Building Unified Financial Visions

If you run a business, you likely have a clear vision of the possibilities–what could happen, “if only…”   However, if you are like most CEOs, you may not have yet accurately diagnosed the problem that is holding you back from that next performance threshold of growth and success.

Our experience has been that for every business leader that can identify and address root results barriers,  hundreds only see and focus on the symptoms.  Consequently, their course corrections are based on erroneous assumptions about the core problem.

Which kind of leader are you?  To assess, here are a few key questions to consider:

If the questions above reveal gaps in your business, then it is likely that your success barrier is tied to an enemic or even non-existent rewards philosophy and strategy–at least in part.  You are probably not yet seeing compensation as a strategic solution to fuel growth.   Compensation is being treated as an expense that has to be managed instead of a capital investment that should drive specific, measurable results.  Such a disconnect between your business plan and rewards means you are communicating one thing when announcing goals, objectives and performance expectations, but something else when you send out the paychecks.  As a result, there is no organizational “line of sight.”

A world-class compensation program is one that transforms the performance of employees and engenders an ownership mentality throughout the organization.  It aligns the shareholder vision with the employees’ vision.  World-class compensation programs unleash a level of passion that leads employees to have greater focus on key performance indicators and initiatives.

Such focus creates greater execution, which is the key to breakthrough growth.  Why?

Increased execution creates success patterns that engender a culture of confidence, the foundation of a competitive advantage.  Once success is sustained, you have built a culture that is self reinforcing.  You have also developed something that no one else can replicate; because culture is not “copyable.”

While effective rewards are not the only factor needed to fulfill this ideal, breakthrough results will never be achieved until a world-class compensation program is in place.  It is a “show me the money” issue, but not because people are solely motivated by financial rewards.  Rather, it’s a matter of strategy and continuity.  How can you tell your employees you have a three-year plan to grow from $75 million to $100 million in annual sales revenue (or other meaningful measure) and have no component of pay that rewards your people for that achievement?

In short, show me how your people are paid and I will tell you what performance expectations you have set.  It’s as simple as that.  For too many growth oriented companies, ineffective, unaligned compensation is their core success barrier–but they continue to look elsewhere for the solution.

Tom Miller
June 18th, 2009 by Tom Miller

Federal Regulation of Incentives–Baaaaad Idea!

The administration proposes that “federal regulators should issue standards and guidelines to better align executive compensation practices of financial firms with long-term shareholder value and to prevent compensation practices from providing incentives that could threaten the safety and soundness of supervised institutions.”

Oh, where to begin?

You’ll think this is a good idea if you agree that government lawyers are the best judge of long-term performance of a business.  Five years ago Congress added section 409A to the IRC. Its purpose was to eliminate rare abuses in deferred compensation plans. It only took government lawyers 3+ years to publish the final rules for 409A–all 397 pages. Of course, that was before another several hundred pages of clarifications. Now hundreds of thousands of businesses are impact by the micromanagment built into 409A rules.

The moral of the story is that when the government pokes its head into business the law of unintended consequences runs rampant.  Now government lawyers will decide what it means to create long-term value for shareholders.

How exactly shall shareholder value be judged? By stock price growth? Against what benchmark: peers? industry average? market average? And why should it be stock price? What if earnings grow steadily but the market punishes the stock for unrelated reasons? Should the management team be penalized? Maybe the government should select growth in earnings as the benchmark for creating value. Hmm. Which earnings component? PTI? Net Income? EBITDA? But these numbers are available for manipulation by any bright management team–if they want to.  If that happens, we’ll need some more rules, no doubt.

Let’s not forget that different institutions set different objectives. One might be growing assets. Another might be looking to improve return on equity. It would be interesting to know how the regulators will determine alignment with goals when they vary from firm to firm. Pay-for-performance begins with establishing clear objectives that are unique to each organization.

Here’s an idea: let shareholders decide if the management team is doing a poor job and/or is overpaid. If they think so, they can sell their stock. Sounds too simple.

Ken Gibson
June 16th, 2009 by Ken Gibson

Avoid the Temptation of Bad Profits

Difficult economic cycles can lead individuals and organizations to practices which, in better times, were unacceptable.  Most of the time, this isn’t the result of some overt change in the corporate value or mission statement.  Rather, it comes more often in the form of revised expectations that can only be achieved if something is given up.  Too often in such cases, what is surrendered are good profits. 

In his book The Ultimate Question, author Fred Reichheld (director emeritus and fellow at Bain and Company) explains it this way:

“Too many companies these days [especially during recessionary periods] can’t tell the difference between good profits and bad.  As a result, they are hooked on bad profits.

“…Whenever a customer feels mislead, mistreated, ignored, or coerced, then profits from that customer are bad.  Bad profits come from unfair or misleading pricing.  Bad profits arise when companies save money by delivering a lousy customer experience. Bad profits are about extracting value from customers, not creating value…

“Good profits are dramatically different.  If bad profits are earned at the expense of customers, good profits are earned with customers’ enthusiastic cooperation.  A company earns good profits when it so delights its customers that they are willing to come back for more–and not only that, they tell their friends and colleagues to do business with the company.”  (The Ultimate Question, Fred Reichheld, Harvard Business School Press, Boston Mass., 2006, chapter 1)

How can effectively engineered rewards strategies help an organization avoid bad profits?

It starts with a philosophy statement that defines what kind of performance the company will reward.  Such a philosophy should lead the business to develop both short-term and long-term incentive plans that mirror the immediate AND  sustained results the organization seeks to achieve.  Metrics for both plans reflect the performance standards required for a sustained increase in shareholder value.  Short-term rewards create a sense of urgency now while long-term incentives keep the performance “honest”–so key talent stays focused on consistent, prolonged  execution that moves the  customer from awareness to acceptance to advocacy. 

This approach also allows the company to “flex” with the economic cycle it’s experiencing.  When the economy is soft, employees are told that annual incentives will likely be minimal if paid at all.  However, performers can be assured of increased value credits to their long-term incentives (typically not payable for three to five years or longer) if they perform in a superior fashion.  Ultimately, determining which incentive plan should be used (ones that increase shareholder value through sustained good profits) is a key CEO decision that will deeply impact the ability of the company to avoid the bad profit syndrome.

Using compensation as a strategic tool, then, becomes a critical way organizations reinforce vision, strategy, roles and expectations to their workforce.  Taking time to address these issues properly is key to generating good profits instead of bad.

Tom Miller
June 12th, 2009 by Tom Miller

Is a Pay Czar a Good Idea?

This week, the Obama administration appointed Kenneth Feinberg as the new “Pay Czar.” Feinberg, a Washington lawyer best known for overseeing the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, will have responsibility for determining whether TARP participating companies  (and a few others) are properly paying their executives. Initially it looks like his reach will extend only to financial companies and automakers.

Is this a good idea? Many in the media think not, but not because they’re concerned about sustaining long-term performance for shareholders. They’re more concerned that Feinberg’s authority won’t be able to reel in “runaway,” “excessive,” and “irresponsible” pay programs. That is, the media want more oversight so that executives can be brought down to levels of pay deemed appropriate by the media judges.

Let’s acknowledge that pay programs in some companies are really bad. It’s not so much the size of the payments, it’s the fact that shareholders did not get appropriate returns before the execs got paid.  But strong boards have meaningful systems in place to tie executive pay to true performance metrics. And they have effective means to measure the return on all elements of their pay structure.

But now, the Federal Government (actually a single person) will oversee pay decisions.

As a taxpayer I now own a piece of these companies (or so I’ve been told). So what am I interested in? I want the best talent available to run those companies. I want people who can walk on water and leap tall buildings. I don’t want wimps in charge. How will “my companies” be able to hire the best available talent with the restrictions on pay now being imposed?

I hope the next appointment will be a “Recruiting Czar.” He or she will know how to recruit executives with great talent, commitment and drive. Of course those executives will be told their incentive plans will be subject to approval by Kenneth Feinberg. Good luck!