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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Earlier this year,  we determined that an update of the VisionLink website was long overdue.  We were living in the dark ages.  Although the demands of our business were great, and we were already “stretched,” we knew that rebuilding was critical.  It just had to be a priority.  We had determined that our website was an essential tool for defining ourselves in the market place–and that our current site didn’t represent us well.

So, our search for a firm to assist  began.

As you would expect, we interviewed four or five different website development companies that seemed suitable.  Ultimately, we hired the last firm that walked through the door.  Here’s why.

When Jason Lavin of Golden Communications came in, he arrived with no laptop and no portfolio.  He wasn’t interested in demonstrating his firm’s great graphics capabilities or showing us the many websites they had designed.  His pitch was  simple and straight forward. “As far as I’m concerned, if I can’t make your phone ring with your website, then you shouldn’t hire me.”

He then proceeded to tell us how and why his firm’s approach would drive business to VisionLink.  He made sense.  Our eyes were opened to new possibilities and we began to view the potential of our website more strategically.   We were encouraged by what we learned. Two weeks later, we hired Jason’s company.

We launched our new site about six weeks ago, and have already received several qualified inquiries through this tool. If you’re reading this blog, you are evidence that the website is working.  Jason did what he said he was going to do.

Since our first meeting with Jason, I have thought frequently about his challenge.  I have recognized that it doesn’t just apply to website development.  It applies to a company’s approach to compensation and rewards as well–perhaps even more. “If it isn’t driving business, why are you doing it?”

Although this seems intuitive, most companies don’t make rewards decisions this way. Few can tell you what business improvement or financial outcome each component of compensation is intended to create.  If salaries increased by 5 or 10% from last year to this, what was the reason?  When last year’s bonuses were paid, what performance measures were they based on? Important questions.  Too many business leaders can’t answer them.

Back to our website.

Once we understood what our website could and should accomplish for us, we had some decisions to make.  Should we just hang on to our old site and hope to get better results in the future?  Maybe we could just “tweek” a few things.  Or, should we just do away with our website completely and revisit it when we have more time?  After all, it’s kind of expensive to go through a change…plus, there’s work involved with keeping it maintained and fresh. Is it worth it?  How can we know ahead of time?

To some, these may seem like silly questions and a lame analysis given the internet age we live in.  Who can expect to seriously compete in a service business without every strategic base being covered? But, with all due respect,  this is the kind of analysis we  see many businesses go through when faced with the challenge (opportunity) of updating their rewards programs.  There is clearly a need to make a change but they are stuck in neutral.

(For the record, we never seriously considered NOT moving forward with a new site.)

As we approached our new website, we had to learn about the potential it offered.  We discovered there was a systematic, effective, measurable way to determine if our site was generating results.  We became educated in SEO and SEM marketing, Google Adwords, blogging,  and more.  We applied our effort and investment towards building something that would drive business and generate specific, measurable results.  We set our sights on developing a tool that would support our business plan, attract the kind of clients we could best serve, and generate an appropriate return on our investment.    We adopted a measured, strategic approach with a clear outcome in mind.  We were confident that the effort, investment and forethought would be rewarded. (They have been.)

In this process, we were careful not to establish unrealistic expectations. We  recognized that our website would not be the only key to success in our business.  We still had to manage  projects well, develop appropriate solutions and create the right experience for our clients. We realized that our site was simply a strategic tool that would assist us in getting to the next threshold of performance in our business.

As business leaders look at their compensation strategies,  the thought process should be no different. CEOs should engage in a process that will help them first diagnose where they are, then enable them to envision, create and sustain great compensation programs–ones that are going to drive business.  Rewards  should reflect the strategic outcomes a business is trying to achieve–and the execution level it needs to foster.

This approach requires a different mindset; one that treats compensation as an investment designed to generate specific results and higher productivity.  It rejects the view that compensation is simply another expense that needs to be managed.

We couldn’t base decisions about our future website on the results we had achieved from our original site.  We hadn’t employed the right tools before.  Likewise, business leaders shouldn’t base future decisions about compensation on results they did or didn’t achieve before knowing there was a better way to do things.

Obvious?  Well, maybe so.  However, too many companies are paying people the same way they did two years ago or five years ago, and hoping for a different result.  Meanwhile, they are otherwise making plans for breakthrough growth. By now, it should be obvious that without a more strategic approach to compensation, they are not likely to realize that growth.

So, before taking another step with your rewards strategies, please ask yourself a critical question, “If is isn’t driving business, why are we doing it?”

We work with both publicly and privately owned companies. I suppose the public market place is more “glamorous” (in some sense). Larger issues. Layers of board decisions. Bigger impact. More intense magnifying glass examining results. However, Comp Committees of public companies often miss the mark.

Of course, Committee members are under a lot of scrutiny and pressure. The risk of regulator criticism (or worse) is always hanging over their heads. And there are always disgruntled shareholders. These are real hassles. As a result, the main benchmark they use is “peer review.” They look to the pay package of their peers to determine how to pay their own execs. Here’s how it works: (1) a consultant is hired and charged to pull proxies, review surveys and present results; (2) the consultant presents findings to the committee; (3) the findings (showing how the top 5 execs compare to the selected group) are examined by the committee members and discussed; and (4) the committee draws some conclusions and makes recommendations to the board. The result: over time most companies offer pay packages that match up with this group of “peers.” This is the safe result. Who can criticize the committee since they’re merely doing the same thing being done by everyone else.

Wise owners of private companies do it differently. They don’t begin with the assumption that the management team should be paid the same way as those of their competitors. (Granted, the urge to do this is strong. But hopefully someone is protecting them from going down this path.) Instead, they can begin with the question: “What is our strategic direction?” My experience is that private companies are often much clearer on this message than their public brethren. The strategic direction of the company should drive compensation strategy. What is our short-term direction? What is our long-term? What initiatives need to be launched or maintained to achieve those objectives? What people will we need to do so? How do we want those people to think about our company’s future? What do we want them to focus on in their daily work? How much value will we create if we achieve our goals? How much of that value should be shared with our employees? In what form should that value be shared?

These questions and answers will lead the astute business leader to discard old compensation practices and embrace new ones. Since the entrepreneurial owner(s) of the company are not as controlled by regulators, shareholders (and even their boards) they have more freedom to align compensation with strategy rather than peer data.

As we observe an increase in government oversight of pay practices watch for originality and creativity in the total rewards world to emerge from the private marketplace. Bureaucracy stifles freedom and creativity. Ignore the public practices. Let the entrepreneurs create!

Tom Miller
July 16th, 2009 by Tom Miller

Hurray for Say on Pay (Not Really)!

So the Treasury Department sent proposed “say on pay” rules to Congress for consideration. These rules would require public companies to offer shareholders a chance to vote on executive pay arrangements. The vote would be non-binding. What’s the point?

Shareholders can already comment on pay. They can attend the annual shareholder meeting and moan all they want. Believe me, I’ve seen them do it. Sometimes they even make some good points. But, more commonly, they focus on a single issue that seems out of line to them. They don’t look at the total picture. They don’t have the data and material the compensation committee had when they made the decision. Regardless, they have a chance to comment. As a compensation consultant I’ve attended those meetings and heard the comments. And I’ve seen the committee discuss them earnestly.

There’s another way they can vote. It’s called “selling the shares.” If I own stock in a company I read the proxy. It outlines the pay philosophy. It lists the pay levels and arrangements. I can determine if there is consistency and if the philosophy makes sense. If I don’t like what I see, I get out.

There are bad apples out there. Plenty of them. My experience is that they are ultimately punished by the market. For every company with bad practices there are hundreds that do their best to initiate strong guidelines and arrangements. Now those companies will need to spend time and money satisfying a silly rule (assuming it’s passed). It’s time and money better spent on more serious issues.

The current economic environment has most people scrambling for answers.  It just “feels” different than other recessionary periods.  Many are concluding that we are entering a new era and that a different business landscape is emerging.  Leadership in this new economic environment is going to require a different kind of strategy forced to the surface by altered assumptions about globalization and its infinite tentacles: finance, manpower, product development and so on.

As always, ingenuity, leadership, creativity, initiative and innovation will win out.  Winners always figure out new ways to win (Lance Armstong is a perfect parable of that principle). New thresholds of performance will again be established, then surpassed.  That’s the way of business in America.

But….in the meantime, where do you turn for answers to the many questions that have to be answered?

I have found some of the following articles to be helpful in shedding light on where we are, what will be required of corporate leadership in the future and how we manage things now.  Check them out.

The Economy is Worse that You Think (WSJ): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

Leadership in a Permanent Crisis (HBR): http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2009/07/leadership-in-a-permanent-crisis/ar/1

10 Trends You Have to Watch (HBR): http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hbr/hbr-now/2009/06/post-crisis-trends.html

The End of Rational Economics (HBR): http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2009/07/the-end-of-rational-economics/ar/1

In addition, VisionLink broadcasts webinars every month on topics that are key to managing compensation issues in the present economy.  Two upcoming events are particularly relevant:

Compensation and Performance in Recessionary Times (click here to register)–July 16

How Do I Create a Competitive Advantage with My Compensation Program? (click here to register)–July 28

See if you don’t find some of these resources helpful.

“Keep the faith.”  There is much to look forward to.