I think paul has a number of good suggestions here.  I think that tying 
rankings to clear objectives does not reflect the fluidity of our charge, 
though, and will lead to expectations which may not be met.  I also feel 
strongly that the ranking needs to be a relative one -- I would go to a pure 
number system.  We are going to need to assess at each PRC whether the 
organization is strong (in which case I think it's ok to have a 
disproportionate number of high ratings) or whether the organization has 
weaknesses that force us to grade tougher.  You don't get that in an absolute 
system with preset expectations.  I think your group in particular has done a 
good job of emphasizing team work ( and punishing those who don't play well) 
so we need not create a competitive or jockeying environment so long as that 
emphasis is communicated explicitly.

I agree with Paul's points about giving clear, specific feed back (though I 
don't think we can give a clear target for what one must accomplish to be 
superior).  I also like the idea of the abbreviated mid year PRC to deal with 
those we need to counsel more vigorously.  I'm not sure we can get away with 
it but I am willing to give it a shot.

I think Paul is to be complimented for taking time to focus on the larger 
organizational issues .... very vice presidential of him... no overstepping 
of bounds ... quite the contrary.



	Richard Shapiro@EES
	10/31/2000 02:52 PM
		 
		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: PRC Stuff

Can we discuss?
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 10/31/2000 
02:52 PM ---------------------------


Paul Kaufman@ECT
10/27/2000 07:04 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: PRC Stuff

Here's my effort to respond to the PRC discussion we had in Kohler.  

The criteria for evaluating folks is at the end of the presentation ... but I 
took the liberty to go a bit further and comprehensively address the PRC 
process.    Hope I didn't overstep my bounds ....

I'm around today, as well as Monday (ENA meeting most of the day) and 
Tuesday, but then traveling in Reno, Las Vegas and San Francisco for the 
remainder of the week.   I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss the reasoning 
and rationale behind the document.  

As I said on my voice mail, I circulated the document to the attendees at 
Kohler (with the exception of Sue L. and Linda R.).  I've had feedback from a 
number of the attendees, but I can't call it a consensus document.

As always, thanks for the opportunity to make suggestions like this.