Building Unified Financial Visions

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

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
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
September 17th, 2009 by Ken Gibson

What Does a Competitive Advantage Sound Like?

Yes, a competitive advantage has a sound.  I heard it last week during a management society breakfast meeting for a group  I lead.  It was given voice by the presenter, Said Hilal, CEO of Applied Medical Devices.  It was clearly on display both in what he said and in the confidence with which he said it.

Given the current economic climate, it was refreshing to say the least.  It was apparent to me that American enterprise is alive and well when in the hands of the right leaders.

Before I go further, a  few facts.

In a season of economic turbulence, Applied Medical continues to experience 30% growth year in and year out.  Today, it is a $250 million enterprise. Applied develops and manufactures specialized surgical products .  It competes against the major players in the healthcare industry.

The company was founded in 1988 in a 700 square foot facility and now occupies five large buildings in the community of Rancho Santa Margarita, California.  I took a tour of those facilities last Friday. Suffice it to say, everything I saw supported all that I heard during the presentation at our breakfast meeting two days prior.

With that as a backdrop, let me share a few of the things I heard and witnessed  that made it clear why Applied Medical enjoys such a competitive advantage. The following comments come from the notes I scribbled while Said spoke–and may not be exact quotes.  Where they are not, they capture the essence of what was said.

“In 2003, Applied Medical had a 3% market share in the medical device business,” Said explained while projecting these and other statistics on the screen.  “By 2008, that figure had reached 21%.  In 2009, we are approaching 29% market share.”

“While we may OWN market share,  we OWE our market. We understand that and that is why we continue to find success.”

He explained,   “We set out to determine how our organization could make a difference.  We asked the question, ‘What does the customer want?’  We found out.  The customer wanted enhanced clinical outcomes, improved choices and reduced costs.  For most industries, especially ours, those are not compatible outcomes.  However, Applied Medical’s chosen edge has been its proven ability to implement clinical advances coupled with superior value.”

Said continued, “When gurus and pundits talked about outsourcing, we instead relied heavily on integration.”

To Applied Medical, integration meant to become almost completely self reliant.  (In fact, you could “almost” take the “almost” out of that sentence.)  The company became its number one vendor and component supplier.  That’s not a typo–as you move through the Applied operation, it becomes very apparent how self contained the company is.  There is vertical integration at work that combines automation, cross training, internal supply chains, promise-based continuity, and superior team building all within the context of a university-like commitment to employee education.  If something is needed, it is created–often right on the premises.  Training rooms appear throughout every facility as a reflection of the heavy commitment Applied has made to nurturing an educated, competent, integrated workforce.

“We have worked hard on building the Applied Culture, which has two parts: the cultivating culture and the competency culture–bringing people in from the beginning to grow.  That combination has been exceptionally effective.”

Said spoke about gross margin being the most important metric Applied focuses on, because it finances all other aspects of their business, including and especially their highly valued research.  In that regard, Applied has organized its research in such a way that an engineer can conceive of something in the morning and have the prototype  built and tested  by the afternnon.  Applied does what it calls “progressive R&D” that is fulfilled through enhanced processes and automation.  This approach has resulted in the shortest supply line, fastest response and best value in the market.

There’s more, but you get the idea.  This is a business that understands its role in the marketplace and is highly focused on delivering value in a consistently superior fashion.

So, from whence does this excellence spring?  What is at the core of Applied’s success?

“We are different and we feel a passion about our difference,” Said asserted. “When you are different and succeeding, everyone wants to copy you.  When you are different and not succeeding, no one cares what you are doing. Well, people pay attention to what we are doing.”

Said continued by explaining what he referred to as ”The Quiet Statistics.”

“We determined that the best way to enhance ownership’s wealth is by maximizing everyone’s interest. We never stop developing those that want to be developed.  We are their avenue to the American Dream.  We are not in the business of developing the next minimum wage job, we’re in the business of developing careers.  When we develop careers, we develop our business.”

Such is the sound of a competitive advantage.  Passion leads to focus.  Focus breeds execution.  Consistent execution leads to success patterns, which in turn  engender a culture of confidence.  That culture is at the heart of a competitive advantage, because culture is not copyable.

Every company that wants to achieve such breakthrough success, whether it is large or small, must develop this pattern. It must  build upon a foundation that places a high value on a shared vision and mission.  For that success to be sustained, a company’s approach to total rewards must reflect and support the strategy that emanates from that base.  Employees must be able to envision a compelling future, there must be a superior work environment, there must be opportunities for personal and professional development, and there must be financial rewards that complement and reinforce the roles and expectations the company has of its people.

In the end, success is defined by those that  experience it.  In Applied’s case, there is no horizon to that success.  What’s important is that the competitive advantage the company has built has placed it in the driver’s seat to determine exactly what the boundaries of its  success will be.  No outside institution, person, or condition  will determine that for them.

Special thanks to Said Hilal and his group at Applied Medical for taking us “behind the scenes” and allowing us to better understand what a competitive advantage sounds like.

Share This Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This Post
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.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
April 23rd, 2009 by Ken Gibson

Compensation and the Recession

The Seven Imperatives

Growth companies understand that economies are cyclical.  Times of surge and prosperity are countered by periods of contraction and downturn. Great companies plan accordingly. To flourish during difficult economic periods, business leaders in growth oriented companies must strategically address the role of their human capital and reward systems in meeting the challenges they face. The following Seven Imperatives should guide any business leaders thinking in such times.

1. Assess Your Talent Pool–

Know who your best people are and make sure they know what their role is in the future of your company, especially at this time.

2. Create a Pay for Performance Philosophy and Strategy–

Now is the best and most critical time to align pay with performance. This starts with identifying a philosophy that defines how the company will address rewards issues in good economic times and bad.

3. Focus on Strategy not Just Tactics–

Your long‐term vision for growth hasn’t changed just because the economy is hurting. Strategies drive growth, tactical changes manage costs.

4. Define Clear Performance Expectations–

Star performers want a clear understanding of the key results indicators they are responsible for and what their stewardship will impact.

5. Nurture an Ownership Mentality–

An ownership mindset permeates an organization when there is “line of sight” between the shareholders’ vision and strategy, the roles and expectations of key people, how those individuals are rewarded for generating those results and how well those rewards align with personal goals and objectives.

6. Build a Value Statement–

The best way for a key people to visualize their financial future with your company is to receive a statement that summarizes and projects forward the total value of that relationship if performance expectations are met–salary, short-term incentives, long-term incentives, 401(k), etc.

7. Cut Business Expenses First, Incentives Last–

Reward performers and reinforce the results you need to continue to achieve—don’t try to resolve the company’s financial woes on the backs of your best people.

Share This Post