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
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
Tom Miller
June 18th, 2009 by Tom Miller

Federal Regulation of Incentives–Baaaaad Idea!

The administration proposes that “federal regulators should issue standards and guidelines to better align executive compensation practices of financial firms with long-term shareholder value and to prevent compensation practices from providing incentives that could threaten the safety and soundness of supervised institutions.”

Oh, where to begin?

You’ll think this is a good idea if you agree that government lawyers are the best judge of long-term performance of a business.  Five years ago Congress added section 409A to the IRC. Its purpose was to eliminate rare abuses in deferred compensation plans. It only took government lawyers 3+ years to publish the final rules for 409A–all 397 pages. Of course, that was before another several hundred pages of clarifications. Now hundreds of thousands of businesses are impact by the micromanagment built into 409A rules.

The moral of the story is that when the government pokes its head into business the law of unintended consequences runs rampant.  Now government lawyers will decide what it means to create long-term value for shareholders.

How exactly shall shareholder value be judged? By stock price growth? Against what benchmark: peers? industry average? market average? And why should it be stock price? What if earnings grow steadily but the market punishes the stock for unrelated reasons? Should the management team be penalized? Maybe the government should select growth in earnings as the benchmark for creating value. Hmm. Which earnings component? PTI? Net Income? EBITDA? But these numbers are available for manipulation by any bright management team–if they want to.  If that happens, we’ll need some more rules, no doubt.

Let’s not forget that different institutions set different objectives. One might be growing assets. Another might be looking to improve return on equity. It would be interesting to know how the regulators will determine alignment with goals when they vary from firm to firm. Pay-for-performance begins with establishing clear objectives that are unique to each organization.

Here’s an idea: let shareholders decide if the management team is doing a poor job and/or is overpaid. If they think so, they can sell their stock. Sounds too simple.

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
June 16th, 2009 by Ken Gibson

Avoid the Temptation of Bad Profits

Difficult economic cycles can lead individuals and organizations to practices which, in better times, were unacceptable.  Most of the time, this isn’t the result of some overt change in the corporate value or mission statement.  Rather, it comes more often in the form of revised expectations that can only be achieved if something is given up.  Too often in such cases, what is surrendered are good profits. 

In his book The Ultimate Question, author Fred Reichheld (director emeritus and fellow at Bain and Company) explains it this way:

“Too many companies these days [especially during recessionary periods] can’t tell the difference between good profits and bad.  As a result, they are hooked on bad profits.

“…Whenever a customer feels mislead, mistreated, ignored, or coerced, then profits from that customer are bad.  Bad profits come from unfair or misleading pricing.  Bad profits arise when companies save money by delivering a lousy customer experience. Bad profits are about extracting value from customers, not creating value…

“Good profits are dramatically different.  If bad profits are earned at the expense of customers, good profits are earned with customers’ enthusiastic cooperation.  A company earns good profits when it so delights its customers that they are willing to come back for more–and not only that, they tell their friends and colleagues to do business with the company.”  (The Ultimate Question, Fred Reichheld, Harvard Business School Press, Boston Mass., 2006, chapter 1)

How can effectively engineered rewards strategies help an organization avoid bad profits?

It starts with a philosophy statement that defines what kind of performance the company will reward.  Such a philosophy should lead the business to develop both short-term and long-term incentive plans that mirror the immediate AND  sustained results the organization seeks to achieve.  Metrics for both plans reflect the performance standards required for a sustained increase in shareholder value.  Short-term rewards create a sense of urgency now while long-term incentives keep the performance “honest”–so key talent stays focused on consistent, prolonged  execution that moves the  customer from awareness to acceptance to advocacy. 

This approach also allows the company to “flex” with the economic cycle it’s experiencing.  When the economy is soft, employees are told that annual incentives will likely be minimal if paid at all.  However, performers can be assured of increased value credits to their long-term incentives (typically not payable for three to five years or longer) if they perform in a superior fashion.  Ultimately, determining which incentive plan should be used (ones that increase shareholder value through sustained good profits) is a key CEO decision that will deeply impact the ability of the company to avoid the bad profit syndrome.

Using compensation as a strategic tool, then, becomes a critical way organizations reinforce vision, strategy, roles and expectations to their workforce.  Taking time to address these issues properly is key to generating good profits instead of bad.

Share This Post
Tom Miller
June 12th, 2009 by Tom Miller

Is a Pay Czar a Good Idea?

This week, the Obama administration appointed Kenneth Feinberg as the new “Pay Czar.” Feinberg, a Washington lawyer best known for overseeing the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, will have responsibility for determining whether TARP participating companies  (and a few others) are properly paying their executives. Initially it looks like his reach will extend only to financial companies and automakers.

Is this a good idea? Many in the media think not, but not because they’re concerned about sustaining long-term performance for shareholders. They’re more concerned that Feinberg’s authority won’t be able to reel in “runaway,” “excessive,” and “irresponsible” pay programs. That is, the media want more oversight so that executives can be brought down to levels of pay deemed appropriate by the media judges.

Let’s acknowledge that pay programs in some companies are really bad. It’s not so much the size of the payments, it’s the fact that shareholders did not get appropriate returns before the execs got paid.  But strong boards have meaningful systems in place to tie executive pay to true performance metrics. And they have effective means to measure the return on all elements of their pay structure.

But now, the Federal Government (actually a single person) will oversee pay decisions.

As a taxpayer I now own a piece of these companies (or so I’ve been told). So what am I interested in? I want the best talent available to run those companies. I want people who can walk on water and leap tall buildings. I don’t want wimps in charge. How will “my companies” be able to hire the best available talent with the restrictions on pay now being imposed?

I hope the next appointment will be a “Recruiting Czar.” He or she will know how to recruit executives with great talent, commitment and drive. Of course those executives will be told their incentive plans will be subject to approval by Kenneth Feinberg. Good luck!

Share This Post
Ken Gibson
April 23rd, 2009 by Ken Gibson

Compensation and the Recession

The Seven Imperatives

Growth companies understand that economies are cyclical.  Times of surge and prosperity are countered by periods of contraction and downturn. Great companies plan accordingly. To flourish during difficult economic periods, business leaders in growth oriented companies must strategically address the role of their human capital and reward systems in meeting the challenges they face. The following Seven Imperatives should guide any business leaders thinking in such times.

1. Assess Your Talent Pool–

Know who your best people are and make sure they know what their role is in the future of your company, especially at this time.

2. Create a Pay for Performance Philosophy and Strategy–

Now is the best and most critical time to align pay with performance. This starts with identifying a philosophy that defines how the company will address rewards issues in good economic times and bad.

3. Focus on Strategy not Just Tactics–

Your long‐term vision for growth hasn’t changed just because the economy is hurting. Strategies drive growth, tactical changes manage costs.

4. Define Clear Performance Expectations–

Star performers want a clear understanding of the key results indicators they are responsible for and what their stewardship will impact.

5. Nurture an Ownership Mentality–

An ownership mindset permeates an organization when there is “line of sight” between the shareholders’ vision and strategy, the roles and expectations of key people, how those individuals are rewarded for generating those results and how well those rewards align with personal goals and objectives.

6. Build a Value Statement–

The best way for a key people to visualize their financial future with your company is to receive a statement that summarizes and projects forward the total value of that relationship if performance expectations are met–salary, short-term incentives, long-term incentives, 401(k), etc.

7. Cut Business Expenses First, Incentives Last–

Reward performers and reinforce the results you need to continue to achieve—don’t try to resolve the company’s financial woes on the backs of your best people.

Share This Post