Building Unified Financial Visions

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

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
February 26th, 2010 by Ken Gibson

Why isn’t our Compensation Strategy “Working”?

That question probably crosses the mind of a CEO at least a couple of times a year–perhaps when a salary increase has been approved or a bonus is paid out.  What he or she means by the question is essentially this: “Boy, collectively I’m paying my top people over $1 million a year; what am I getting for it?”

Whether or not a compensation strategy “works” is a subjective measure I suppose.  To say it’s not “working” assumes we know what things would look and feel like if they were working.

From our view, a compensation program is “working” when it is drives business growth and the company can attribute that result to the productivity of its people.  A high standard?  Well, yes–but should something less be expected of the largest budget item a company will find on its financial statement? 

In that context, if a compensation strategy is not “working,”  its usually for one of the following reasons:

No Sense of Partnership–the company has not yet engineered  compensation strategies that instill an ownership mentality and engender a unified financial vision for growing the business.

Lack of Clarity–employees do not yet see where the company is headed, how it is going to get there, what their role is, what’s expected of them in that role, and how they will be rewarded for fulfilling those expectations.

Ineffective or Unclear Standards and Practices–the company has no established mechanisms for defining a compensation philosophy, building a “game plan” that strategically reflects that philosophy and then turning that plan into concrete rewards strategies that are measured and managed.

Lack of Engagement–the compensation programs of the company do not yet promote a level of execution that only comes once employees feel passionate about their contribution and what it will mean to them if the company achieves its goals

Lack of Productivity Measures–the company is paying out compensation but has no means of determining how much of the business’s collective ROI can be linked to its human capital as opposed to its financial capital. 

In summary, for a company to ever know whether or not its compensation strategy is “working,” it must first begin to treat it as an investment and not just an expense–and then be able to measure the effective return it is getting on that investment.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
October 12th, 2009 by Ken Gibson

Compensation and Trust

In his book The Speed of Trust, author Stephen M. R. Covey asserts that the trust level in an organization affects two things: speed and cost. When trust goes down, speed goes down and costs go up.  (Consider the time and cost of airport security after 9/11, or costs for Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance passed in response to Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals.)  Conversely, when trust goes up, speed goes up and costs go down.  I would add that when trust and speed go up, sustained results also go up.

In short, trust has a huge economic impact.

Simply put, trust means confidence.  The opposite of trust, mistrust, is suspicion.  Covey makes the point that whether it’s high or low, trust is the “hidden variable” in the formula for organizational success. 

Traditionally, most organizations think about results generation  in the following terms:

Strategy x Execution=Results

However, inclusion of  the hidden variable reveals a more accurate results reality:

(Strategy x Execution) x Trust=Results

Simple? Yes. Insignificant?  Not in the least.  At VisionLink, we have observed that in most organizations, the trust level is virtually palpable. In high trust organizations there is an obvious culture of confidence. That confidence is reflected in the consistent results that emerge from sustained success patterns in such companies.  Those success patterns can only exist in a high trust environment.

So what does trust have to do with compensation?  In a word, everything.

Compensation is a strategic tool. Smart business leaders employ it as such to ensure certain key outcomes and make their results more predictable.  When approached correctly and strategically, compensation should do two things: 1) provide a systematic means of  remunerating contributors for the achievement of certain performance standards, and; 2) clearly communicate and encourage the  behaviors and outcomes that the organization considers its highest priorities

As a result, a company’s approach to compensation either encourages or diminishes trust.  Think about it.  If I work in your organization, and I hear you stand and speak about the company’s vision and mission, and what the strategy is for the next year (or two or three), but I have a pay program that either has no bearing on those outcomes or is at odds with them, what level of confidence do I have in your leadership?  How should I interpret the significance of my contribution to the company’s future?

Likewise, if I have been allowed to develop a mentality of entitlement or complacency because my remuneration has no real link to performance standards, what are you communicating to me about your confidence in my ability?  What incentive do I have to take a stewardship approach to my role and adopt an ownership mentality in my work?

Organizational trust exists when there is integrity between mission, strategy, roles, expectations and results.  If that trust is going to be sustained, a company’s pay philosophy and associated strategies must create a thread of continuity between each of those elements.  By doing so, you are offering your employees ample evidence that they can have confidence in where the company is headed, how it’s going to get there, what their contribution should be to that future and how they will be rewarded if those results are obtained.

Covey explains it this way:

“The low trust environment is a result of violating principles–not only individually, but organizationally.  Leaders are missing the solution because they are not looking at the systems, structures, processes and policies that affect day-to-day behaviors.  They are focused on the symptoms instead of the principles that promote trust.

“This misalignment creates symbols that represent and communicate underlying values to everyone in the organization.  A symbol can be either negative or positive; from a 500-page employee handbook, to a newly appointed CEO who refuses to accept a pay raise because it might send the wrong message to workers.”

In summary, get compensation right and you will see trust increase in your organization.  If you increase trust, you increase speed–and when you increase both, costs go down and sustained results go up.

Share This Post