Greg,
 
Wasn't clear if you wanted me to drop below (with some wordsmithing) into new draft of memo, or whether you were planning to scribble some comments down on the last draft and see Ken first. If below is accurate, I'd be happy to draft something.
 
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Oxley, David 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 5:40 PM
To: Olson, Cindy; Corteselli, Gina; Inglis, Elspeth
Subject: What Greg said this morning




General discussion -  observations/comments

 A regular discussion about the relative performance of talent is an absolutely critical business tool. We will absolutely continue to use it. 
Having said that we need to clarify what it is the PRC discussion should be based upon and clearly articulate the desired outcomes. 
I believe we should focus the PRC discussion on agreeing what is valuable and what may be required going forward; who of our employees has demonstrated the greatest contribution, best behaviours, results and most value and who the least, which talent is deserving of greater responsibility/leadership and potentially promotion, where we have the talent deployed and whether that is aligned with out current objectives. 
I think we should retain the VP PRC committee and ask them to review the format and criteria currently used in PRC meetings to ensure that it is congruent with these objectives. 
The linkage of the PRC to the feedback process is logical in that we should share with those we agree are the best performers that they have been recognised as such and that those who we agree should have done more understand that more is required from them if they are to be succesful. 
While there is a link between the PRC process and the bonus process, I want to be clearer that the criteria for paying in particular commercial employees is expected to be different. 
The amount of time invested in the meeting component of the current PRC process is too great and we need to streamline this (particularly the functional Europe/US time/travel comitments.). 


Suggested content for the "Lay-it-on-the-line" Survey response 

Reinforce purpose of a relative perfromance discussion is important 
Identifying top and bottom peformers is critical in running our business 
However, we agree that we need to make some changes; 
We will only require businesses to run process once a year in future (year-end) 
The current "preferred distribution" and perfromance scale will go away 
The ENE OTC we will only require BU's and Functional/Support groups to identify and submit to them a list of their top and bottom (10%) performers 
Feedback is critical and we will work to esnure that all Managers provide feedback and coaching to employees on their perfromance year round