Building Unified Financial Visions

Ken Gibson
February 11th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

What Does Your Compensation Program Cost?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read more about this concept, click here.

Ken Gibson
February 4th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Are Your Employees as Good as they Think They Are?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Gibson
January 21st, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Does Compensation Support Your Business Model?

Many business leaders we work with don’t draw a distinction (in perception or practice) between their business strategy and their business model.  As a result, they approach decision making differently than they would if they saw these things as related but distinct functions.  Certainly, poor compensation decisions emerge out of environments where rewards aren’t properly connected to the business plan.  Here’s why.

Business models refer to the logic of the company–how it operates and creates and captures value for stake holders in a competitive marketplace.  (See “How to Design a Winning Business Model,” HBR, January-February 2011, Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Joan E. Ricart)  It defines policy choices, asset choices and governance choices (how the company will address decisions over the other two choice issues).  Strategy, on the other hand,  is a plan that relates to activities the company will engage in to create a unique and valuable position in the marketplace. 

 A key issue, then, is how a company will integrate compensation into the logic of the business model.  The policy choice has to do with the underlying philosophy that will guide the development of all compensation strategies.  The asset choice has to do with how rewards components (salary, sales incentives, performance incentives, growth incentives, etc.) will be applied and assigned to the company’s human resources.  Governance has to do with the ongoing practices and structure that will be used to ensure that pay will continue to reinforce the business model.

Here’s an example of what I mean.  Let’s say a company’s value proposition initiates certain reinforcement cyles that expand its position and secure its customer base.  Wireless phone service is a good example.  By contract, a person has to buy a two-year service and everytime they upgrade to a new phone, they get a discount and have to renew for another two years.  It is a self perpetuating model.  The revenue structure is built on renewing wireless service contracts, sales of hardware, ancillary services (such as data pages) and so on. Certain outcomes, then need to be reinforced in every aspect of the company’s choices.  Compensation must reflect and reinforce the revenue reinforcement model and fully engage employees in a mindset of top-line renewal plus growth.  

In such a framework, leadership needs to look at compensation through two interdependent sets of lenses:

  1. Structure–This facet needs to address the question: “what processes will ensure that every decision made relative to compensation will have the proper impact on strategy, cost and productivity in support of our model?”  Structure gives the company a decision making and implementation framework.
  2. Mindset–The other category poses this query: “what specific pay programs will ensure that our employees take ownership (a stewardhsip) of our  business model and its support strategy?”  This has to do with employee engagement, focus and sustained execution. 

If either of these dimensions of compensation development and management is neglected, certain dangers emerge.  If the structure is not there, then strategy, cost and productivity issues are not addressed.  The danger then is that employees take the company in the wrong direction (at odds with its business model), it spends rewards dollars that don’t necessarily drive value for shareholders and employees, and the company does not produce an “above market” return on its total rewards investment (capital could have been better invested elsewhere).

Likewise, if mindset issues are not properly addressed, the company can develop great pay strategies but the employees don’t understand them, or the rewards programs are disengaged from issues they can impact.  The dangers that emerge in this arena are that employees see incentives as entitlements, no ownership mindset is in evidence,  there is a general lack of clarity about the future of the business and the company is unable to unlock the full passion and focus of its workforce.

Because I see this negative pattern emerge all too fequently, it is my recommendation that any compensation discussion begin with a basic question: “What is our business model?”  Until and unless a business can define that, it will be hard pressed to develop a compensation plan that will drive growth instead of hindering it.

For more insights on this issue, join us at our webinar next Tuesday, January 25 entitled “The Eight Fatal Compensation Mistakes.”

Ken Gibson
January 5th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Avoiding the Most Common Compensation Mistakes

As a follow up to the blog I posted at the end of last year, I would like to offer some hints for avoiding costly mistakes in your compensation planning for 2011.  This post is intended to “fill in the blanks” on the three imperatives I introduced in my last writing.

Over the course of our careers, my partners and I have been in literally hundreds of businesses. Through that combined experience, we have seen much that is good–but probably more that, well…isn’t.   Here’s what we’ve learned you must do to avoid the eight most common mistakes businesses make when developing pay strategies.

  1. Have a Clear Plan Purpose.  The question that should be asked before you engineer any new compensation strategy is: “How can we ensure a plan design that will positively contribute to the fulfillment of our company’s vision and strategic plan?”  The mistake to be avoided here is having no strategic context for your plan.
  2. Create a Well-Defined Plan Blueprint and Tested Financial Model.  Once you are ready to begin the construction of a new plan design, you should ask the following question: “What will ensure the plan will properly address all financial and legal considerations without forfeiting creativity and innovation?”  The mistake to be avoided here is a lack of creative value in your plan and untested or measured outcomes.
  3. Have a Celebratory Plan Launch.  When you get ready to roll out your new plan, be sure you are able to answer this question: “How can we know that the plan rollout reinforces the company vision while building participant confidence and enthusiasm?” Here, the mistake to be avoided is a lack of employee enthusiasm and buy-in as well as having no context for the plan.
  4. Define a Clear Operations Strategy.  Once a plan has been introduced, the first of five new issues to be addressed evokes this question: “What roles and procedures have to be defined and communicated to ensure effective internal communication and administration of the plan?”  Here you are seeking to avoid the mistake of an unnecessary or unanticipated burden on the company’s administrative team.
  5. Institute an Effective Plan Communications and Marketing Strategy.   This is the second of the five post-rollout issues that have to be addressed. At this stage, the question to be answered is: “What can be done to ensure meaningful, ongoing communication of the value of the plan to all participants?”  The mistake to be avoided by answering that question is disenchanted employees.
  6. Develop a Compliance Plan.  This is number three on our post-rollout “to do” list and the question that needs to be answered is:  “How can we be sure that we are fulfilling all legal and regulatory responsibilities for the plan?”  The obvious mistake to be avoided by addressing this issue is running afoul of regulatory requirements that can lead to stiff penalties or worse.
  7. Have Consistent Financial Oversight of the Plan. This is our fourth post-rollout imperative and it is set up by answering the following question: “How will we ensure the plan is being managed financially and is producing an appropriate return on our investment?”  Here, the company is hoping to avoid the mistake of having no real measure of its return on human capital or its compensation investment.
  8. Measure Line of Sight Consistently and Frequently.  This is the last of the issues to be addressed once a plan has been launched and leads to one of the most important questions of all: “How will we be sure to keep the plan in line with the evolution of the company vision and business strategy?”  With this final step, you are trying to avoid the mistake of having the plan move off course and lose its relevance and impact.

So, there you have it.  A sure way to avoid the pitfalls too many fall into.  Easier said than done?  Of course–but achievable. 

To learn more about these eight steps, consider tuning into our webinar broadcast later this month.  It will address this topic in detail in a one hour session on January 25.  Click here to register now for this event.

Ken Gibson
December 22nd, 2010 by Ken Gibson

The Three Comp and Benefits Essentials

 I would like to make a plea before we close out 2010.  As you examine your compensation and benefit strategies for the new year, please consider three outcomes your approach should (dare I say, must?) include.  I would even go so far as to call these imperatives for any company hoping to have a workforce that drives growth in 2011 and beyond.

  1. Strategy–ask yourself this question: “Do our compensation and benefits strategies drive execution of key strategic initiatives and make the achievement of the company’s growth goals more likely?”  For this to happen, at a minimum there must be alignment between the business plan of the company and rewards.  Your pay and benefits strategies should also reflect a philosophy that creates appropriate ties between pay and performance in a way that nurtures a sense of partnership with the workforce and instills an ownership mindset.
  2. Cost–in this regard, the question to be asked is: “Do we institute practices  that ensure we create greater compensation and benefits efficiencies and lower or eliminate unnecessary expense?”   Here the issue is establishing the means by which a company routinely examines the cost structure of all its plans, introduces appropriate cost sharing arrangements, expands/inplements flexibility of benefits, increases education on fiscal practices and institutes “well-being” initiatives that help lower overall health benefit costs and decrease time away from work.
  3. Productivity–with this final imperative, the critical question to be answered is: “Do we generate a measurable, positive return on the company’s human capital investment?”   To accomplish this, companies should ensure that their approach to incentive planning is self financing,  involves sound metrics and that programs are only implemented once they have been appropriately modeled and tested.  The company must then institute appropropriate measurement tools to track its real return on the compensation and benefit dollars that have been paid out.

As you examine these areas and institute changes accordingly, please share your successes and frustrations in the comments section of this blog so others can benefit from your experience.  You can also email me with your thoughts at kgibson@vladvisors.com.

For more information on how some of these things can be successfully accomplished, please check out the Information and Resources section of our website or the  webinars we have archived on our site.

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
August 11th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Compensation as a “Carrier”

Jack Welch once said: “If you pick the right people and give them the opportunity to spread their wings and put compensation as a carrier behind it you almost don’t have to manage them.”

What did he mean?

Well, I certainly don’t claim any cosmic ability to “channel” Jack Welch.  That said, I think some assumptions can be made about the point he is trying to make.  He means that when you effectively link the roles and expectations of good people to the company’s business plan, compensation–when properly engineered–naturally becomes a key driver of results.  “As a carrier” means this occurs through an unforced yet  strategic process of alignment.  When that happens, a stewardship culture emerges; one in which your best talent takes ownership of outcomes.  This occurs because your people feel like partners in the company’s success; they helped create growth and the compensation system subsequently rewarded them for it.  

This concept is completely consistent with VisionLink’s view of incentives.  They are not tools of manipulation, rather key ingredients of a unified financial vision for growing the business.  They unleash rather than suppress the intrinsic motivators we all possess.

To ensure that your compensation becomes a “carrier,” the following five things must consistent occur once you have created then launched a specific pay program:

  1. Communicate and Promote–don’t assume the plan is understood and remembered. Remind, celebrate, explain and reinforce.
  2. Administer Effectively–so people feel they have ready access to information and it’s clear from whom it can be obtained.
  3. Stay Compliant–so there are no legal or financial surprises for either the participants or the company, especially where ERISA, IRS or other statutory guidelines apply.
  4. Model and Monitor–anticipate ahead of time what the financial commitment will be and then consistently measure actual results against targets; then adjust the plan accordingly.
  5. Measure ”Line of Sight”–so you know whether you’re creating effective links between vision, strategy, roles, expectations and pay.

Follow this pattern and you are on your way to a world-class approach to compensation that is a true “carrier.”

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!

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.

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.