Building Unified Financial Visions

Ken Gibson
July 26th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Sales vs. Performance vs. Growth Incentives

Periodically, we will receive a call from a business leader seeking our help to build a more effective incentive plan.  Often, it takes a while to determine whether what is being sought is a sales plan or a broader performance-based reward.  The difficulty in decifering which kind of approach is needed stems from the fact that many businesses don’t yet know what outcome they are trying to influence through their incentive plan(s).

With that anecdotal evidence in mind, I assume many struggle with this issue.  As a result, I offer here  some general things to consider when thinking about incentives:

  • Sales Incentives–Compensation programs for sales people are typically a distinct “animal.”  Their purpose and form are centered solely on increasing sales.  Although a sales incentive might be in the form of a commission or bonus (or both), it’s focus is strictly on rewarding a certain desired sales result.  They are intended to address the following performance factor: “What the company wants sold, to whom and in what volume.”Those participating in a sales incentive could, conceivably, also receive a performance or growth incentive.  However, it is less likely they will receive the former since their sales incentive rewards short-term performance results .  A long-term incentive, however, creates a different focus and could more commonly be paid to those responsible for sales functions, particularly those whose stewardship it is to accelerate top-line growth. (See Growth Incentives below.)
  • Performance Incentives–Companies that want to create focus on key performance indicators or profitability standards measured in increments of 12 months or less are looking for this type of reward.  Performance incentives seek to communicate the following to participating employees: “This is the outcome we need you to focus on during this period of time and how it will be measured and rewarded.”  Performance incentives help participants understand their role in this year’s strategy, what’s expected of them in that role and how they will be remunerated for fulfilling those expectations.  The overall incentive may reward something for company performance, team or department performance, individual performance or all three.  The “weighting” of those factors may be different for various “tiers” of employees.  Annual, semi-annual or quarterly bonus arrangements are types of performance incentives.As with sales incentives, participants in a performance incentive plan may–and commonly do–participate in a growth incentive as well.
  • Growth Incentives–Organizations that seek to align the company’s reward’s strategy with its business plan should have some kind of growth incentive.  Such a plan communicates where the company is headed in the future (beyond the next 12 months) and how those that help to fuel growth will participate in that increase.  Growth incentives seek to create a unified financial vision for growing the business and send the following message to participants: “You are an important partner in our growth plans and this is how we intend to have you participate in the value you help create.”  Stock, stock options, phantom equity, SAR, Performance Unit Plans and Profit Pools are examples of growth incentives that companies commonly use to fulfill this part of their overall rewards strategy.

Most companies think in terms of specific types of plans instead of the kind of performance they seek to drive as they approach the design of their incentives.  Instead, we recommend you isolate the performance category you are trying to address as indicated above and then begin thinking of the compensation s0lutions that will drive the outcomes you seek.

At a minimum, now if you call us, we will perhaps be speaking the same language!

Share This Post
Tom Miller
July 1st, 2010 by Tom Miller

Should Your Salaries Be “At Market”?

Lots of companies fret if their salaries aren’t “at market.” Should they be? Lots of effort goes into the compilation and analysis of data to determine just how competitive salaries and total comp are.  If people care so much it must be worthwhile. Is it?

Well…yes and no. Of course it’s helpful to know if you have pay levels that are way out of line with market standards. But remember that those standards come from thousands of inputs (some good and some not-so-good) from thousands of people in thousands of companies. Of course, average large numbers can help to weed out the bad data. And if you average different survey sources you again find some “happy medians.” So the data may be helpful, and even reasonably accurate—as far as they go.

But therein lies the problem. Who’s to say that setting ‘median salaries’ is a best practice? Sounds like a ‘median practice’ to me. It seems like the foundational decision should be to determine what the overall pay package should look like. And this should depend on the company strategy and culture. Two examples may help.

In the last two weeks I visited two different clients in different parts of the country. Both companies are successful and growing. Company A has a very aggressive growth culture. Employees are expected to put in a tremendous effort to achieve higher and higher results over time. If they produce the expected results they’re paid well above market. Salaries are already set above market to help with recruting of top talent. Bonuses and other awards push the total comp package to the “Nth” degree. Employees are hired and fired with these expectations in mind. The company personality is designed for high performers with high expectations.

Company B is in a very competitive industries. Margins are tight. Fixed expenses must be watched carefully. Thus, salaries are below market—quite a bit below in some cases. But the company compensates in other ways. The work environment is fairly casual. The culture is very “family friendly.” Sure, some people grumble because pay levels are perceived to be low. But turnover is light. Nobody’s going anywhere. They’re hiring 20 new employees this month. Something must be right about “pay.” 

So the next time you begin your market pay research first ask yourself what the relevance of the data will be. What’s the full story at your workplace? Is market-median pricing an essential for you?

Share This Post
Tom Miller
June 28th, 2010 by Tom Miller

So What Makes a ‘Good’ Phantom Stock Plan?

In my last blog I described the 5 biggest mistakes made by companies that adopt phantom stock plans. Today—the 5 best innovations that can make your plan a driver of performance and value.

  • Determine how much value you want to share with employees before you begin to design the plan. To do this, you need to model company growth under reasonable scenarios and see how much new value would be created for shareholders. Then, and only then, can you begin to consider how much of that new added value should go to your key employees. For most companies this would range between 5% and 20%.
  • Now that you have a “budget” for the plan you can back into annual awards. But first you’ll have to set a phantom value. Do this by creating a Formula Value (FV) for the company. The FV might be a reasonable multiple of earnings (or EBITDA, whatever you prefer). You’ll probably want to subtract long-term debt. Then pick a hypothetical number of phantom shares, e.g., 1,000,000. Divide your shares into your FV and, voila, you’ve got a share price.
  • Now pick your participants (and allow for some future ones). Begin to place some number of phantom shares into their account annually (we’re still doing this in a model spreadsheet—not for real yet). There are a number of good techniques for doing this—but not enough space to discuss here). Work the numbers until the values seem right—and you’re within your budget.
  • As you see how the shares grow in value you’ll realize that you need to determine when they’ll be redeemed (paid in cash to the participants). We typically recommend payouts starting 5-7 years from the year of grant. Don’t wait until “retirement” as employees will learn the only way they can get cash is to quit.
  • When you complete and document your plan you’re ready for a roll-out. Make that meeting meaningful. Help the employees see that you’re trusting them with the creation of your future company and that you plan to reward them well for making it happen.

Don’t be stingy. If your key management team creates millions for you, the least you can do is make them feel like shareholders—at least financially. Every company that expects to be bigger in the future than they are today needs some type of long-term incentive plan. A phantom stock plan just might be the key to tying your leadership team to the creation of that future company.

Of course there are a number of other things to do to make a phantom stock plan work. But these five will get you off to a good start.

Share This Post
Tom Miller
June 11th, 2010 by Tom Miller

What Think Ye of Phantom Stock? Does it Work?

Twenty years ago very few people were familiar with the concept of ‘phantom stock.’ Today, most business owners are familiar with the term—and many have strong opinions about whether they work or not. Do they?

 For a plan to  ‘work’ it should: (a) provide a meaningful reward for employees if the value of the company goes up over time, and (b) serve as an effective retention tool for key employees.

 I’ve designed a lot of phantom stock plans over the years. And I’ve seen many more that were put into place by others. I’ll offer up, first, some of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen in phantom stock plans. And in my next blog I’ll offer up the most innovative and effective practices that can make a plan, possibly, the most effective compensation plan you’ve ever utilized.

 Here are the top 5 mistakes to make when designing a phantom stock plan (if you really want to do it wrong):

  • Require that the plan valuation be determined by a formal appraisal. Result: significant, unnecessary, periodic expenses for the company.
  • Be sure to use the actual number of company shares for the number of shares in the phantom stock plan. Result: the plan will be very confusing and complicated whenever you try to conduct routine corporate shareholder transactions (redeem shares, issue new shares, etc.).
  • Issue “shares” in a block grant up front. Results: certain regrets later on when you realize you gave too much to some people and you have too few new shares to award to others; also, people will probably vest in all their shares before you really want them to.
  • Pay annual dividends to the “phantom shareholders.” Results: a completely unnecessary drain on company cash.; plus, no alignment or retention purposes whatsoever.
  • Have an attorney help you design the plan. Result: (with apologies to my attorney friends) this results in an overly technical plan without ‘real world’ practical and compelling provisions. (Tip–let the attorney document after the creative discussions have been conducted.)

These 5 steps will insure you years of headaches, regrets and costs. Any you’ll be sure to lower productivity, worsen retention and diminish shareholder value. In my book, that doesn’t ‘work.

 Next blog—best practices tips for plans that really work.

Share This Post

The execution gap—the bane of every CEO. “We have a good strategy, good people, good products. Why aren’t we getting the results we’re capable of?” Have you ever asked yourself that question (with or without the dangling preposition)?

Lots of books have been written about execution and the sometimes exasperating effort all businesses make to improve, refine, or enhance the execution of their business plan. Yet few CEOs are ever satisfied. When I ask them to describe their satisfaction with team execution they hesitate and hedge. “We’re pretty good, but we could do better,” might be the most common response.

I’ve come to learn that one can sense something about company cultures. It’s not something that’s there. It’s something that’s not there. And people are so busy trying to ‘execute’ that they don’t know what’s missing. It’s as if they believe that working harder will get them the results they want. In some cases, maybe it will.

But what is lacking is simpler, if not more elusive. We call it a “unified vision for growing the business.” This means that there is a consistent, meaningful, mutually respectful understanding between the owners (or their representatives) and the employees. This understanding works by the following formula.  Owners: “Help us achieve great results. We’re committed to sharing the financial rewards in an enriching way.” Employees: “We see the results you expect. We see how we can contribute. We appreciate your willingness to share value. We find this relationship compelling.”

When this partnership moves from philosophy to practice it changes organizations. Execution is no longer an elusive goal. It’s second nature.

Share This Post

Every business wants the best–the best product, the best customer service, the best possible profit margin, the best market position, and the best people.  Some actually achieve it.  How do they do it? 

From VisionLink’s point of view, there are four  essentials that a company must get right if it hopes to attract and retain a level of talent that can drive all the other “bests” it is trying to achieve.  We call these the Four Pillars of Total Rewards.  In summary, they are as follows:

  • Compelling Future
  • Positive Work Environment
  • Opportunities for Personal and Professional Development
  • Financial Rewards

 

Compelling Future

A compelling future assumes, of course, that those in company leadership know where the business is headed and how its going to get there. They have a vivid and clear vision.  They consistently communicate that vision and the strategy that is needed to fulfill it.  They have reduced the business plan of the company to an easily understood, focused strategy statement that all of the principal players in the company can articulate.   Everyone throughout the organization understands the vision and how the company is going to fulfill it. 

But this is not all.

The “best” companies have an ability to make “compelling future” come alive for their workforce.  They enable their employees to see themselves in the future of the business.   The company and its employees have a shared value system.  There is a unified financial vision for growing the enterprise that is understood by all.  Premier talent are allowed to think and believe that the business cannot achieve its vision without them.  They are allowed this view this because its an accurate one–not just something leadership says to rally the troops.  As a result, they nuture a partnership relationship with employees–particularly key producers.  Those the company needs to drive results see their unique ability as an essential ingredient to the company realizing its vision of the future.  In essence, this is why employees consider the future to be “compelling.”

Positive Work Environment

World class organizations create a culture and environment that nutures individual unique abilities within the framework of unique teams.  This means that people are placed in roles where their talent, experience, skill and wisdom allow them make the best contribution.  Their distinctive ability blends with and compliments others in their sphere of influence to create a highly productive outcome for the company and an enriching experience for the employees. The whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

In such an environment, innovation is encouraged and thrives.  There are open channels of communication for problem solving with company leadership and people feel empowered as stewards over their work.  Roles and expectations are clear, fair and synchronized with the company’s business plan.  A culture of execution, sustained success and confidence is nurtured, celebrated and rewarded.

Opportunities for Personal and Professional Development

Central to the definition of ”meaningful work” for employees is the ability they have to improve and advance.  Organizations that want to attract “the best” must make sure there are clear opportunities for employees to magnify their unique abilities as a result of their affiliation with the company.  This relates to everything from career path development to training and supplemental educational opportunities.  However, it also relates to challenges employees are given, a sense of stewardship they are allowed to have in their roles and the feeling of confidence that is communicated to them about their ability to make a contribution. 

 At its core, this category has to do with building trust.  The roles employees are given, how they are managed, and the way they are ultimately paid ties them to the business plan of the company and creates a sense of collaboration with ownership.  Such a relationship breeds mutual respect and unity, which are foundational to a relationship of trust.  In organizations where trust is high, results are accelerated.  As the speed of performance increases, costs go down and revenues increase.  If compensation is effectively engineered, all win and a positive, self-sustaining momentum is set in motion.

Financial Rewards

Many assume pay is the core issue for employees in determining whether to join or leave an organization.  It’s not that simple.  All of the factors described here play a role. 

At issue with pay is not usually how much someone is getting but how they are being compensated.  In other words, the best employees recognize and respond to the concept of valuation creation.  If a business creates value for its customers, the marketplace rewards that company financially by buying its product or service.  Value is received for value created.  Similarly,  employees recognize that if they create superior value, some part of their pay should reflect that.  Conversely, if they don’t create additional value, they likewise shouldn’t be paid as if they did.

Great organizations understand that value creation has both a short-term and a long-term component– for employees as well as for the company.  The business is interested in generating results today, tomorrow and through the remainder of the year. However, it is also interested in sustained results–those that will drive shareholder value over the next two to five years–even the next decade.  Consequently, they are interested in  good profits (those that come by virtue of benefiting the customer)  and not bad profits (those that come at the expense of the customer and erode good will and long-term business value).

Employees are no different .  They have short and long-term financial objectives–and look to their employment as the primary vehicle to achieve both.  In this context, employees are primarilly interested in their pay program addressing three key priorities:

  • Cash Needs/Standard of Living–this priority is typically met through salary and some type of annual incentive plan that gives the employee some control over short-term earning capacity
  • Security–this area of emphasis has to do with protecting against financial risk through adequate insurance coverage and opportunities for employees to mitigate potential risk issues in their lives
  • Wealth Accumulation–this area of focus has to do with participating in the long-term value employees help the business create and feeling empowered to “reap what they sow”; it goes beyond mechanisms such as 401(k) or pension plans that are purely retirement focused

 

These Four Pillars of a Total Rewards strategy can be a useful way to evaluate how your company is doing in positioning itself to attract the best and, as a result, become the best.  It is our experience that the businesses that “get” this also end up ”getting” the results they are looking for on their pathway towards World-Class Performance.

Share This Post

That is not a VisionLink claim.  It’s the claim of Jean Martin and Conrad Schmidt, both of the Corporate Executive Board’s Corporate Leadership Council in Washington, DC, as reported in their Harvard Business Review article–May 2010 edition.  The claim is based on research done by the Leadership Council in September of 2009.  It’s a staggering statistic.

Following that claim, the authors proceed to delineate the six most common errors their research produced that  contribute to this outcome: 1) Assuming that high potentials are highly engaged; 2)Equating current high performance with future potential; 3)Delegating down the management of top talent; 4) Sheilding rising stars from early derailment; 5) Expecting star employees to share the pain, and; 6) Failing to link your stars to your corporate strategy.

That last mistake (not creating links between key people and strategy) is also the basis for three of the 10 core set of best practices  the article goes on to define for identifying and managing key talent.  It is likewise reflective of the central philosophy VisionLink espouses relative the development of World Class Compensation.  Creating great rewards strategies does not begin with a discussion of compensation.  It begins with a discussion of vision, strategy, roles and expectations.  Rewards should be an extension of that train of thought.

Here are three of the best practices identified in the article, and VisionLink’s observations about each.

  • Create individual development plans; link personal objectives to the company’s plans for growth, rather than to generic competency models.

    VisionLink Observation: Compensation in high performing organizations is one of the tools that forges this link and advances a unified financial vision for growing the business.  Employees will understand this connection (between personal objectives and the company’s growth plans)  if they feel a sense of partnership in their business relationship–financially (through pay) and otherwise.

  • Reevaluate top talent annually for possible changes in ability, engagement, and aspiration levels.

    VisionLink Observation: Performance is not static and pay for performance isn’t either.  A compensation philosophy should clearly define what a company will “pay” for and practices must bring that philosophy to life.  Evaluation tools should be employed at least annually to assess engagement and aspiration levels to determine the level of alignment that is taking place.

  • Offer significantly differentiated compensation and recognition to star employees.

    VisionLink Observation: This is the basis of a pay for performance philosophy and the heart of world-class compensation.  Star companies are fueled by star employees. If the business is performing above the market, premier talent will know that, and will expect to be paid accordingly.  If star performance isn’t being achieved, review the previous bullet point.

As companies begin to emerge from the deep sleep imposed by the recent economic slump, they would do well to make sure they are avoiding the mistakes Jean Martin and Conrad Schmidt have identified.  Equally, they should ensure they are well poised to employ the critical components of a world class talent-development program.

Share This Post

Incentive plans are described in lots of different terms—commissions, bonuses, STIPs, profit sharing, and so forth. We keep inventing different structures but we call them by the same old names.

 The way I look at it there are really only three. Everything else is essentially some variation of these: sales incentives, productivity incentives and growth incentives.  

Of course sales incentive is another term for commissions. We pay these to those employees who bring in new revenue. The incentives may be in addition to a base salary, or they may stand alone as the sole source of payment. New sales, of course, are the lifeblood of any organization. And sales personnel are commonly among the highest paid employees.

 But what about “productivity incentives?” This is my way of describing any form of variable pay that is tied to productivity improvements. In my view, this concept should replace the notion of a “bonus” because no variable pay is truly earned unless it comes from an improvement in employee productivity.  In the future, the only flourishing companies will be those that have demonstrated the ability to out-perform their competitors. Thus, every employee must become “productivity conscious.” In addition, improvements in productivity provide the fresh profits needed to finance the incentive. So, instead of “pay for performance” think, “pay for productivity.”

 The third category is “growth incentives.” These are the payments made for helping to create the future company. Sales and productivity incentives run today’s company and create the capital to grow future company. But future company doesn’t happen unless employees are focused on building it. And those who do should share in its value. Thus, growth incentives are essential for any company that believes it will be bigger in five years than it is today. Growth incentives should be accrued and paid in the future when new value begins to be realized.

 Every company that’s serious about growth and sustainable profits needs three types of incentives: sales, productivity and growth.

Share This Post

Employers are constantly tinkering with their compensation programs. Are our salaries at market? Couldn’t our bonus plan be better? Are we spending too much on benefits? Notice how each of these questions (and there are lots more like them) focuses on cost and or effectiveness. And effectiveness usually means “does it work for the company?”

After all that effort it’s easy to see why employers are often surprised when an employee quits and takes a job for “more pay” somewhere else.

Employers would be wise to spend a little more time looking at their comp plans through the eyes of their employees. Ultimately, all elements of the total rewards package are evaluated by employees through three lenses: (1) are my cash needs being met? (2) are my security needs being met? (3) do I have a meaningful wealth accumulation opportunity?  (I realize there are other real elements of the total pay program such as PTO, sick pay, etc. But I’m putting those in the “lifestyle support” category. Today I’m talking about the core or largest elements of direct pay–salaries/wages, bonuses, long-term awards, retirement and health and welfare.)

We conduct employee surveys about the perception of the value of pay commitment. I just completed our main survey–the Alignment Appraisal–for three different companies. Here are some of the average employee scores (think 1-10, 10 being the highest).

The company’s cash compensation program effectively meets mypersonal lifestyle needs. (Scores: 4.0,  5.5, 6.2)

The company’s benefit programs (health and welfare plans) offer adequate flexibility and coverage to address the potential financial risks I face. (Scores: 4.0,  8.0,  8.2)

I perceive a meaningful wealth accumulation opportunity through our compensation and rewards programs? (Scores: 3.5,  4.0,  4.9)

Two of these companies obviously do a pretty good job of providing strong health plans. Other than that these scores indicate to me that employees see their rewards programs as average or below when they come to actually meeting their personal needs, goals and expectations. (There are plenty of other responses in the survey that support these conclusions.)  By the way, these scores are very typical. We don’t usually see them much higher.

I consider this a serious problem! The investment in compensation for employees is huge–almost always the biggest expense on the income statement. Why isn’t their greater concern about matching this up with what employees really want and need?

This problem is very often one of perception. But it’s a common one. Right or wrong, employees don’t think employers are really that concerned about their personal financial needs. Think about the implications of this to morale, productivity, retention, recruiting–as well as growth and profits!

One of Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits” was to “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Employers who learn to look at their total rewards investment (TRI) through the lenses of their employees’ three needs will find that they strengthen the partnership relationship with their employees. In the long run everyone wins–employees utiilize their rewards dollars more productively and shareholders reap the benefit of long-lasting improvements in culture along with  greater profits and real equity value.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
March 31st, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Strategic not Tactical

One of the biggest mistakes most organizations make is to treat compensation as a tactical, expense management issue.  In some respects, this is a natural inclination.  Compensation is customarily the largest budget item on the company’s financial statements.  As a result, most organizations look at it as a cost to be managed. 

However, high performance companies see everything through a strategic lens, including and especially compensation.  As a result, they see pay as an extension of the company’s business plan, not just a  line item on the income statement.  For such organizations, decision making regarding rewards can’t be and isn’t dealt with in tactical terms.  Every rewards program they roll out has a strategic purpose that is grounded in a well defined compensation philosophy.

Businesses that treat compensation strategically commonly employ the following practices:

  • The CEO  establishes the strategic direction for rewards and drives the priorities surrounding compensation planning and decisions
  • The organization employs mechanisms to measure alignment between workforce performance and practices, and the business plan of the company
  • The company has a compensation committee that meets regularly (preferably quarterly) to make rewards decisions and assess progress of existing strategies based on a written philosophy statement that clearly defines what the company “pays” for
  • The compensation committee employs processes for the consideration, development, implementation and ongoing management of its rewards strategies
  • Specific rewards programs are only implemented once their strategic purpose is clearly stated and their impact on both shareholder and employee wealth accumulation value has been modeled and tested
  • The company establishes a means of measuring the productivity of its people; it isolates the return that comes to the business through financial capital at work versus human capital at work
  • The organization develops a rewards reinforcement strategy and management system  for the ongoing promotion and communication of its compensation plans
  • Shareholders are routinely informed of the relationship between rewards and additional value being created through the execution of an effective and focused workforce.

Such an ideal isn’t achieved overnight.  However, no one achieves it until they buy into the relationship between vision, strategy, roles and expectations, and rewards–and then commits to a process that links those interdependent issues.  Such an approach is only adopted by organizations that want compensation to become a key driver of growth in their business, and not just one more cost that has to be contained.

Share This Post