May 18th, 2012 by Ken Gibson
Core Principle of Compensation Design: Value Sharing Attracts the Best Talent and Magnifies Results
To achieve sustained success, companies must attract and keep talented people that know how to compete and are willing and able to assume a stewardship role in representing shareholder interests towards growth. For such a relationship to be properly fostered, owners and other stakeholders (in this case, key talent) must share both the risks and the rewards associated with value creation.
Those of superior talent are attracted to this idea. Individuals best equipped to contribute to the future success of the business will see it as an opportunity to have what amounts to a mini-entrepreneurial experience within the construct of someone else’s business model. As such, they view the company as a mechanism for wealth creation, not just a place to express their passion and talent. And shareholders should want employees with that perspective representing their interests.
In a recent interview with TV talk show host Charlie Rose, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, said it this way:
I actually think the biggest thing for us is that a big part of being a technology company is getting the best engineers and designers and talented people around the world. And one of the ways that you can do that is you compensate people with equity or options. Right?
So you get people who want to join the company both for the mission because they believe that Facebook is doing this awesome thing and they want to be a part of connecting everyone in the world. But also if the company does well then they get financially rewarded and can be set.
… we`ve made this implicit promise to our investors and to our employees that by compensating them with equity and by giving them equity that at some point we`re going to make that equity worth something publicly and liquidly — in a liquid way. Now, the promise isn`t that we`re going to do it on any kind of short-term time horizon. The promise is that we`re going to build this company so that it`s great over the long term. And that we`re always making these decisions for the long term. (From a transcript of an interview on Charlie Rose, PBS, on November 12, 2011. Emphasis added.)
The point Zuckerberg is making has little to do with whether or not a company plans to share equity or go public. There’s a larger principle he’s defining. When companies can attract and retain the kind of people that think and perform as he describes, they are in a unique position to sustain results. This is because a distinct and lasting interdependency emerges between the employees’ skills and the company’s resources that extend those skills (capital, co-workers, suppliers, products, technology, etc.). Talented contributors soon learn that their skills are not as unique and applicable outside the company (that is providing the laboratory for nurturing and magnifying them) as they are within the enterprise. That’s a good mindset for company talent to have because of the mutual dependency it creates.
Such interdependence is reinforced and validated when long-term value creation is rewarded through value sharing, as Zuckerberg indicates. When employee skills connect with company resources in the right way, superior results are produced. To be effective, the compensation program should then provide a remunerative link to that outcome which confirms and magnifies the sense of partnership owners wants to convey. That link “seals the deal,” so to speak, and financially ratifies the interdependent nature of the relationship more completely.
So, whether one decides that newly available Facebook shares are over priced or under valued, Zuckerberg’s approach to value sharing with key producers is a sound one. Long-term value sharing, done right, attracts the “right” people and magnifies results.
Tags: breakthrough success, Company stock options, compensation and the recession, compensation philosophy and strategy, Culture of Confidence, employee stock, employee stock owenership, employee stock ownership, Employee Trust, Growth, incentive stock, incentives, key people, long-term shareholder value, Pay for performance, profitability, sharing stock, stock option plan, Sustained Results
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Key Talent Compensation, Managing Talent | No Comments »
April 18th, 2012 by Ken Gibson
Compensation design needs context. It grows out of a larger process of thinking about the business– how it will innovate, who its primary competition is, how it will manage change, what kind of culture it needs to nurture, where it’s customers want to “go” next, and so on. Without that broader framework in mind, its hard to see compensation–especially value sharing arrangements–as anything more than an expense to be managed and contained. Compensation is an investment not an expense and its allocation needs to be driven by the outcomes company leadership seeks to fulfill.
If that’s the case, every business leader should ask himself what and whom is influencing his thinking. Is your thought process mostly reactionary? If so, what practices do you engage in to prevent it from remaining such? What are you reading? Who is offering you direction? What is the “well” you’re drawing from to remain fresh and at the forefront of current trends and practices?
With those questions in mind, I’d like to offer four sources of thought leadership that I recommend to clients. You will often see me quote from these sources in my columns. Certainly, there are more than these that provide great information. However, these sources will expose you to many other “wells” of innovative thinking that will help you achieve success in leading your company.
The Harvard Business Journal
HBR provides current, relevant, in-depth insight into practices, case studies, research and the latest business management thinking globally. It will likewise lead you to individuals, books, technology, groups, associations and thought leadership sources that are having impact on the most successful businesses around the world. If you only receive the print edition of HBR, I would recommend you also become a member of its online edition. www.hbr.com. There you will find a number of other great resources such as blogs and videos that will expand your experience. As a starting point, check out HBR’s list of the 50 most influential business management gurus. The list includes a host of reading recommendations by these thought leaders as well.
Fast Company
I like this publication because it emphasizes thought leadership from business, technology, entertainment and the arts. It’s focus on innovation is particularly helpful and allows you to see what’s happening “right now,” particularly in entrepreneurial oriented environments. Check out the publication’s recent article on wunderkind Mark Zuckerberg.
Strategy + Business
This publication is put out both in print and online (www.strategy-business.com) by Booz & Company, a leading global management consulting firm. This information this resource provides essentially for free is mind boggling. It’s resources are deep and organized into categories that make it easy to find information that is relevant and current. Although it’s target audience is larger, multi-national companies, the thought leadership it provides has application to businesses of just about any size and industry. For example, check out the article on How Aha! Really Happens.
Chief Executive Magazine
If you lead a company, you are likely already aware of this publication and probably subscribe. However, if you aren’t likewise participating in the forums and conferences this organization sponsors, you are missing an opportunity to connect with chief executives from around the country that are trying to successfully navigate the very challenges and opportunities you also face. The publication can be accessed online (www.chiefexecutive.net) or in print. Check out its recent article on The Limits of Monetary Incentives.
As indicated, certainly more resources could be added to that list. But these are some that I have found to be particularly useful in addressing issues that are relevant to what business leaders are facing today. Regardless of the source used, what’s critical is that those who make decisions about pay ensure they are constantly exposing themselves to the best thinking; ideas that will help them achieve the “next” level in their company’s progress. Doing so will lead to the development of rewards strategies that drive rather than hinder that success.
Tags: breakthrough success, compensation philosophy and strategy, Culture of Confidence, Employee Trust, Growth, incentives, rewards, Sustained Results
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics | No Comments »
March 5th, 2012 by Ken Gibson
Recently, the Wall St. Journal ran an article that provides insight into how a company can tailor executive compensation to better fit a “pay for performance” rewards architecture. I found myself agreeing with almost everything the author had to say, so determined I’d quote here from the piece by Alex Edmans and offer my commentary (in parenthesis following each excerpt) on the conclusions he draws.
“The secret to reforming compensation isn’t so much looking at how much bosses get paid—but how they get paid.
“It’s easy to understand why critics focus on the gaudy awards of cash and stock that executives take home. And, yes, it’s hard to deny that some bosses get paid a lot more than they deserve. But the structure of compensation is ultimately a lot more important than its level, because it gets to the heart of how managers run companies and create value for shareholders.”
(This has been a core tenet of VisionLink…well, forever. How you pay someone communicates what the company values and the outcomes that are most critical to the present and future success of the business. The structure used for compensation also gets to the heart of how company leaders create value for all stakeholders, not only shareholders. Even if the goal is to multiply wealth for all primary producers, a business must take a comprehensive approach to how growth is driven in the business AND how risk is mitigated when it creates rewards programs.)
“An effective way to deter executives from taking excessive risk is to compensate them with debt-based pay as well as equity. However, many compensation packages feature only cash and equity.”
(There are many ways to do this. One way we recommend–and that the article goes on to suggest–is through deferred compensation. Such plans make participants general creditors of the company in the event of insolvency, forcing business leaders to be cautious about putting the organization at risk through overly ambitious transactions or strategies. It also encourages the development of “good profits” and discourages those that come at the long-term expense of both customers and shareholders.)
“Another critical change companies should implement is to lengthen the time that executives must wait before they can cash in their shares and options. All too often, stock and options have short vesting periods, sometimes as little as two to three years. This encourages managers to pump up the short-term stock price at the expense of long-run value, since they can sell their holdings before a decline occurs. A CEO can, for instance, write subprime loans to boost short-term revenue and leave before the loans become delinquent, or scrap investment in R&D. This is possible since, in many cases, stock and options immediately vest when the CEO leaves the company.”
(A company doesn’t have to be public for this to be an issue. Most of our work is done with privately held businesses and the focus there is the same. In addition to the issues described by the WSJ article, people need to feel a sense of stewardship about the future enterprise. This is more likely to happen when there is a remuneration component that defines a financial partnership between ownership and key producers in the organization. Companies that focus long-term in their compensation plans build a more unified financial vision for growing the business. In the private environment, we often recommend phantom stock or stock appreciation rights to mitigate against a short-term focus or manipulated outcomes. Vesting schedules and staggered payout periods can help to solve the problems Edmans articulates in this regard. )
“Be flexible. Change the structure of the compensation package as circumstances change. So, for instance, the CEO gets more stock and less cash after the company shares plummet, restoring the CEO’s incentives to boost the long-term share price.”
(Similarly, in private companies, key people can be compensated with more phantom shares of stock during down periods to encourage the regeneration of company value over the long-term. Bonus payouts can be replaced with additional shares during times when profits have declined and the organization needs to recalibrate its performance. Short-term value sharing arrangements such as annual “bonuses” can then be revived when the company’s financials return to a normal or more robust status. At that point, the longer-term plans can release fewer shares or units. Once the favorable economics have returned, it will be reflected in the value of the shares issued during the downturn–creating the exact economic outcome that kind of program was intended to produce.)
“If companies employ [these] principles…executives will be aligned with the long-term health of their companies. And that will not only help keep individual companies safe, it will reduce the risk of another financial crisis.”
(I agree.)
Tags: Company stock options, compensation and the recession, compensation philosophy and strategy, employee stock, employee stock ownership, key people, long-term shareholder value, Pay for performance, phantom shares, phantom stock, Sustained Results
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Key Talent Compensation, Managing Talent, Phantom Stock, Recession Strategies | No Comments »
February 20th, 2012 by Ken Gibson
Every CEO or business owner has a unique set of performance factors he or she wants executed which are considered crucial to the achievement of the company’s growth goals. However, in my view, more importantly there are categories of outcomes that every company should have as a focus regardless of their industry, size or niche. Most specific key performance indicators that company leaders identify as a priority fall under one of those categories. By defining those areas of focus–and communicating (through pay systems and otherwise) why they are so critical to the future of the company–business leaders are better able to engineer rewards programs that will drive the outcomes they are seeking, and build a greater ownership mindset among those responsible for producing those results.
Conversely, if those areas of focus are not clearly defined, employees end up participating in a rewards plan that has little or no context. They see it as a mechanism for increasing their compensation, but that’s all. It might even pay well, but the company will ultimately be frustrated with the results it is realizing if employees can’t connect their rewards to a broader fulfillment that is being achieved.
Here’s what I mean by defining areas of focus within which individual compensation metrics, measures and plans can be constructed:
- We reward innovation. Creativity and ingenuity are critical to our growth and so we are willing to share value with those whose innovations leverage our ability to multiply value for all stakeholders.
- We reward sustained performance. Our growth depends upon the ability of the company to maintain then expand the virtuous cycles connected to our business model. Therefore, we share value with those that help us sustain and improve our revenue producing “engine.”
- We reward ”good” profits. Good profits come by delivering real value to the market place and protecting customer or client interests at all levels of interaction. Bad profits are those that come at the expense of the customer or client relationship and experience or erode owner interests over time. We will share value with those who help create and grow good profits.
The list could go on but hopefully you get the idea. Unless employees are aware of these definitive priorities and outcomes they could technically qualify for a payout under an incentive plan without ever taking stewardship of key results the business needs them to perpetuate. In the worst case, those same employees could pull the company in a direction that is at odds with the strategic direction it has charted (generating bad profits instead of good profits, for example).
So, as you examine your current pay practices, ask whether your rewards programs help define and fulfill the broader areas of focus your company needs to reinforce if its growth expectations are going to be realized. If they don’t, you should consider making some serious changes.
Tags: breakthrough success, compensation philosophy and strategy, Culture of Confidence, Employee Trust, incentives, long-term shareholder value, Pay for performance, profitability, Sustained Results
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Key Talent Compensation, Uncategorized | No Comments »
December 21st, 2011 by Ken Gibson
Last week I attended a fabulous event put on by Chief Executive Magazine in New York at the Stock Exchange. It was a meeting designed to help CEOs connect with their peers and discuss the issues relevant to their roles in business right now, in this financial and political environment. If you haven’t attended one of their events in the past, I would highly recommend doing so in the future if you lead a business. Here are just a few highlights from the New York Conference, in no particular order:
Achieving Growth in a Low-Growth Enrironment
Bob Nardelli, CEO Cerberus Capital (former Chair and CEO at Chrysler and Home Depot)
- Enhance the Core (drive innovation in core business)
- Extend the Business
- Expand the Market
Lynn Tilton, CEO Patriarch Partners
- Break every business down to its variables
- Companies that get left behind are those that don’t innovate
- Companies are just people–you have to have the right talent
- Create a culture of innovation
- Create a culture of appreciation
- Do what’s right; key quote: “Too often we’re thinking about our business interests instead of what’s right and wrong. Doing what’s right will more often than not serve our long-term business interests.”
Fred Hassan, Chairman Bausch & Lomb & Senior Partner, Warburg Pincus
- Some companies get so good they forget to keep getting better
- Look at your trust index; foundational customer question–”would you recommend this company?”
How to Grow When Markets Stall
Ram Charan, Author, Strategist, Former Professor at Harvard Business School
- Put people before strategy–people need to know what’s required to be done
- Remain sensitive to customer–need to be connected to the ground floor of the person that buys your product or service
- Work from the outside in, not inside out–look at the need that must be fulfilled and then work backwards at what needs to be done to fill it
- Devote disproportionate management attention to differentiation
- Remember to pay attention to the basics–look at external trends; remember that the consumer experience is the key differentiator
Next week, I will share some more. All for now.
Tags: breakthrough success, compensation philosophy and strategy, Culture of Confidence, profitability, recession, Sustained Results
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Key Talent Compensation, Managing Talent | 1 Comment »
November 21st, 2011 by Ken Gibson
Complexity can kill any value sharing arrangement. Some reading that sentence are nodding their heads knowingly right now. They’ve experienced that complexity and watched failure overcome what seemed in the beginning like just the right solution to plan design.
Companies run into the complexity problem most commonly when they try to manage behavior through the incentive plan. They construct metrics and measures that are intended to focus the employee on specific business drivers. By the time they construct those metrics for every category and tier in the company, they have a monster on their hands. It’s usually about that time that our phone rings.
As you approach incentive plan design, keeping it simple has to be an overarching aim that guides the process. To accomplish this, think in terms of deciding between two basic plan types and three basic measurement categories. Then plan to “weight” the measurement categories by tier of employee to address the variance in impact at each level of the workforce. Here’s what I mean.
Two Plan Types
When building a short-term incentive, a company will need to decide whether they want to use a profit-based allocation model or a targeted KPI approach. In simple terms, a profit-based approach will focus everyone in the workforce on the profitability of the company and a pool will be used to generate payouts once a certain threshhold of profitability is achieved. The KPI approach focuses the attention of an individual or team on defined performance indicators or intiatives which, if achieved, will drive greater profitability, revenue, EBITDA or whatever other key outcome you measure.
Each of these approaches are discussed more thoroughly in an article and/or webinar on our website. I will refer you there for greater detail.
Three Measurement Categories
Most plan types can be managed well by “weighting” how much of an incentive will be tied to company performance, how much to team or department performance and how much should be based on individual performance. The weighting each of these is given depends on the sphere of influence of the participating employee. For example, tier one employees (executive level) might have a weighting something like the following: 75% company, 0% team, 25% individual. A second tier (directors) might be allocated as follows: 25% company, 50% team, 25% individual. And so on through the tiers.
The three measurements approach allows you to have one plan while making room for adjustments to be made by category of employee based on its ability to impact company, department or individual outcomes.
Long-Term Incentives
Just a word about long-term value sharing. The approach described above can apply to LTIPs as well, but is most commonly used for short-term incentive plan design (payouts for performance in a period of 12 months or less). To effectively design a long-term value sharing arrangement, you will need an additional planning tool; a decision tree process that helps you ask the right questions and arrive at a suitable plan model. Ultimately, there are about nine different long-term value sharing approaches you could adopt. Questions such as “are you willing to share equity?” lead to one conclusion or another about which plan type will be most suitable for your organization. To learn more about the decision tree process access the VisionLink article entitled: “Long-Term Incentive Plans–Which is Right for your Company?”
Once a long-term plan design is determined, a “simple” approach should still be applied. The three measurement categories approach will help you do that.
In the world of compensation design, as in so many other things, “less” is often “more.” Keep it simple.
Tags: compensation, compensation philosophy and strategy, Growth, incentives, key people, profitability, rewards, Sustained Results
Posted in Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Key Talent Compensation, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
November 11th, 2011 by Ken Gibson
The heart of a competitive advantage in an organization is a culture of confidence. Such a culture emerges in companies that have developed success patterns to a point of such sustainability that the “flywheel effect” has kicked in, as Jim Collins describes in his book Good to Great. There is momentum and your people know it; they know it because they are in the midst of it–in fact, they are the ones making it happen. Such a business has a competitive advantage because a culture of confidence is not “copyable.” It is an outgrowth of having all the human elements working in a unified, passionate fashion within a company. Think Disney. Think Apple. Think any great company.
The best word to describe the mindset of the workforce within organizations that have developed such a culture is stewardship. The dictionary describes a steward as “a person who acts as the surrogate of another or others.” In business, it implies that employees act in the best interest of owners; more than that, they do the things ownership would do because they think like owners. They think like owners, in part, because they are treated like owners–not because they necessarily own stock but because they have some kind of stake in the company’s success and a shared value system.
Organizations that adopt a stewardship approach to managing their people nurture trust and confidence in their employees by focusing more on desired outcomes and results than methods and behaviors. They communicate standards and values, vision and strategy, roles and expectations. Then they communicate a sense of partnership in the way they share value with those that create value.
Such businesses inherently understand that they can’t use incentives as a tool to manipulate behavior or to reinforce methodology. It’s not that they ignore those things, rather they recognize that pay is not the way to enforce the spirit of stewardship they want to engender. To use incentives to “force” certain behaviors is the ultimate act of mistrust. It undercuts the core sense of personal responsibility and accountability that a workforce must achieve if the “flywheel effect” is going to be realized. Mistrust erodes a culture of confidence and pay, done improperly, creates mistrust.
To take it one step further, companies that have a culture of confidence don’t even think in terms of rewards as incentives. Instead, they set up short and long-term value sharing agreements with their associates and consider their relationship to be a partnership, not employee or employer. Value sharing is about reinforcing outcomes, not forcing behavior. It’s about recognizing the contribution of all stakeholders in an organization’s success through effectively crafted pay programs. It’s about stewardship not just employment.
So, as you consider where you are in your journey towards a future company that is not just good but great, avoid eroding your culture of confidence through any act of mistrust–especially as you build rewards strategies. Instead, use them to reinforce the line of sight you want to create between vision, strategy, roles, expectations and pay.
To learn more about a specific type of value sharing program that will encourage the stewardship mindset just discussed, tune into our next webinar broadcast entitled: What Think Ye of Phantom Stock–Does it Work?
Tags: breakthrough success, compensation philosophy and strategy, Culture of Confidence, employee stock owenership, employee stock ownership, Employee Trust, Growth, incentives, Pay for performance, Sustained Results
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Key Talent Compensation, Managing Talent, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
November 2nd, 2011 by Ken Gibson
Great compensation solutions come to those who ask the right questions. It’s as straight forward as that. And there is a cascading sequence to an effective questioning process as it relates to compensation development and design. Let’s explore what that might include.
Stage One
The first level of inquiry has to do with broad strategic issues. Since compensation is a “strategic” tool, not a “tactical” one, the questions must start here.
- What is the vision of ownership for the “future company?” In what ways will the company be different three years from now than it is today? (Be as specific as possible.)
- What are the potential barriers that could keep that vision from being fulfilled (external and internal)?
- What key opportunities and initiatives have to be seized and effectively implemented if that vision is going to be realized?
- Who are the people that will drive those opportunities and are key to overcoming the barriers described?
- Do you have all the people in place now you will need to realize the vision you have described or will new people be recruited?
Stage Two
With a clear and compelling vision in mind, you are ready to address level two questions.
- What is the business model of the company; the performance engine that keeps revenue flowing and will fuel growth?
- What roles are in place to support that business model and what expectations have been set for those roles? (Presumably these are some of the same people mentioned above.)
- If you implement a compensation strategy that works, how should the outcomes produced by this group be improved or changed?
Stage Three
Now that we have addressed the vision and business model, we’re ready to talk more specifically about compensation related issues.
- What do you believe people should be paid for primarily? Time spent working? Outcomes (if so which?)? Knowledge and experience?
- In what ways are you paying people now that is supportive both of that philosophy and the business model you described in stage two?
- How and to what extent should people be paid for maintaining the present performance engine of the company?
- How and to what extent should people be paid for innovation and contributing to the future growth of the company?
Stage Four
With a working pay philosophy established in stage three, we’re now in a better position to be more granular in our compensation questions.
- Where do we want to set salaries vis a vis market pay?
- Where do we want total compensation to be vis a vis market pay?
- Are those answers the same for each tier of employee in the company?
- Do we want to share equity?
- If we don’t want to share equity, do we want some level of pay to be reflective of company value?
- If we don’t want to tie pay to company value, what financial metrics do we want it tied to?
- What balance should there be between short-term value sharing (performance over 12 months or less) and long-term (performance over 12 months).
Certainly, there are still many more questions to be asked and answered before your compensation strategy will be ready and complete. However, hopefully this list gives you a sense for the train of thought that should inform the compensation discussion in a company that wants to grow and realize ownerships’ vision for the future.
Tags: breakthrough success, compensation philosophy and strategy, employee stock, employee stock owenership, employee stock ownership, Growth, incentive stock, incentives, long-term shareholder value, Pay for performance
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Key Talent Compensation, Managing Talent, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
October 21st, 2011 by Ken Gibson
Let’s face it, business life is accelerating in its complexity. Denial won’t help us overcome it; we must embrace it and learn to manage it. As some organizations attempt to “rein it in,” they find themselves making things worse rather than better. A recent Harvard Business Review article makes the point this way:
“In and of itself, this complexity is not a bad thing—it brings opportunities as well as challenges. The problem is the way companies attempt to respond to it. To reconcile their many conflicting goals, managers redesign the organization’s structure, performance measures, and incentives, trying to align employees’ behavior with shifting external challenges. More layers get added, more procedures imposed. Then, to smooth the implementation of those ‘hard’ changes, companies introduce a variety of ‘soft’ initiatives designed to infuse work with positive emotions and create a workplace where interpersonal relationships and collaboration will flourish.”
Our experience has been similar when we are engaged to help companies design incentive plans. Value sharing arrangements such as bonus programs, phantom stock, profit pools, performance unit plans, etc. should bring greater clarity not complexity. Too often, business leaders want their rewards programs to achieve more than they are designed to and become a substitute for performance management. As a result, they add layers of metrics and measures that are intended to micro manage the results the company wants employees to achieve.
If a value sharing program is going to offer more clarity than complexity, what is that it should make clear? Here’s our list:
- It should make clear that the company considers the employee a key partner in the achievement of its growth goals.
- It should reinforce the company’s business model and the strategy employed to roll it out to the marketplace.
- It should help clarify the role of a given employee in the business model and strategy.
- It should make clear the outcomes the employee is responsible for within that role.
- It should create line of sight between the employee’s personal financial vision and the company’s growth goals and vision.
If a company will use compensation as a clarifier and reinforcer of “what’s important,” it will take a big step towards better managing the complexity that inevitably will continue to grow.
Tags: compensation philosophy and strategy, Employee Trust, Growth, incentives, Pay for performance, phantom stock, Sustained Results
Posted in Business Growth & Compensation, Business Growth and Rewards, Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Managing Talent | 1 Comment »
September 21st, 2011 by Ken Gibson
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.
Tags: breakthrough success, compensation and the recession, compensation philosophy and strategy, Culture of Confidence, Pay for performance, Sustained Results
Posted in Compensation Planning, Current Pay Trends and Topics, Incentive Planning, Managing Talent, Recession Strategies, Uncategorized | No Comments »
(888) 703 - 0080
