Building Unified Financial Visions

Ken Gibson
September 21st, 2011 by Ken Gibson

“Speaking” of Compensation

I’m departing from my normal “educational” blog today and will be waxing more “informational” this time. Please forgive the slight deviation.

Many who have visited our blog or website have inquired whether we ever speak publicly on any of the topics we blog about.  We do.  In fact, Tom Miller and I have spoken in a number of forums nationally on a range of compensation topics and other themes that relate to driving business growth.  Here is just a partial list of the forums and events at which we’ve spoken:

  • CFO Magazine Convention
  • Inc. 500 Convention
  • Board of Directors Forum
  • SHERM Crossroads Convention
  • Pershing LLC INSITE™ Conference
  • M Financial National Conference
  • American Bar Association Tax Conference
  • Vistage Groups

If you belong to an assocation or other group that needs  speakers on topics that relate to rewards programs or other compensation issues, we are happy to entertain such invitations. Our presentation approach is educational but dynamic.  It is intended to help the audience understand that compensation is one of the largest and most important investments a company makes—and should generate a measurable return for shareholders.

In our presentations, Tom and I help paint a picture of how rewards programs can be used as strategic tools to help fuel growth in a business.  Special emphasis is placed on addressing compensation and business growth issues for business leaders such as the following:

  • The proper role and scope of incentive plans
  • How to measure the return on a company’s compensation investment
  • How to develop an “ownership mentality” within the workforce
  • What alternatives to sharing equity exist for private companies
  • Determining the right amount of compensation and how it should be paid
  • Which type of long-term incentive plan is right for a company

 

In addition to our speaking engagements, VisionLink broadcasts a monthly webinar nationally that any are invited to attend. Our next one will be held next Tuesday, September 27 (8:30 a.m. PDT) and is entitled: Sales vs. Performance vs. Growth Incentives. Feel free to register for that event or view our catalogue of previous broadcasts.

Thank you for indulging me in this departure and soft plug.  I hope knowing this will be useful to many of you.

 

Ken Gibson
July 15th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Measures that Matter

Many of the business leaders we work with struggle to find the right metrics for measuring acceptable growth in their companies.  In a recent article at Strategy+Business entitled “Total Shareholder Returns”, authors Ken Favaro and Greg Rotz offer some great insights in this regard.  Although the article addresses issues primarily relevant to public companies, the principles discussed have broad application.  It’s worth the read so check it out.

 Towards the end of the article, the authors make this point as it relates to managing strategy and execution towards improving Total Shareholder Returns:

 “Only two factors determine the value creation path of any company: the distinctiveness of its strategies and the execution of those strategies. We often hear statements such as, ‘A great strategy is worth nothing without great execution’ or ‘I’d rather have great execution with a mediocre strategy than the other way around.’ The reality is that strategy and execution are two sides of one coin. Is Southwest Airlines or Tesco or Wells Fargo the product of great execution or of great strategies? Yes. Both are needed to produce consistently superior shareholder returns.

What, then, will enable your company to have and sustain distinctive strategies and execution? In our experience, this achievement requires proficiency in both the formal and the informal aspects of a company’s management. On the formal side are corporate strategy, business strategies, strategic planning, resource allocation, performance management, incentive compensation, organizational design, and role of the corporate center. On the informal side are leadership behaviors, peer-to-peer networks, teaming norms and skills, nonfinancial motivators, pride, and a strong sense of the business’s purpose.”

 As it relates to VisionLink’s approach to compensation, we refer to the formal and informal aspects as the “structural” and “mindset” impact of pay decisions.  Much of what this article discusses helps identify the kind of structural issues that need to be properly defined if a strong rewards strategy is going to be tied to them.  If the structure is not properly built, it will  be difficult for employees to understand that to which they are devoting their minds and hearts, and how it will be measured.

For more help on this topic, check out our webinar recording entitled: “How Shareholders Should View Compensation.”

 

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?”

The most recent edition of the Harvard Business Review carries an article that I recommend, particularly at a time most companies are engaged in planning and budgeting for the new year.  Authored by Robert Simons, it is entitled Stress-Test Your Strategy and it poses seven searing questions companies should ask themselves to home in on critical issues to address in this or any economy:

  1. Who is your primary customer?
  2. How do your core values prioritize shareholders, employees and customers?
  3. What critical performance variables are you tracking?
  4. What strategic boundaries have you set?
  5. How are you generating creative tension?
  6. How committed are your employees to helping each other?
  7. What strategic uncertainties keep you awake at night?

The article points out that a stress test is an assessment of how a system functions under severe or unexpected pressure.  Mr. Simons points out, “By asking tough questions about your business, you can identify confusion, inefficiency, and weaknesses in your strategy and its implementation. As Peter Drucker once warned, ‘The most serious mistakes are not made as a result of wrong answers. The truly dangerous thing is asking the wrong questions.’ ”

With that in mind, I would pose one additional question as a capstone to those listed above:

Do your current rewards strategies effectively communicate to your key people what you want to have happen in each of those seven areas?

If your answer to that question is no, there is important work to do.  I’ve linked two of the questions above to articles and webinars we have recently published that will help you think through how to tie these issues together.

Commit to making 2011 the year you get compensation right and you will create a more unified, passionate and engaged workforce.

Ken Gibson
October 29th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

A Cadre of Consumate & Generous Professionals

I lead a management society group that puts on a special conference once a year in the Fall.  Entitled, “The Performance Breakthrough Conference,” this event features a keynote speaker followed by a series of breakout sessions on a range of topics, all led by a cadre of outstanding business professionals.  The event relies on the generosity of some in the business community to donate their time on behalf of people looking for tools, resources and/or inspiration to reach the next performance “breakthrough” in their lives, personally or professionally.

This year’s event was held last month.  It was an extraordinary success primarily because of the efforts of our outstanding presenters, each of whom is a consummate professional with significant value to offer.  As an acknowledgment of their contribution to this year’s conference, I’d like you to be aware of them and their businesses, each of whom I can recommend.

Kevin Hall was our keynote speaker.  Kevin is a business coach and wordsmith that has authored an incredible book entitled Aspire.  The book talks about the power of words to transform our lives and understand our true purpose.  Kevin is a nationally renowned speaker who also coaches executives and other leaders on purpose related issues.

Molly Wendell is President of Executives Network, a unique association for “C” level executives in transition.  Molly helped attendees learn about what “Results Oriented” networking is about and how it’s done effectively.  Check out Molly’s website for information on her book, The New Job Search.

Jason Lavin is CEO of Golden Communications, a firm that does web design, search engine optimization and social networking strategies.  Jason also conducts a seminar series entitled Excel-Your-Business, which helps business leaders learn how to optimize the results they are getting from their websites through search optimization strategies and techniques.  He shared that same information with attendees at our conference.

Rod McDermott is co-founder and Managing Partner of McDermott and Bull, an executive search firm headquartered in Irvine, CA.  Rod helped attendees understand how they can best prepare for the “next” career opportunity they are seeking, whether that is finding a job or upgrading their position.  Most of McDermott and Bull’s work is done representing companies that are looking for premier “C” level talent.

Mark Kohler is a partner in the law firm Kyler, Kohler, Ostermiller and Sorenson, a business and estate planning law firm.  Mark is an attorney and CPA with dynamic presentation skills and an unique ability to help navigate complex legal and tax issues, and develop effective strategies for both.  He is an outstanding speaker in high demand.  He helped attendees learn about the issues they should consider when starting a new business.

Kate Peters is a vocal coach that teaches “C” level executives how to become more powerful communicators by understanding vocal dynamics and how they impact one’s image and message.  She helped attendees learn how to “find their voice” and make it heard more effectively in all of the forums where communication is essential.  Check out Kate’s website for information on her book, Can You Hear Me Now?

Please take a moment to pursue the links to these outstanding professionals.  My thanks goes out to each of them for their contribution to our conference and their generosity in sharing their time and talents.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.