Building Unified Financial Visions

Ken Gibson
July 26th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Sales vs. Performance vs. Growth Incentives

Periodically, we will receive a call from a business leader seeking our help to build a more effective incentive plan.  Often, it takes a while to determine whether what is being sought is a sales plan or a broader performance-based reward.  The difficulty in decifering which kind of approach is needed stems from the fact that many businesses don’t yet know what outcome they are trying to influence through their incentive plan(s).

With that anecdotal evidence in mind, I assume many struggle with this issue.  As a result, I offer here  some general things to consider when thinking about incentives:

  • Sales Incentives–Compensation programs for sales people are typically a distinct “animal.”  Their purpose and form are centered solely on increasing sales.  Although a sales incentive might be in the form of a commission or bonus (or both), it’s focus is strictly on rewarding a certain desired sales result.  They are intended to address the following performance factor: “What the company wants sold, to whom and in what volume.”Those participating in a sales incentive could, conceivably, also receive a performance or growth incentive.  However, it is less likely they will receive the former since their sales incentive rewards short-term performance results .  A long-term incentive, however, creates a different focus and could more commonly be paid to those responsible for sales functions, particularly those whose stewardship it is to accelerate top-line growth. (See Growth Incentives below.)
  • Performance Incentives–Companies that want to create focus on key performance indicators or profitability standards measured in increments of 12 months or less are looking for this type of reward.  Performance incentives seek to communicate the following to participating employees: “This is the outcome we need you to focus on during this period of time and how it will be measured and rewarded.”  Performance incentives help participants understand their role in this year’s strategy, what’s expected of them in that role and how they will be remunerated for fulfilling those expectations.  The overall incentive may reward something for company performance, team or department performance, individual performance or all three.  The “weighting” of those factors may be different for various “tiers” of employees.  Annual, semi-annual or quarterly bonus arrangements are types of performance incentives.As with sales incentives, participants in a performance incentive plan may–and commonly do–participate in a growth incentive as well.
  • Growth Incentives–Organizations that seek to align the company’s reward’s strategy with its business plan should have some kind of growth incentive.  Such a plan communicates where the company is headed in the future (beyond the next 12 months) and how those that help to fuel growth will participate in that increase.  Growth incentives seek to create a unified financial vision for growing the business and send the following message to participants: “You are an important partner in our growth plans and this is how we intend to have you participate in the value you help create.”  Stock, stock options, phantom equity, SAR, Performance Unit Plans and Profit Pools are examples of growth incentives that companies commonly use to fulfill this part of their overall rewards strategy.

Most companies think in terms of specific types of plans instead of the kind of performance they seek to drive as they approach the design of their incentives.  Instead, we recommend you isolate the performance category you are trying to address as indicated above and then begin thinking of the compensation s0lutions that will drive the outcomes you seek.

At a minimum, now if you call us, we will perhaps be speaking the same language!

Share This Post

Every business wants the best–the best product, the best customer service, the best possible profit margin, the best market position, and the best people.  Some actually achieve it.  How do they do it? 

From VisionLink’s point of view, there are four  essentials that a company must get right if it hopes to attract and retain a level of talent that can drive all the other “bests” it is trying to achieve.  We call these the Four Pillars of Total Rewards.  In summary, they are as follows:

  • Compelling Future
  • Positive Work Environment
  • Opportunities for Personal and Professional Development
  • Financial Rewards

 

Compelling Future

A compelling future assumes, of course, that those in company leadership know where the business is headed and how its going to get there. They have a vivid and clear vision.  They consistently communicate that vision and the strategy that is needed to fulfill it.  They have reduced the business plan of the company to an easily understood, focused strategy statement that all of the principal players in the company can articulate.   Everyone throughout the organization understands the vision and how the company is going to fulfill it. 

But this is not all.

The “best” companies have an ability to make “compelling future” come alive for their workforce.  They enable their employees to see themselves in the future of the business.   The company and its employees have a shared value system.  There is a unified financial vision for growing the enterprise that is understood by all.  Premier talent are allowed to think and believe that the business cannot achieve its vision without them.  They are allowed this view this because its an accurate one–not just something leadership says to rally the troops.  As a result, they nuture a partnership relationship with employees–particularly key producers.  Those the company needs to drive results see their unique ability as an essential ingredient to the company realizing its vision of the future.  In essence, this is why employees consider the future to be “compelling.”

Positive Work Environment

World class organizations create a culture and environment that nutures individual unique abilities within the framework of unique teams.  This means that people are placed in roles where their talent, experience, skill and wisdom allow them make the best contribution.  Their distinctive ability blends with and compliments others in their sphere of influence to create a highly productive outcome for the company and an enriching experience for the employees. The whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

In such an environment, innovation is encouraged and thrives.  There are open channels of communication for problem solving with company leadership and people feel empowered as stewards over their work.  Roles and expectations are clear, fair and synchronized with the company’s business plan.  A culture of execution, sustained success and confidence is nurtured, celebrated and rewarded.

Opportunities for Personal and Professional Development

Central to the definition of ”meaningful work” for employees is the ability they have to improve and advance.  Organizations that want to attract “the best” must make sure there are clear opportunities for employees to magnify their unique abilities as a result of their affiliation with the company.  This relates to everything from career path development to training and supplemental educational opportunities.  However, it also relates to challenges employees are given, a sense of stewardship they are allowed to have in their roles and the feeling of confidence that is communicated to them about their ability to make a contribution. 

 At its core, this category has to do with building trust.  The roles employees are given, how they are managed, and the way they are ultimately paid ties them to the business plan of the company and creates a sense of collaboration with ownership.  Such a relationship breeds mutual respect and unity, which are foundational to a relationship of trust.  In organizations where trust is high, results are accelerated.  As the speed of performance increases, costs go down and revenues increase.  If compensation is effectively engineered, all win and a positive, self-sustaining momentum is set in motion.

Financial Rewards

Many assume pay is the core issue for employees in determining whether to join or leave an organization.  It’s not that simple.  All of the factors described here play a role. 

At issue with pay is not usually how much someone is getting but how they are being compensated.  In other words, the best employees recognize and respond to the concept of valuation creation.  If a business creates value for its customers, the marketplace rewards that company financially by buying its product or service.  Value is received for value created.  Similarly,  employees recognize that if they create superior value, some part of their pay should reflect that.  Conversely, if they don’t create additional value, they likewise shouldn’t be paid as if they did.

Great organizations understand that value creation has both a short-term and a long-term component– for employees as well as for the company.  The business is interested in generating results today, tomorrow and through the remainder of the year. However, it is also interested in sustained results–those that will drive shareholder value over the next two to five years–even the next decade.  Consequently, they are interested in  good profits (those that come by virtue of benefiting the customer)  and not bad profits (those that come at the expense of the customer and erode good will and long-term business value).

Employees are no different .  They have short and long-term financial objectives–and look to their employment as the primary vehicle to achieve both.  In this context, employees are primarilly interested in their pay program addressing three key priorities:

  • Cash Needs/Standard of Living–this priority is typically met through salary and some type of annual incentive plan that gives the employee some control over short-term earning capacity
  • Security–this area of emphasis has to do with protecting against financial risk through adequate insurance coverage and opportunities for employees to mitigate potential risk issues in their lives
  • Wealth Accumulation–this area of focus has to do with participating in the long-term value employees help the business create and feeling empowered to “reap what they sow”; it goes beyond mechanisms such as 401(k) or pension plans that are purely retirement focused

 

These Four Pillars of a Total Rewards strategy can be a useful way to evaluate how your company is doing in positioning itself to attract the best and, as a result, become the best.  It is our experience that the businesses that “get” this also end up ”getting” the results they are looking for on their pathway towards World-Class Performance.

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

Employers are constantly tinkering with their compensation programs. Are our salaries at market? Couldn’t our bonus plan be better? Are we spending too much on benefits? Notice how each of these questions (and there are lots more like them) focuses on cost and or effectiveness. And effectiveness usually means “does it work for the company?”

After all that effort it’s easy to see why employers are often surprised when an employee quits and takes a job for “more pay” somewhere else.

Employers would be wise to spend a little more time looking at their comp plans through the eyes of their employees. Ultimately, all elements of the total rewards package are evaluated by employees through three lenses: (1) are my cash needs being met? (2) are my security needs being met? (3) do I have a meaningful wealth accumulation opportunity?  (I realize there are other real elements of the total pay program such as PTO, sick pay, etc. But I’m putting those in the “lifestyle support” category. Today I’m talking about the core or largest elements of direct pay–salaries/wages, bonuses, long-term awards, retirement and health and welfare.)

We conduct employee surveys about the perception of the value of pay commitment. I just completed our main survey–the Alignment Appraisal–for three different companies. Here are some of the average employee scores (think 1-10, 10 being the highest).

The company’s cash compensation program effectively meets mypersonal lifestyle needs. (Scores: 4.0,  5.5, 6.2)

The company’s benefit programs (health and welfare plans) offer adequate flexibility and coverage to address the potential financial risks I face. (Scores: 4.0,  8.0,  8.2)

I perceive a meaningful wealth accumulation opportunity through our compensation and rewards programs? (Scores: 3.5,  4.0,  4.9)

Two of these companies obviously do a pretty good job of providing strong health plans. Other than that these scores indicate to me that employees see their rewards programs as average or below when they come to actually meeting their personal needs, goals and expectations. (There are plenty of other responses in the survey that support these conclusions.)  By the way, these scores are very typical. We don’t usually see them much higher.

I consider this a serious problem! The investment in compensation for employees is huge–almost always the biggest expense on the income statement. Why isn’t their greater concern about matching this up with what employees really want and need?

This problem is very often one of perception. But it’s a common one. Right or wrong, employees don’t think employers are really that concerned about their personal financial needs. Think about the implications of this to morale, productivity, retention, recruiting–as well as growth and profits!

One of Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits” was to “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Employers who learn to look at their total rewards investment (TRI) through the lenses of their employees’ three needs will find that they strengthen the partnership relationship with their employees. In the long run everyone wins–employees utiilize their rewards dollars more productively and shareholders reap the benefit of long-lasting improvements in culture along with  greater profits and real equity value.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
March 31st, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Strategic not Tactical

One of the biggest mistakes most organizations make is to treat compensation as a tactical, expense management issue.  In some respects, this is a natural inclination.  Compensation is customarily the largest budget item on the company’s financial statements.  As a result, most organizations look at it as a cost to be managed. 

However, high performance companies see everything through a strategic lens, including and especially compensation.  As a result, they see pay as an extension of the company’s business plan, not just a  line item on the income statement.  For such organizations, decision making regarding rewards can’t be and isn’t dealt with in tactical terms.  Every rewards program they roll out has a strategic purpose that is grounded in a well defined compensation philosophy.

Businesses that treat compensation strategically commonly employ the following practices:

  • The CEO  establishes the strategic direction for rewards and drives the priorities surrounding compensation planning and decisions
  • The organization employs mechanisms to measure alignment between workforce performance and practices, and the business plan of the company
  • The company has a compensation committee that meets regularly (preferably quarterly) to make rewards decisions and assess progress of existing strategies based on a written philosophy statement that clearly defines what the company “pays” for
  • The compensation committee employs processes for the consideration, development, implementation and ongoing management of its rewards strategies
  • Specific rewards programs are only implemented once their strategic purpose is clearly stated and their impact on both shareholder and employee wealth accumulation value has been modeled and tested
  • The company establishes a means of measuring the productivity of its people; it isolates the return that comes to the business through financial capital at work versus human capital at work
  • The organization develops a rewards reinforcement strategy and management system  for the ongoing promotion and communication of its compensation plans
  • Shareholders are routinely informed of the relationship between rewards and additional value being created through the execution of an effective and focused workforce.

Such an ideal isn’t achieved overnight.  However, no one achieves it until they buy into the relationship between vision, strategy, roles and expectations, and rewards–and then commits to a process that links those interdependent issues.  Such an approach is only adopted by organizations that want compensation to become a key driver of growth in their business, and not just one more cost that has to be contained.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
March 12th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

What Does ‘Pay for Performance’ Really Mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
January 5th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Peter Drucker Agrees with VisionLink

Okay, so Peter Drucker never really knew VisionLink.  That’s a detail.  However, his philosophy about pay at the executive and management level was “spot on” with what we believe should be a core tenet of rewards design:

Build world class compensation strategies that are rooted in pay for performance and drive measureable results.

In her November, 2009 HBR article entitled, “What Would Peter Say?” Rosabeth Moss Kanter shares the following insights into Drucker’s thinking regarding the recent executive pay brouhaha.

“Drucker would not have been surprised that incentives to take excessive risks contributed to the recent global financial meltdown.  Back in the mid-1980s, he warned about a public outcry over executive compensation…More than 20 years ago, Drucker pointed to a top-to-bottom ratio that was then rushing past 40 to 1.  Just before his death, the ratio was greater than 400 to 1.

“Drucker was not against wealth accumulation, but he was pragmatic about the work of organizations and society.  He held that the role of executives was to coordinate the actions of others whose motivation (and thus compensation) was necessary to get the job done.  But he also held that pay should be associated with performance; that was a major point of management by objectives, perhaps his most practical management contribution. Listening to Drucker might have headed off some of the excesses associated with Wall Street…in which bonuses not only were decried for their amounts but also were uncorrelated with company results…”

I suspect that most company leaders would find themselves in agreement with much if not all of the issues Drucker raises.  However, although many agree with a performance/pay correlation philosophy in principle, few are translating that belief system into consistent compensation practices.  Fewer still achieve a rewards strategy that could be considered “world-class”; one that places them in the competitive advantage driver’s seat.  A world class pay plan is one that fully integrates compensation into the business plan of the company and creates a seamless link between vision, strategy, roles, expectations and rewards.

What most companies need to bridge the gap between where they are now and where they should (and, hopefully, want to) be is a Missing Structure; a system or process that helps them effectively engineer compensation strategies that impact execution and results.   In our experience, that Missing Structure needs to include the following comp0nents:

  • CEO/Board Level Leadership and Involvement
  • A Clear and Written Pay Philosophy
  • A Comprehensive Compensation Gameplan
  • Fully Integrated and Correlated Pay Strategies and Plans
  • Consistently Executed “Line of Sight” Review

These steps ensure a cohesive, consistent approach to talent attraction, retention and development.  Likewise, they provide checks and balances that protect the company from sacrificing good profits for bad or that substitute short- term performance bursts for sustained results.  When properly executed, these measures make sure that all incentive plans are self financed and pay benefits that are correlated with increased shareholder value, and other critical measures.

Many of the companies that have made headlines in recent years lost sight of these important principles as it relates to compensation development and management.  Again, Peter Drucker’s observation is a correct one.  He stressed that:

“…ensuring the long-term health of the company–and eschewing short hits that jeopardize the future–is executives’ primary job.”

We are happy to know that Peter Drucker agrees with us.

Share This Post
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

Recently I received a request to submit an article to a newsletter about “Holistic Compensation.” Well, that’s a new one, I thought. I’ve used lots of terms to describe the uses of compensation systems, but that’s one I missed. We prefer the term “strategic compensation.”

Because of a tight deadline I sent along an article I already have ready to go. I didn’t even add the term “holistic.” I hope they won’t mind.

Now that I have a little time I started to think about the term. Webster’s online dictionary defines “holistic” as relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts. All of a sudden, I’m in love with the term. That’s exactly how compensation should be looked at by senior management company.

Most don’t. The salary budget isn’t connected to the short-term incentive plan isn’t connected to the long-term incentive plan isn’t connected to the hip-bone… (you get the idea). The CEO assumes that the HR leaders will handle all “basic” compensation issues and he or she will handle the senior management negotiations with the board or owners. This goes on in other areas. The CFO may handle the long-term plan. The Sales VP may handle her commission systems. It’s not coordinated. It’s not integrated. It’s not holistic. It’s dissected into parts.

The reality is that all elements of compensation and benefits reflect an investment by shareholders that is worthy of a measurable return. If so, they should be carefully orchestrated according to a central, guiding philosophy that is tied to the company’s strategic plan (thus “strategic compensation). All pay components should be accountable to the strategic plan. The bonus plan for the lowest eligible employee should be constructed with the same conditions and goals in mind as the CEO’s incentive plan. After all it’s one “complete system.”

Why isn’t this done? Traditions and bias. Unfortunately, it’s a waste of energy, direction and money. Holistic compensation is exactly how all companies should approach their biggest investment–at least if they want to attract better employees, build an ownership mentality, and improve overall results. I may have to go back and write a new article.

Share This Post

We work with both publicly and privately owned companies. I suppose the public market place is more “glamorous” (in some sense). Larger issues. Layers of board decisions. Bigger impact. More intense magnifying glass examining results. However, Comp Committees of public companies often miss the mark.

Of course, Committee members are under a lot of scrutiny and pressure. The risk of regulator criticism (or worse) is always hanging over their heads. And there are always disgruntled shareholders. These are real hassles. As a result, the main benchmark they use is “peer review.” They look to the pay package of their peers to determine how to pay their own execs. Here’s how it works: (1) a consultant is hired and charged to pull proxies, review surveys and present results; (2) the consultant presents findings to the committee; (3) the findings (showing how the top 5 execs compare to the selected group) are examined by the committee members and discussed; and (4) the committee draws some conclusions and makes recommendations to the board. The result: over time most companies offer pay packages that match up with this group of “peers.” This is the safe result. Who can criticize the committee since they’re merely doing the same thing being done by everyone else.

Wise owners of private companies do it differently. They don’t begin with the assumption that the management team should be paid the same way as those of their competitors. (Granted, the urge to do this is strong. But hopefully someone is protecting them from going down this path.) Instead, they can begin with the question: “What is our strategic direction?” My experience is that private companies are often much clearer on this message than their public brethren. The strategic direction of the company should drive compensation strategy. What is our short-term direction? What is our long-term? What initiatives need to be launched or maintained to achieve those objectives? What people will we need to do so? How do we want those people to think about our company’s future? What do we want them to focus on in their daily work? How much value will we create if we achieve our goals? How much of that value should be shared with our employees? In what form should that value be shared?

These questions and answers will lead the astute business leader to discard old compensation practices and embrace new ones. Since the entrepreneurial owner(s) of the company are not as controlled by regulators, shareholders (and even their boards) they have more freedom to align compensation with strategy rather than peer data.

As we observe an increase in government oversight of pay practices watch for originality and creativity in the total rewards world to emerge from the private marketplace. Bureaucracy stifles freedom and creativity. Ignore the public practices. Let the entrepreneurs create!

Share This Post