Building Unified Financial Visions

Ken Gibson
February 26th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Why isn’t our Compensation Strategy “Working”?

That question probably crosses the mind of a CEO at least a couple of times a year–perhaps when a salary increase has been approved or a bonus is paid out.  What he or she means by the question is essentially this: “Boy, collectively I’m paying my top people over $1 million a year; what am I getting for it?”

Whether or not a compensation strategy “works” is a subjective measure I suppose.  To say it’s not “working” assumes we know what things would look and feel like if they were working.

From our view, a compensation program is “working” when it is drives business growth and the company can attribute that result to the productivity of its people.  A high standard?  Well, yes–but should something less be expected of the largest budget item a company will find on its financial statement? 

In that context, if a compensation strategy is not “working,”  its usually for one of the following reasons:

No Sense of Partnership–the company has not yet engineered  compensation strategies that instill an ownership mentality and engender a unified financial vision for growing the business.

Lack of Clarity–employees do not yet see where the company is headed, how it is going to get there, what their role is, what’s expected of them in that role, and how they will be rewarded for fulfilling those expectations.

Ineffective or Unclear Standards and Practices–the company has no established mechanisms for defining a compensation philosophy, building a “game plan” that strategically reflects that philosophy and then turning that plan into concrete rewards strategies that are measured and managed.

Lack of Engagement–the compensation programs of the company do not yet promote a level of execution that only comes once employees feel passionate about their contribution and what it will mean to them if the company achieves its goals

Lack of Productivity Measures–the company is paying out compensation but has no means of determining how much of the business’s collective ROI can be linked to its human capital as opposed to its financial capital. 

In summary, for a company to ever know whether or not its compensation strategy is “working,” it must first begin to treat it as an investment and not just an expense–and then be able to measure the effective return it is getting on that investment.

Share This Post

Companies that struggle with building effective compensation strategies are often ascribing an unrealistic expectation to their rewards programs.  They want compensation to be a motivation tool; one that will impact behavior  and create change.  They are often disappointed when they don’t see quantum leaps in performance and productivity.  They subsequently label the latest incentive plan attempt “dead on arrival” and begin cursing the “compensation gods.”

What these companies don’t often recognize is that their attempt at motivation came across as manipulation to their employees.  It’s a fine line, and it is easily crossed.   Premier talent has an intrinsic sense of purpose and recognizes the value it brings to the table.  These individuals are motivated by mission and opportunity, not by financial rewards. As a result, they are not relying on a compensation program to trigger their passion.  However, they are looking  for a sense of partnership–and the company’s compensation programs become a  key validator of that message.  You see, partnership is linked to opportunity–and that is motivating to the kind of people most companies want to attract. 

Partnership is more than pay, but pay is a key component of partnership if it is given the right frame of reference.  Compensation needs to be viewed as a means of creating a unified financial vision for growing the business.  It is built in parallel with the vision, mission and strategy of the organization.  It is an extension of the business plan and defines the financial parameters of the partnership relationship the company has with its key people. 

Companies that embrace the partnership concept understand the critical nature of having a compensation philosophy statement.  That written document defines what the company pays for.  It communicate the balance the business seeks to strike between guaranteed versus at risk compensation, and short-term versus long-term rewards.  It ties short and long-term incentives to the concept of good versus bad profits, and uses the compensation construct to encourage more of the former and less of the latter.  Such definitions are critical ingredients of a sound financial partnership and offer insight to the parties involved into the best means of fulfilling the partnership’s potential.

A foundational philosophy statement provides a lauching pad for examining the components of pay that should be included in defining the partnership relationship the company wishes to have with its best people.  Salary, short-term incentives, long-term incentives, equity, phantom equity, health and welfare plans, retirement benefits and executive benefits are all weighed and evaluated in the context of partnership.  “What plans will drive performance, increase shareholder value, and meet the cash and wealth accumulation objectives of our most critical partners–our employees?”

When a company begins to think and act in these terms, it will turn the corner in its understanding of the power of compensation to be transformational in its impact.

So…when you think about compensation, think parternship, not motivation.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
January 18th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Why Not Have a World-Class Compensation Plan?

I assume that as you approach each new year, you don’t think about your business in modest terms.   Presumably, you have big plans, and are trying to renew your employees’ vision of the possibilities.  Breakthrough growth.  New thresholds of success.  Expanded sales and market share.  Increased profitablity.  Greater shareholder value.

With that vision in mind, you are likely trying to effectively communicate your vision to your key people. You want them to understand why that future is important and how confident you are that it can happen, with their help.  To that end, you might be holding team meetings, sending letters or intranet communications, inviting key individuals to lunch and generally trying to ignite a fire that will translate into execution and results that reflect the potential you have imagined.

Now, with such goals in mind, can you fathom any successful business leader standing in front of his team and giving a speech that goes something like this?

“This year our target is to do about as well as our competition.  We’ve studied what they are doing and hope to mirror their plan as closely as we can.  If we carefully manage expenses and make sure we keep our costs down, we should be okay.”

You are laughing right now, right?  Well, laughable or not, while that may not be the way an owner, CEO or company president approaches the communication of his business vision, it too often reflects his approach to compensation design–the one strategic tool that best communicates the relationship between vision, business plan, roles, expectations and rewards.

To make the point clearer, here are some common assersions or questions we often hear early on in our discussion with  potential clients.

  • How many clients do you have in our industry?
  • Can you do a market pay study for us?
  • Is there a lower cost approach we could take?
  • We don’t really want to add anything to our compensation budget, so please keep that in mind as you help us develop new plans
  • HR handles compensation issues, you should talk to them

There are more, but you get the idea.  Can you see the obvious disconnect between these comments and a company that is trying to achieve breakthrough performance?

Compensation is usually the largest budget item for a business.  Company cash is going to be used for that purpose one way or another.  The key question is, will  it be used as strategically as every other investment in the business, or will it be relegated  to just another expense that has to be managed? 

If you have applied your energy towards becoming a world-class organization with a clear competitive advantage, why would you not apply the same focus to compensation development?  If you need to attract great talent to become a great company, why would you not offer them a world-class compensation plan?

If you are thinking that “world-class” means expensive (as in world-class hotels, first class travel, etc.), then think again.  A world class compensation strategy might simply be described as follows:

The business is committed to a compensation strategy that is fully integrated with the business plan and offers a clear competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining top talent.

Having an integrated compensation strategy simply means there is a relationship between how people are paid and the achievement of the strategic goals of the organization.  Compensation is an outcome based endeavor.  In a world-class environment, those outcomes might include the following:

  • Productivity: Employee engagement and commitment reflect an ownership-like determination to drive growth, profits and shareholder value. (Owner statement–”Employees understand the company’s future and are committed to helping fulfill it because they have a vested interest in helping it succeed.”)
  • Talent: Great talent is attracted to and remains with the company because they feel passionate about their role in the future of the organization.  (Owner statement–”Employees believe in the company’s ability to achieve its targets and that their contribution is vital.”)
  • Measures: The cost, impact, and operational efficiency of all compensation/benefits programs are managed, monitored, measured and consistently improved. (Owner statement–”We regularly evaluate and employ mechanisms by which we can improve our systems, drive productivity and save money.”)

In a company with a “world-class” mindset, the speech given by the owner, CEO or president might sound more like the following:

“This year we anticipate having record performance.  Building on our past success, as well as the strength of the greatest talent in our industry, we expect to secure a leadership position in our market space and achieve our most ambitious goals.  You are a critical part of the future of this organization.  We can’t achieve our goals without you.  As a result, I want to make sure you understand the rewards you will enjoy if we can all work hard and achieve the performance levels we have targeted.  This year, in addition to your salary, you will pariticipate in two incentive plans–one short-term in nature and the other long-term.  Both will put you in greater control of  the financial results you can realize if we can achieve the goals we have set.”

Such a speech can only be given by a leader that understands the relationship between performance and pay, and the importance of carefully tying the two together in the value proposition employees are offered.  Such a speech will also attract great people–individuals that relate to the idea of building something and want to know that their contribution is vital.  Such individuals feel valued and counted upon, as a result, they execute differently.

So, as you approach this new year, think in terms of new standards–not just in the goals you set or the initiatives you launch, but also in the way you reward performance.  Build a world-class compensation plan.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
January 5th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Peter Drucker Agrees with VisionLink

Okay, so Peter Drucker never really knew VisionLink.  That’s a detail.  However, his philosophy about pay at the executive and management level was “spot on” with what we believe should be a core tenet of rewards design:

Build world class compensation strategies that are rooted in pay for performance and drive measureable results.

In her November, 2009 HBR article entitled, “What Would Peter Say?” Rosabeth Moss Kanter shares the following insights into Drucker’s thinking regarding the recent executive pay brouhaha.

“Drucker would not have been surprised that incentives to take excessive risks contributed to the recent global financial meltdown.  Back in the mid-1980s, he warned about a public outcry over executive compensation…More than 20 years ago, Drucker pointed to a top-to-bottom ratio that was then rushing past 40 to 1.  Just before his death, the ratio was greater than 400 to 1.

“Drucker was not against wealth accumulation, but he was pragmatic about the work of organizations and society.  He held that the role of executives was to coordinate the actions of others whose motivation (and thus compensation) was necessary to get the job done.  But he also held that pay should be associated with performance; that was a major point of management by objectives, perhaps his most practical management contribution. Listening to Drucker might have headed off some of the excesses associated with Wall Street…in which bonuses not only were decried for their amounts but also were uncorrelated with company results…”

I suspect that most company leaders would find themselves in agreement with much if not all of the issues Drucker raises.  However, although many agree with a performance/pay correlation philosophy in principle, few are translating that belief system into consistent compensation practices.  Fewer still achieve a rewards strategy that could be considered “world-class”; one that places them in the competitive advantage driver’s seat.  A world class pay plan is one that fully integrates compensation into the business plan of the company and creates a seamless link between vision, strategy, roles, expectations and rewards.

What most companies need to bridge the gap between where they are now and where they should (and, hopefully, want to) be is a Missing Structure; a system or process that helps them effectively engineer compensation strategies that impact execution and results.   In our experience, that Missing Structure needs to include the following comp0nents:

  • CEO/Board Level Leadership and Involvement
  • A Clear and Written Pay Philosophy
  • A Comprehensive Compensation Gameplan
  • Fully Integrated and Correlated Pay Strategies and Plans
  • Consistently Executed “Line of Sight” Review

These steps ensure a cohesive, consistent approach to talent attraction, retention and development.  Likewise, they provide checks and balances that protect the company from sacrificing good profits for bad or that substitute short- term performance bursts for sustained results.  When properly executed, these measures make sure that all incentive plans are self financed and pay benefits that are correlated with increased shareholder value, and other critical measures.

Many of the companies that have made headlines in recent years lost sight of these important principles as it relates to compensation development and management.  Again, Peter Drucker’s observation is a correct one.  He stressed that:

“…ensuring the long-term health of the company–and eschewing short hits that jeopardize the future–is executives’ primary job.”

We are happy to know that Peter Drucker agrees with us.

Share This Post

One of the best things that should result from good compensation policy is clarity. “I get it! Now I know what results you expect from me.” This is one of the best possible reactions you can get from an incentive plan.  The problem with many incentive plans is that they lack one or more of the following:

  • Clarity
  • Believability
  • Meaning

Clarity is achieved when I understand what has to happen for me to maximize the value under my incentive plan. I should understand what needs to happen at the company level, department level and personal level.

But clarity is not helpful unless the intended results are also achievable. If I believe the individual, department and company results can be achieved you’ve added believability to the mix. Being clear without believing is worthless. But if I can see what needs to happen and believe it can you’re two-thirds of the way towards locking me into your business plan.

The final essential element is meaning. This relates to the relative value of the potential award. If it’s meaningful to me I’m willing to pay a price to achieve it. But if the potential size of the ward is not significant to me you may not have captured my heart and mind, even if I understand it and believe it can be achieved.

Great incentive plans speak to a fundamental philosphy of respect for the partnership quality of great cultures. Help me see clearly where you’re trying to go and what has to happen to get there. Make sure I believe it can happen. And make the reward meaningful to me. If you do those three things you can be certain I’ll do all I can to help get you there.

Share This Post

Okay, so it may not be THE question–Shakespeare had a better one I suppose.  But it certainly is a frequent question we are asked, particularly by leaders of closely-held businesses.   Should I offer equity or not?

It is probably self-evident that there is no right answer  to that query.  We have private company clients that share equity and public company clients that don’t.

The better question would be: what results are you looking for and will sharing equity help you achieve them?  Once you know the answer to that question, you can more clearly assess whether or not a stock plan of some type is in order.

Compensation planning is an outcome-based endeavor.  Any plan you implement should have a strategic purpose and  impact behavior.  So, as you consider whether or not to give stock, first consider what behavior you are trying to impact.  Here is a list of possibilities:

  • We want people to think and act like owners as they make strategic decisions
  • We want to drive higher revenues this year
  • We want to create a long-term focus and not just a short term focus
  • We want  key people to stay for the long-term
  • We want our employees more focused on profit
  • We want a faster delivery system
  • We want to expand our product line
  • We want to reward long-term productivity
  • We want to broaden the ownership pool


Not every outcome on this list would be a reason to implement a stock plan of some type
.  Some of the issues here have to do with getting results right now–this year.  So, the first decision you need to make is whether you are trying to address short range performance issues or long range ones.  If both, you need to determine how to balance the two through the combination of incentive plans you engineer.

Once you have become clear on those priorities and the strategic results you’re looking for, you can then consider other important questions that will lead  to an informed conclusion.

  • Do we want to grant equity?  Doing so expands ownership, dilutes the equity of current shareholders, expands access to financial data and so forth.  Are we ready for that? Do we think that expanding the number OF shareholders will likewise expand the ultimate value FOR shareholders.
  • Is there a market for our stock?  If we’re closely held, likely not.  What kind of barriers does that create?
  • Are we considering equity because we have key people that are asking for equity?  If so, is the underlying issue really more about receiving appropriate remuneration for value created rather than receiving stock or not receiving stock?  If so, perhaps other alternatives will satisfy that need.
  • Have we considered alternatives to stock that create a similar outcome–such as phantom stock, performance unit plans or profit pools?
  • Should some kind of cash based long-term incentive be considered instead of an equity plan?  What result are we looking for?  If it’s profit related (increased net income, EBIDTA or other measure), is there a better way to drive that result?

One of the ways we help clients address such questions is through a decision tree process.  Organizations considering an equity plan should engage in a similar process before enlarging the ownership circle within the business.

In summary, if you are trying to answer the equity sharing question in your organization, start first with the results you are looking to achieve.  Those outcomes should guide your next steps.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
October 12th, 2009 by Ken Gibson

Compensation and Trust

In his book The Speed of Trust, author Stephen M. R. Covey asserts that the trust level in an organization affects two things: speed and cost. When trust goes down, speed goes down and costs go up.  (Consider the time and cost of airport security after 9/11, or costs for Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance passed in response to Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals.)  Conversely, when trust goes up, speed goes up and costs go down.  I would add that when trust and speed go up, sustained results also go up.

In short, trust has a huge economic impact.

Simply put, trust means confidence.  The opposite of trust, mistrust, is suspicion.  Covey makes the point that whether it’s high or low, trust is the “hidden variable” in the formula for organizational success. 

Traditionally, most organizations think about results generation  in the following terms:

Strategy x Execution=Results

However, inclusion of  the hidden variable reveals a more accurate results reality:

(Strategy x Execution) x Trust=Results

Simple? Yes. Insignificant?  Not in the least.  At VisionLink, we have observed that in most organizations, the trust level is virtually palpable. In high trust organizations there is an obvious culture of confidence. That confidence is reflected in the consistent results that emerge from sustained success patterns in such companies.  Those success patterns can only exist in a high trust environment.

So what does trust have to do with compensation?  In a word, everything.

Compensation is a strategic tool. Smart business leaders employ it as such to ensure certain key outcomes and make their results more predictable.  When approached correctly and strategically, compensation should do two things: 1) provide a systematic means of  remunerating contributors for the achievement of certain performance standards, and; 2) clearly communicate and encourage the  behaviors and outcomes that the organization considers its highest priorities

As a result, a company’s approach to compensation either encourages or diminishes trust.  Think about it.  If I work in your organization, and I hear you stand and speak about the company’s vision and mission, and what the strategy is for the next year (or two or three), but I have a pay program that either has no bearing on those outcomes or is at odds with them, what level of confidence do I have in your leadership?  How should I interpret the significance of my contribution to the company’s future?

Likewise, if I have been allowed to develop a mentality of entitlement or complacency because my remuneration has no real link to performance standards, what are you communicating to me about your confidence in my ability?  What incentive do I have to take a stewardship approach to my role and adopt an ownership mentality in my work?

Organizational trust exists when there is integrity between mission, strategy, roles, expectations and results.  If that trust is going to be sustained, a company’s pay philosophy and associated strategies must create a thread of continuity between each of those elements.  By doing so, you are offering your employees ample evidence that they can have confidence in where the company is headed, how it’s going to get there, what their contribution should be to that future and how they will be rewarded if those results are obtained.

Covey explains it this way:

“The low trust environment is a result of violating principles–not only individually, but organizationally.  Leaders are missing the solution because they are not looking at the systems, structures, processes and policies that affect day-to-day behaviors.  They are focused on the symptoms instead of the principles that promote trust.

“This misalignment creates symbols that represent and communicate underlying values to everyone in the organization.  A symbol can be either negative or positive; from a 500-page employee handbook, to a newly appointed CEO who refuses to accept a pay raise because it might send the wrong message to workers.”

In summary, get compensation right and you will see trust increase in your organization.  If you increase trust, you increase speed–and when you increase both, costs go down and sustained results go up.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
September 17th, 2009 by Ken Gibson

What Does a Competitive Advantage Sound Like?

Yes, a competitive advantage has a sound.  I heard it last week during a management society breakfast meeting for a group  I lead.  It was given voice by the presenter, Said Hilal, CEO of Applied Medical Devices.  It was clearly on display both in what he said and in the confidence with which he said it.

Given the current economic climate, it was refreshing to say the least.  It was apparent to me that American enterprise is alive and well when in the hands of the right leaders.

Before I go further, a  few facts.

In a season of economic turbulence, Applied Medical continues to experience 30% growth year in and year out.  Today, it is a $250 million enterprise. Applied develops and manufactures specialized surgical products .  It competes against the major players in the healthcare industry.

The company was founded in 1988 in a 700 square foot facility and now occupies five large buildings in the community of Rancho Santa Margarita, California.  I took a tour of those facilities last Friday. Suffice it to say, everything I saw supported all that I heard during the presentation at our breakfast meeting two days prior.

With that as a backdrop, let me share a few of the things I heard and witnessed  that made it clear why Applied Medical enjoys such a competitive advantage. The following comments come from the notes I scribbled while Said spoke–and may not be exact quotes.  Where they are not, they capture the essence of what was said.

“In 2003, Applied Medical had a 3% market share in the medical device business,” Said explained while projecting these and other statistics on the screen.  “By 2008, that figure had reached 21%.  In 2009, we are approaching 29% market share.”

“While we may OWN market share,  we OWE our market. We understand that and that is why we continue to find success.”

He explained,   “We set out to determine how our organization could make a difference.  We asked the question, ‘What does the customer want?’  We found out.  The customer wanted enhanced clinical outcomes, improved choices and reduced costs.  For most industries, especially ours, those are not compatible outcomes.  However, Applied Medical’s chosen edge has been its proven ability to implement clinical advances coupled with superior value.”

Said continued, “When gurus and pundits talked about outsourcing, we instead relied heavily on integration.”

To Applied Medical, integration meant to become almost completely self reliant.  (In fact, you could “almost” take the “almost” out of that sentence.)  The company became its number one vendor and component supplier.  That’s not a typo–as you move through the Applied operation, it becomes very apparent how self contained the company is.  There is vertical integration at work that combines automation, cross training, internal supply chains, promise-based continuity, and superior team building all within the context of a university-like commitment to employee education.  If something is needed, it is created–often right on the premises.  Training rooms appear throughout every facility as a reflection of the heavy commitment Applied has made to nurturing an educated, competent, integrated workforce.

“We have worked hard on building the Applied Culture, which has two parts: the cultivating culture and the competency culture–bringing people in from the beginning to grow.  That combination has been exceptionally effective.”

Said spoke about gross margin being the most important metric Applied focuses on, because it finances all other aspects of their business, including and especially their highly valued research.  In that regard, Applied has organized its research in such a way that an engineer can conceive of something in the morning and have the prototype  built and tested  by the afternnon.  Applied does what it calls “progressive R&D” that is fulfilled through enhanced processes and automation.  This approach has resulted in the shortest supply line, fastest response and best value in the market.

There’s more, but you get the idea.  This is a business that understands its role in the marketplace and is highly focused on delivering value in a consistently superior fashion.

So, from whence does this excellence spring?  What is at the core of Applied’s success?

“We are different and we feel a passion about our difference,” Said asserted. “When you are different and succeeding, everyone wants to copy you.  When you are different and not succeeding, no one cares what you are doing. Well, people pay attention to what we are doing.”

Said continued by explaining what he referred to as ”The Quiet Statistics.”

“We determined that the best way to enhance ownership’s wealth is by maximizing everyone’s interest. We never stop developing those that want to be developed.  We are their avenue to the American Dream.  We are not in the business of developing the next minimum wage job, we’re in the business of developing careers.  When we develop careers, we develop our business.”

Such is the sound of a competitive advantage.  Passion leads to focus.  Focus breeds execution.  Consistent execution leads to success patterns, which in turn  engender a culture of confidence.  That culture is at the heart of a competitive advantage, because culture is not copyable.

Every company that wants to achieve such breakthrough success, whether it is large or small, must develop this pattern. It must  build upon a foundation that places a high value on a shared vision and mission.  For that success to be sustained, a company’s approach to total rewards must reflect and support the strategy that emanates from that base.  Employees must be able to envision a compelling future, there must be a superior work environment, there must be opportunities for personal and professional development, and there must be financial rewards that complement and reinforce the roles and expectations the company has of its people.

In the end, success is defined by those that  experience it.  In Applied’s case, there is no horizon to that success.  What’s important is that the competitive advantage the company has built has placed it in the driver’s seat to determine exactly what the boundaries of its  success will be.  No outside institution, person, or condition  will determine that for them.

Special thanks to Said Hilal and his group at Applied Medical for taking us “behind the scenes” and allowing us to better understand what a competitive advantage sounds like.

Share This Post
Tom Miller
September 4th, 2009 by Tom Miller

Do Incentive Plans Work?

As a compensation consultant I’ve asked myself a lot, “Can compensation make a difference?”  There are those that say “no.” In this presentation noted career analyst Dan Pink claims that incentives are just plain wrong–that they actually lead to poorer performance. http://www.knowhr.com/blog/2009/08/25/everything-you-think-about-pay-for-performance-could-be-wrong/

Others have made similar claims. However, these arguments miss the point. Incentives don’t need to strip away the intrinsic desire for employees to contribute to something meaningful. Incentives, done properly, don’t turn employees into mindless robots. Instead, they communicate something meaningful about how the shareholders value their employees. And, they create alignment. A well-designed incentive plan says, “if we do well, you do well; now focus on those things that help us do well.”

My experience is that, in these circumstances, responsible, mature adults figure out how to do the right thing. And, ultimately, they are rewarded for it–in ways that include financial incentives, and in ways that don’t.

What tends to be missed is that most incentive plans are too short-term. I believe that well-designed long-term incentive plans are better than short-term plans. They can be a little trickier to get right. But done well they create tight alignment with shareholders and they reinforce meaningful value creation. “I invest capital. You invest your labor and your creative effort. If we create value for customers, we create value for us. Our organization has a fair way to share the economic value created between shareholders and employees.”  That’s the idea behind a good long-term rewards plan.

Do incentive plans work? If they reinforce (rather than force) the right behavior that leads to the desired results, you bet they do.

Share This Post

Recently I received a request to submit an article to a newsletter about “Holistic Compensation.” Well, that’s a new one, I thought. I’ve used lots of terms to describe the uses of compensation systems, but that’s one I missed. We prefer the term “strategic compensation.”

Because of a tight deadline I sent along an article I already have ready to go. I didn’t even add the term “holistic.” I hope they won’t mind.

Now that I have a little time I started to think about the term. Webster’s online dictionary defines “holistic” as relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts. All of a sudden, I’m in love with the term. That’s exactly how compensation should be looked at by senior management company.

Most don’t. The salary budget isn’t connected to the short-term incentive plan isn’t connected to the long-term incentive plan isn’t connected to the hip-bone… (you get the idea). The CEO assumes that the HR leaders will handle all “basic” compensation issues and he or she will handle the senior management negotiations with the board or owners. This goes on in other areas. The CFO may handle the long-term plan. The Sales VP may handle her commission systems. It’s not coordinated. It’s not integrated. It’s not holistic. It’s dissected into parts.

The reality is that all elements of compensation and benefits reflect an investment by shareholders that is worthy of a measurable return. If so, they should be carefully orchestrated according to a central, guiding philosophy that is tied to the company’s strategic plan (thus “strategic compensation). All pay components should be accountable to the strategic plan. The bonus plan for the lowest eligible employee should be constructed with the same conditions and goals in mind as the CEO’s incentive plan. After all it’s one “complete system.”

Why isn’t this done? Traditions and bias. Unfortunately, it’s a waste of energy, direction and money. Holistic compensation is exactly how all companies should approach their biggest investment–at least if they want to attract better employees, build an ownership mentality, and improve overall results. I may have to go back and write a new article.

Share This Post