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
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

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
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
Ken Gibson
March 12th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

What Does ‘Pay for Performance’ Really Mean?

Certain words and phrases become part of a kind of  business “pop lexicon” as they are used and repeated incessantly over an extended period of time.  When they do, their meaning often becomes diluted.  As that happens, businesses sometimes assume “it must have been a passing fad”–so think they can now ignore the issue.

We fear “Pay for Performance” is in danger of becoming just such a phrase.  So many use it, but so few can tell you what it actually means.  Fewer still employ this philosophy, even when they outwardly espouse it.

We believe any company that wants to achieve World Class Performance must have World Class Compensation. As a result, it must understand and embrace a pay for performance philosophy and plan. Because we believe that, we’d like to tell you what we think it means.

A company is employing a pay for performance strategy if its rewards programs are structured as follows:

  1. The company ties awards to shareholder financial objectives. In a true pay for performance environment, incentives drive value for shareholders and the company is able measure the impact their rewards strategies are having in this regard.
  2. The business employs the right “mix” of compensation elements. Organizations that tie compensation to performance standards understand that how they pay people has a bigger impact on results than how much they pay them–although both are important.  Pay for performance means the company strikes the right balance between guaranteed and at risk compensation, and short-term versus long-term incentives.
  3. Payouts result in meaningful dollars. Employees want to feel a sense of partnership with owners in achieving company goals.  This creates a unified financial vision for growing the business.  Such a unity can only happen when value sharing reaches a threshold that is “meaningful” to employees. In organizations that achieve this, employees are thinking (and hopefully saying) the following: “It’s important to me that the company achieve its goals because what I receive if it does is meaningful to me.”
  4. Performance expectations are tied to factors  employees can impact. It doesn’t matter how much employees have the potential to earn if they don’t feel they can impact the outcome that triggers their award.  In too many cases, what is supposed to be an incentive turns into a credibility problem for the company.  “Sure, you tell me this is my award, but I’m not really in a position to earn it.”
  5. Rewards are consistently communicated, reinforced and celebrated. This is a primary way a partnership mindset is nurtured.  Individual, departmental and company wide achievements are celebrated and employees sense they are participating in something great they helped create.  Sustained success and a culture of confidence grow out of such an approach. 

These guidelines will never go out of style, regardless of the popular lexicon that is in vogue at a given moment in time.

Share This Post
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
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