within the 80?  If so, will those correlate to bonus amounts?  If not, same question as above.
 
I understand that market forces may drive many of these bonus decisions.  If so, then I believe that we simply should articulate them and be prepared to explain the bases for bonus payment amounts.
 
Promotion process looks good.
 
Assistants and clerks looks good, although it looks like OOC will decide bonus amounts.  If this is a fixed amount based on the rating, then that is ok.  Otherwise, if they are not pretty standardized, the same issues arise as above.  I
 
I expect that the same kinds of questions will arise for all business unit plans.
 
Hope this helps.  Let me know if you want to discuss or would like to talk through pay criteria.
 
Michelle

-----Original Message----- 
From: Oxley, David 
Sent: Tue 10/16/2001 4:35 PM 
To: Knudsen, Sheila A.; Joyce, Mary; Jones, Robert W.- HR Exec 
Cc: Cash, Michelle 
Subject: FW: 



What d'ya think? 
 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Lavorato, John  
Sent:   Tuesday, October 16, 2001 2:40 PM 
To:     Oxley, David 
Subject:        FW: 



 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Kitchen, Louise  
Sent:   Tuesday, October 16, 2001 2:38 PM 
To:     Lavorato, John 
Subject:        RE: 

Same thing just prettier and with more details.  Suggest we send to HR for them to implement. 

<<PRCprocess.xls>> 

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Lavorato, John  
Sent:   Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:17 PM 
To:     Kitchen, Louise 
Subject:        

Here is our plan on PRC. 

Assistants: 

Ranked 1,2,3 by supervisors - pay determined by Me and Louise.  No meetings. 

Non Commercial but in North America: 

Traditional ranking with the correct people addending the meetings.  Pay grid determined by OOC. 

Analysts and Associates 

Ranked as per Billy Lemmons %'s and then pay grid determined by OOC 
I would like to see 25% - 65% - 10%.  Billy disagrees.  This would provide for a quick meeting rather than trying to split them into 4 groups with the top one excluding some awesome people.

Managers/Directors 

Ranked from 1 to 100 in as many clusters as the groups see fit.  We are going to combine managers and directors into one table.  The ranking is based on this years performance is directly related to pay.  We will have two meetingss - one for traders and one for other commercial staff (orig/finance/etc).  We will not have a pay prc but will take the results of the rankings and work with individual leaders after the meetings to ensure the appropriate compensation.

We will also determine promotions during this meeting using different criteria. 

VP's 

We will rank all our VP's from 1 to 100 with a group of selected people - some VP's and some MD's.  
This too will be directly related to pay. 

Cheers as you Brits say