Building Unified Financial Visions

Ken Gibson
July 8th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

CEO Pay is Up! Is that Good?

Such is the question posed in the lead editorial of the July/August 2011 edition of  Harvard Business Review. It comes on the heels of a report by Equilar, an organization that tracks executive compensation, total pay packages for CEOs at S&P 500 companies.  According to its data, CEO pay rose 28% in 2010, to a median of $9 million.  This brings it back to pre-recession levels.

HBR Editor in Chief, Adi Ignatius, offers some interesting observations in response to this report.  Here, in part, is what he says:

“It’s hard to know exactly how to take this news. On the one hand, it’s a positive economic indicator of sorts, in that a CEO’s compensation tends to be linked to the company’s stock price. The markets saw a strong recovery in 2010; the S&P 500 index, for example, rose 13%. On the other hand, there’s something unsettling about this development. In the immediate wake of the financial crisis, nearly everyone agreed that we had gotten into trouble partly because tying compensation to short-term performance had enriched individuals while putting institutions—and the overall system—at risk. In an interview that begins on page 112, Disney CEO Robert Iger addresses the problem. He made $28 million last year in salary, bonus, and stock options. But Iger concedes that there is too much emphasis, in his and other CEOs’ pay packages, on short-term stock results, and he urges compensation committees to rethink their approach.”

I tend to agree with Ignatius’s thinking on this issue.  The 2010 results certainly reveal that executive pay is a kind of double-edged sword in what it reflects.  At a minimum they demonstrate that any executive pay strategy that doesn’t take a balanced approach to compensation (tempering short-term earnings capacity for key people by placing some long-term compensation at risk) can ultimately be considered “unfair” by some constituency.  Public companies have a harder time with this than private organizations, primarily because of the need to focus on quarterly results.  Meeting the expectations of the analysts is almost their sole focus. 

Both public and private companies need a compensation philosophy and strategy that is consistent with building both short and long-term value.  As I have discussed previously in these blog pages, such an approach keeps a business focused on good profits instead of bad profits.  The latter are earnings that come at the ultimate expense of both the customer and shareholders.  Good profits sustain value and multiply wealth for all stakeholders.

In our approach to compensation design, we recommend companies place a substantial amount of executive pay “at risk” through well designed incentives.  We encourage growth oriented-organizations to offer top tier employees as much as 80 to 100% of salary in incentive earning capacity.  The key is to have approximately half of that amount paid out in short-term incentives (pay for results generated in 12 months or less) and the other half in long-term incentives (pay for results generated past the one year mark, and usually three years or more later).  Salaries should be modest by market standards–usually between the 40th and 50th percentile of market pay.

Such an approach creates a truer sense of partnership between company ownership, key employees, customers and the market in general.  When each of those stakeholders’ interests are represented in the way employees are compensated, greater balance is realized and the compensation wars can subside if not be eliminated.

For more information on the role of compensation in driving shareholder value, view our webinar entitled: “Does Your Compensation Strategy Drive or Hinder Growth?”

CEOs have a lot to worry about.  (Okay, forgive my stating the obvious before even gettng started!)  As a result, effective chief executives provide strategic oversight but empower others to make decisions and carry out the company’s business model and plan.  Ideally, that person has set up accountability systems that are both effective and efficient in their ability to provide relevant feedback to guide him or her in making adjustments and course corrections as necessary. 

I recognize there’s nothing new in that introduction.  However, it’s an important foundation for setting up a discussion about the CEO’s role in compensation development and management.   Here’s why.

The leadership orientation  just described, while typical and necessary, often puts the CEO too far out of touch with an essential role he or she needs to play in the compensation discussion.  Pay is a strategic tool, not merely an expense that needs to be contained.  It is an investment that needs to be properly allocated and the CEO should assume as much responsibility for the return the company achieves on that capital commitment as any that is made in the enterprise.  In fact, given that compensation and benefits are usually the largest budget item on any company’s financial statements, one could argue that the CEO should pay even more attention to ROI results being generated  in this area than almost any other the company measures and manages.

At the end of the day, the person at the helm is primarily  responsible for making sure that both financial and human capital are generating an appropriate return for shareholders–and then holding people accountable for performance levels that will ensure that outcome.

If this is true (and I submit it is), then exactly what role should the CEO play in the compensation discussion–and where (if anywhere) should  handoffs (delegation) occur?  Here are some suggestions and guidelines:

  1. Establishing Pay Philosophy.  A chief executive officer must lead the philosophical discussion about pay.  Given the performance outcomes demanded of that role, the person at the helm must make clear what the company will pay for–and how that philosophy will be manifest in practice.  Where should company salary levels be vis a vis market pay?  What balance should the company strike between guaranteed and at risk pay? How much of performance-based pay (incentives) should reward for short-term results (monthly, quarterly or annual) and how much should be tied to long-term results (more than 12 months)?  Certainly, a CEO can solicit imput from key leadership members in this discussion (as well as outside consultants), but this is a core issue for which he or she must assume primary responsibility.  Every other discussion about pay will cascade from this foundational stage and the groundwork that is laid by establishing a clear pay philosophy.
  2. Defining Strategic Outcomes. Specific pay programs may be developed under the direction of individuals given that stewardship by the CEO.  However, in making that handoff, the person ultimately responsible for the “bottom line” must be able to clearly define the strategic outcomes and priorities the company is focused on.  Every rewards plan that is developed must have a purpose statement–and that purpose must be tied to a specific, measureable result the business seeks to achieve.  What is the role of the pay plan if not to drive the business model and strategy of the company?  CEOs will be left wondering why they aren’t getting better results from their people if they aren’t paying attention to and fully engaged in this part of the process.
  3. Establishing Framework for Discussion.  Compensation development and management is not a static activity.  A company can’t develop a plan, role it out and then “let it ride” forever more (although some companies do, by default, adopt this approach).  As a result, the CEO needs to provide the organizational framework within which best practices for envisioning, creating and sustaining world class compensation strategies can emerge and thrive.  He or she should decide who is essential to the compensation discussion, organize a committee to fulfill the oversight role and (with the help of those committee members) establish a schedule and agenda for ongoing management and monitoring.
  4. Determining Roles and Responsibilities. Related to area number three above, this category implies that those involved with developing a best practice approach to building and sustaining world-class compensation strategies for their company understand their specific stewardships.  For example, who is ultimately responsible for administering a given plan?  Who will take the lead in developing a promotion and communication strategy for the overall rewards strategy?  Who will make sure successes are celebrated appropriately and in a timely fashion?  Who will monitor any legal requirements associated with the plan(s)?  How and under whose direction will the success of given pay programs be measured and monitored?  What financial information, requirements  and procedures have to be tracked and managed–and who will assume that responsibility?  And so on.  The CEO doesn’t have to make everyone of these assignments, but he or she does need to ensure that these roles get defined and that there is accountability for their fulfillment.
  5. Approving Metrics and Measures.  Compensation design is an outcome based endeavor.  In many ways it’s also an exercise in reverse engineering.  We project forward certain results we anticipate achieving based on certain assumptions (revenue growth, expenses, manpower, etc.).  We determine how such growth will impact shareholder value.  We then determine what amount of that additional value we are willing to share to achieve that outcome.  We then “reverse engineer” that future value to a present context so we can clearly state how employees will participate in the value they help create.  In that process, the CEO must help define thresholds of performance (revenue growth, profit margin, ROE, etc.)  that need to be achieved before the company will be comfortable sharing value.  Specific measures and metrics for company wide performance, department or team performance and individual performance will ultimately need to be determined.  While the CEO won’t independently  set the levels in each of these areas, he or she cannot disengage from the decisions that have to be “signed off on” if the plans developed are going to be financially viable and protect shareholders’ interests.
  6. Insisting on a Clear Message.  CEOs set a tone.  They can make or break a meeting or announcement based on the level of attention it receives, the passion that surrounds it and the clarity that is provided.  Likewise, a CEO must ensure that any message involving any aspect of the largest budget item on the company’s financials (compensation and benefits) is clear and helps reinforce the organization’s vision and mission as well as it’s business model and plan.  This doesn’t mean the CEO needs to deliver every message about compensation.  It does mean, however, that he or she knows what messages are being communicated and they are consistent with the compensation philosophy statement that was established and articulated at the start, under the chief executives direction.
  7. Leading the Celebration.  While managers at all levels of a business should help their teams celebrate the successes they experience, the CEO needs to be the cheerleader in chief.  That role carries a weight that can’t be duplicated by others.  When employees hear from the person at the top, there is a different priority level that message attains.  CEOs should “pick their spots” but then be sure their voices are heard when good things happen.  This can be done in writing, in meetings, on intranet postings, on Facebook pages and through “tweets.”  Whatever the channel, the CEO must engage in this activity.
  8. Measuring Productivity.  Perhaps the most important question to be asked about a given compensation strategy is whether or not it made the workforce more productive.  Did people become more engaged as a result of how they were being paid?  Is execution improving.  If so, are there measurable results to prove it?  Having mechanisms in place that isolate the return on investment that the company is achieving  through its human capital are critical to evaluating the effectiveness of its rewards strategies.  While a CEO does not have assume the task of coming up with the specific means of making a productivity assessment, he or she must insist it be measured and consistently review the trends the analysis portends.
  9. Holding People Accountable. If a rewards strategy isn’t working, the CEO needs to know that.  And someone has to be accountable for the lack of results being generated.  If the other areas outlined in this article are properly addressed, this will be an easy step to take.  Roles and outcomes will have been clearly defined.  Accountability in this arena means that everyone in those roles understands what will happen if the outcomes intended aren’t being realized through the specific pay programs for which they have charge.  When results fall short, it will not always mean that the specific plan in question is bad or not performing properly.  However, those responsibile need to be able to “account” for why results are what they are.

Our experience has been that in companies where this level of engagement (in the compensation discussion) from the CEO exists, performance occurs at an accelerated pace.  Presumably, this happens because alignment has a greater possibility of occuring in organizations where the person at the top understands the essential and strategic role of compensation in creating a unified financial vision for growing the business.

To learn more about this issue, please view our webinar recording entitled “Why CEOs Should Drive Compensation Strategy.”

Ken Gibson
February 25th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Compensation and Creating Change

It is certainly cliche to say that change will be an ever present part of business life in the 21st century–and beyond.  However, cliche or not, many businesses haven’t surrendered to this truth enough to create a plan for managing change and finding the appropriate role of rewards in that process.  The reality is, most business leaders know how to talk about change, but don’t know how to build an integrated approach to addressing it through all levels of the organization.  And when it comes to compensation issues, these same leaders either put too much of a burden on rewards strategies to engineer the new culture they seek or they isolate the issue so completely that it can have no real measureable bearing on execution and results. 

In a recent article in Booz & Co.’s Strategy + Business Magazine entitled “Making Change Happen and Making it Stick,” authors Ashley Harshak, DeAnne Aguirre, and Anna Brown posit five key success factors to making change work in an organization.  I find this list to be in harmony with VisionLink’s philosophy about all of the elements that have to come together if any kind of purposeful, productive transformation is going to take hold in a company’s culture. Let’s look at their list and the corresponding role rewards should play in bringing about the improved outcomes you seek.

Five Key Success Factors

  1. Understand and spell out the impact of the change on people.  Good leaders know how change impacts individuals and can speak to how a course alteration or revision will affect different populations within the organization. Creating clarity around this issue and relating it to the personal visions of employees is essential to alignment.  Leadership must must also communicate how the proposed changes relate to the shared vision and values of shareholders and other stake holders.   Similarly, rewards strategies that are introduced need to be relevant to the core philosophy guiding the change; and, if the new direction impacts pay, employees need to know how the new approach will affect their cash flow, security and/or wealth accumulation opportunities.
  2. Build an emotional and rational case for change.  Most CEOs are pretty good at conveying the rationale behind the change that is being initiated.  They are less effective, however, at appealing to the emotional reasons employees should embrace a new direction. In their book Switch, the Heath brothers use the analogy of an elephant, a rider and a path to make a similar point. The rider is the rational part of our reaction to change, the elephant is our emotional core and the path is clarity about the course we need to follow.  In a compensation context, we encourage companies to make sure they build a rewards gameplan that will address both structure issues (impact on strategy, cost, productivity) and mindset issues (impact on clarity, partnership and engagement).  By doing so, they appeal to all three elements: the rider, the elephant and the path.
  3. Ensure that the entire leadership team is a role model for the change. If companies want to nurture a performance culture, they must make sure that it starts at the top.  That’s why when we speak with companies about building a pay for performance approach to rewards, we suggest it begin with leadership and cascade down from there.  Change, if it is effectively engineered, should improve a company from being merely a wealth creator to becoming a wealth mulitplier, one where it becomes clear to everyone how value is magnified then shared.  This can’t happen if leadership doesn’t hold itself accountable, and management won’t feel fully accountable unless a good portion of their pay is subject to clear performance standards. Ultimately, those performance standards need to be aligned with the new course the company needs to take.
  4. Mobilize your people to “own” and accelerate the change. Here, I quote from the authors directly: “The blunt truth is that most change initiatives are done ‘to’ employees, not implemented ‘with’ them or ‘by’ them. Although executives are pushing behavior change from the top and expecting it to cascade through the formal structure, an informal culture left to instinct and chance will likely dig in its heels.”  I can’t imagine how an organization can expect to affect meaningful change if its rewards systems and strategies make no attempt to help the workforce think more like owners.  This doesn’t mean equity needs to be shared.  It does mean, however, that how employees are paid should help them better understand what’s at “stake” and how they should think and execute as a result.
  5. Embed the change in the fabric of the organization.  In this step, leadership needs to communicate the various people-oriented elements of the change and not just the structural components.  Continuity maps are good for this–charts and explanatory material that draw clear relationships between the different parts of the change effort and the role each person has in that process.  Compensation’s role in this is to help employee’s understand the complete value proposition that is associated with the “future organization” so there is a sense of partnership about bringing about its fulfillment.  We encourage companies to construct a Value Statement for key people in particular that brings together in one place all of the elements of their pay package (salary, short-term incentive, long-term incentive, retirement plan, etc.) with a five to 10 year projection of the opportunity.  This helps cement the concept of partnership and provides real clarity about what the future holds.  Such an approach embeds a vision of “what’s coming” in the minds and hearts of the company’s human resource.  Meaningful and measurable change will not occur if this vision doesn’t take hold.

As you consider the multitude of changes your business will need to live with over the coming years, I recommend you consider these guidelines in navigating your course.  I don’t promise it will be easy, but my experience is that world class performers learn to integrate this kind of approach consistently and effectively. In the words of Machiavelli: “Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times.”

Ken Gibson
February 11th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

What Does Your Compensation Program Cost?

Most business leaders are cost conscious, because they know that all expenses impact the proverbial bottom line.  As a result, when they consider compensation issues, they commonly think in terms of “managing costs.”  This perspective is revealed to us through statements or questions such as the following:

  • I can’t afford to pay incentives right now.
  • I’ll need to know what a long-term incentive plan will cost before I….
  • What is the market rate of pay for these positions?
  • How do I keep my payroll expense under control?

Cost is a large part of our focus when we are engaged to work with clients.  However, we try to help the business leaders we work with to look at costs in two potential contexts:

  1. What are the “structural” costs associated with your rewards strategies?  This would include understanding and evaluating all of the known as well as hidden costs across the range of compensation and benefits strategies currently being offered. For example, hidden costs associated with welfare plan utilization, unclear fee sharing associated with 401(k) plan investment offerings and administrative services, and so on.
  2. What are the “performance” costs associated with your rewards strategies?  Humm.  What do we mean by performance costs?  Read on.

One of the most costly issues a company can face is under performance.  This occurs when a business isn’t able to achieve sustained results because it either is attracting only good people when what it needs is great talent, or the people it has in key positions are not working in full alignment with the core business model and strategy of the company.  We see this over and over again. 

Too often CEOs are making cost containment decisions about rewards strategies that they believe are saving the company thousands of dollars.  Unfortunately, the issue is being evaluated in a silo and is not being measured against the performance standard that needs to be met.  The question shouldn’t be “how much” compensation are we or should we be paying?  The question needs to be “how” should we pay compensation; meaning, what forms of rewards should be included in our mix and what weight should they each be given to: a) attract the kind of talent we need for the performance level we are seeking, and, b) keep those people properly focused and achieving once they’re here.

So while we’re big proponents of evaluating and measuring structural costs, we believe bigger losses occur when companies don’t properly evaluate the performance costs associated with their compensation game plan.

To read more about this concept, click here.

Ken Gibson
February 4th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Are Your Employees as Good as they Think They Are?

The answer is yes…and no.  Some interesting research outlined in two recently published books offers evidence that key talent might not be so great were it not for the environment and resources offered by the company for whom they work.

In their book Clever, authors Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones make the point that talented people are as dependent upon the organizations in which they work as those entities are on them.  Their premise is that while premier people are not easily replaced in an organization, those individuals often fail to recognize that it is the company’s resources–other team members, intellectual capital, research access, etc.–that allows them to perform at the level they are and to find the fulfillment they enjoy.

In his book Chasing Stars, The Myth of Talent and the Portability of Performance, Boris Groysberg embellishes on this point with even more detailed research.  His findings indicate that performance is not as portable as individual talent sometimes thinks and a key employee’s results often sharply diminish when he or she  leaves the business for “greener pastures.”

Therefore what?  What influence should such findings have on the way companies approach their rewards systems?

I believe these findings support the VisionLink premise that all good compensation strategies should address the two, interdependent visions that exist within every business.  There is an ownership vision and an employee vision.  Because both have to be realized for the company to experience sustained success, high performing companies develop compensation strategies that build a sense of partnership with employees.  These organizations have a philosophy statement that indicates how value that is created in the organization will be shared and what balance will be struck between guaranteed and at risk pay, and short-term versus long-term incentives.  Specific plans growing out of such an environment reinforce the interplay between talent, resources and results, and tie rewards to appropriate outcomes that can’t be achieved solely through individual performance.

For more information on how to address the question posed here from a compensation perspective, tune into our upcoming webinar entitled, “How to Build Long-Term Value for Key Producers.”  The webinar will be broadcast on February 22.  Click here to enroll.