Building Unified Financial Visions

Ken Gibson
July 15th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Measures that Matter

Many of the business leaders we work with struggle to find the right metrics for measuring acceptable growth in their companies.  In a recent article at Strategy+Business entitled “Total Shareholder Returns”, authors Ken Favaro and Greg Rotz offer some great insights in this regard.  Although the article addresses issues primarily relevant to public companies, the principles discussed have broad application.  It’s worth the read so check it out.

 Towards the end of the article, the authors make this point as it relates to managing strategy and execution towards improving Total Shareholder Returns:

 “Only two factors determine the value creation path of any company: the distinctiveness of its strategies and the execution of those strategies. We often hear statements such as, ‘A great strategy is worth nothing without great execution’ or ‘I’d rather have great execution with a mediocre strategy than the other way around.’ The reality is that strategy and execution are two sides of one coin. Is Southwest Airlines or Tesco or Wells Fargo the product of great execution or of great strategies? Yes. Both are needed to produce consistently superior shareholder returns.

What, then, will enable your company to have and sustain distinctive strategies and execution? In our experience, this achievement requires proficiency in both the formal and the informal aspects of a company’s management. On the formal side are corporate strategy, business strategies, strategic planning, resource allocation, performance management, incentive compensation, organizational design, and role of the corporate center. On the informal side are leadership behaviors, peer-to-peer networks, teaming norms and skills, nonfinancial motivators, pride, and a strong sense of the business’s purpose.”

 As it relates to VisionLink’s approach to compensation, we refer to the formal and informal aspects as the “structural” and “mindset” impact of pay decisions.  Much of what this article discusses helps identify the kind of structural issues that need to be properly defined if a strong rewards strategy is going to be tied to them.  If the structure is not properly built, it will  be difficult for employees to understand that to which they are devoting their minds and hearts, and how it will be measured.

For more help on this topic, check out our webinar recording entitled: “How Shareholders Should View Compensation.”

 

Ken Gibson
July 8th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

CEO Pay is Up! Is that Good?

Such is the question posed in the lead editorial of the July/August 2011 edition of  Harvard Business Review. It comes on the heels of a report by Equilar, an organization that tracks executive compensation, total pay packages for CEOs at S&P 500 companies.  According to its data, CEO pay rose 28% in 2010, to a median of $9 million.  This brings it back to pre-recession levels.

HBR Editor in Chief, Adi Ignatius, offers some interesting observations in response to this report.  Here, in part, is what he says:

“It’s hard to know exactly how to take this news. On the one hand, it’s a positive economic indicator of sorts, in that a CEO’s compensation tends to be linked to the company’s stock price. The markets saw a strong recovery in 2010; the S&P 500 index, for example, rose 13%. On the other hand, there’s something unsettling about this development. In the immediate wake of the financial crisis, nearly everyone agreed that we had gotten into trouble partly because tying compensation to short-term performance had enriched individuals while putting institutions—and the overall system—at risk. In an interview that begins on page 112, Disney CEO Robert Iger addresses the problem. He made $28 million last year in salary, bonus, and stock options. But Iger concedes that there is too much emphasis, in his and other CEOs’ pay packages, on short-term stock results, and he urges compensation committees to rethink their approach.”

I tend to agree with Ignatius’s thinking on this issue.  The 2010 results certainly reveal that executive pay is a kind of double-edged sword in what it reflects.  At a minimum they demonstrate that any executive pay strategy that doesn’t take a balanced approach to compensation (tempering short-term earnings capacity for key people by placing some long-term compensation at risk) can ultimately be considered “unfair” by some constituency.  Public companies have a harder time with this than private organizations, primarily because of the need to focus on quarterly results.  Meeting the expectations of the analysts is almost their sole focus. 

Both public and private companies need a compensation philosophy and strategy that is consistent with building both short and long-term value.  As I have discussed previously in these blog pages, such an approach keeps a business focused on good profits instead of bad profits.  The latter are earnings that come at the ultimate expense of both the customer and shareholders.  Good profits sustain value and multiply wealth for all stakeholders.

In our approach to compensation design, we recommend companies place a substantial amount of executive pay “at risk” through well designed incentives.  We encourage growth oriented-organizations to offer top tier employees as much as 80 to 100% of salary in incentive earning capacity.  The key is to have approximately half of that amount paid out in short-term incentives (pay for results generated in 12 months or less) and the other half in long-term incentives (pay for results generated past the one year mark, and usually three years or more later).  Salaries should be modest by market standards–usually between the 40th and 50th percentile of market pay.

Such an approach creates a truer sense of partnership between company ownership, key employees, customers and the market in general.  When each of those stakeholders’ interests are represented in the way employees are compensated, greater balance is realized and the compensation wars can subside if not be eliminated.

For more information on the role of compensation in driving shareholder value, view our webinar entitled: “Does Your Compensation Strategy Drive or Hinder Growth?”

Ken Gibson
June 29th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

5 Simple Ways to Transform Your Rewards Strategy

It’s summer and we’re all ready for simple solutions to things.  Easy meals to fix. Inexpensive ways to entertain our kids.  Fastest routes out of town for long weekends. And so on.  In that same spirit, here are a few suggestions to simplify your company’s compensation life this season and have significant impact in the process.

  1. Form a Compensation Committee. Include members of the leadership team best positioned to impact decisions related to compensation. Make sure it is headed by the CEO of the company.  Establish as its charter to treat compensation as both an investment that generates a measurable return and a strategic tool that  impacts company growth.  Establish a regular meeting schedule.
  2. Create and Publish a Rewards Philosophy Statement. You don’t have to be able to fulfill the philosophy with concrete programs yet, but it will communicate the direction you plan to go and get you moving in the right direction.  Consider having a philosophy statement that commits the company to being at somewhere between the 40th and 50th percentile in terms of guaranteed compensation (salaries) but perhaps at the 70th percentile or above in total compensation.  In other words, commit to a philosophy that will begin putting a larger amount of compensation at risk.
  3. Innumerate 4 to 5 Results Your Company is Seeking to Realize. These might be divided between short-term (12 months or less) and long-term (over 12 months).  They could be revenue or sales goals, profit or margin targets, new product development, market expansion or any number of key performance factors your company is seeking to improve.  Ask the committee to consider how, if at all, any of the present compensation strategies of the company are reinforcing those results as priorities to employees right now.
  4. Identify the Individuals or Groups Best Positioned to Impact those Results. As you examine that list, begin formulating in your mind the “type” of compensation that will best communicate to employees their role in achieving those results.  Think in terms of how much of their compensation should be tied to those outcomes and how much should be short-term versus long-term.
  5. Make a List of the Obvious Missing Pieces in Your Comp Strategy. The previous four steps should make this apparent.  For example, if you determine one of the key results you are seeking is to double revenue in the next three years, but your compensation package includes only salary and a quarterly bonus, then a long-term incentive plan is an obvious missing component at this stage.

Now, going through this exercise will not (yet) alter your overall rewards approach.  What it will do, however, is transform your thought process. And changing the way you think about pay is the first step in transforming compensation in your organization.

If you can engage in these simple steps over the course of the summer, by the fall you will be positioned to begin developing specific strategies that will bring your rewards philosophy to life and fulfill the results your company seeks to realize.  Compensation will then become a strategic tool helping to drive growth rather than an impediment to the sustained success you desire.

Here’s to a simplified summer.

For more information on this topic, view our webinar broadcast entitled “How Do I Create a Competitive Advantage with Our Compensation Programs.”

Ken Gibson
March 18th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Compensation as a Wealth Multiplier

Okay, let’s get something out of the way at the outset.   At VisionLink, we don’t consider wealth to be a dirty word. Nor do we believe that those who pursue it are somehow less noble than the rest of humanity. 

In fact, most of our client interaction is with financially successful people.  We have found that the majority of them (yes, there are exceptions) view wealth creation as a means of serving multiple “worthy” ends, expanding their ability to “make a difference” in people’s lives and to otherwise have a postive impact within their sphere of influence.    At a minimum, because some actively pursue a superior level of economic well being (wealth), many others (employees, suppliers, customers, communities and so on) are able to meet their cash flow, standard of living, security and/or wealth accumulation needs and goals. 

In short, wealth creates opportunities and options where the lack of it diminishes them. So…let’s hear it for wealth.

Given that view, we conisder our core work at VisionLink to be one of enabling business leaders to grow from being simply wealth creators to becoming wealth mulipliers.  A wealth creator is really anyone that is running a profitable business. Wealth multipliers, on the other hand, are those that are able expand both the level of economic benefit that is created and the number of people that participate in it. In simple terms, this means that not only shareholders but all stakeholders in an organization participate in the benefits of expanded value creation.

Done correctly, this is a key role that  compensation can and should play in an organization.  It is a strategic tool that a business owner or CEO should be using to create a more unified financial vision for growing the business.  If this is going to occur, the rewards strategies–especially incentives–should be constructed in a way that communicates the following to all who have a vested interest in the company’s success:

  • Growth.  We see tomorrow’s company as bigger and better than today’s.  It will be different in size and scope and influence.
  • Meaning. We recognize that you have a personal vision for the future that is bigger and better than today’s as well.  We don’t expect you to be interested in helping us fulfill our vision if we don’t help you fulfill yours.
  • Partnership.  As a result of our interdependent visions, we see you as a key partner in what we are creating. We recognize that the combined unique abilities and visions of each of our employees is what creates the unique culture that makes us successful.
  • Clarity. Because our goals are connected, we need to have a shared vision of what it means to create value.  As a result, we want you to have a clear perspective about the outcomes we must achieve and the results we need to drive to get there.
  • Value Creation.  Finally, we will adopt a rewards philosophy that communicates our commitment to share value with those who help create value.  We recognize that this commits us to a self-reinforcing cycle of growth.  The greater the value we are able to share, the more evidence we have that our shared vision has been achieved.

It is our strong view that companies that work from this core, philosophical premise find dealing with compensation issues a completely different experience.  The process of developing specific metrics and measures for a given pay plan are easier to navigate if we understand that, at the end of the day, we are simply trying to move from being mere wealth creators to becoming wealth multipliers.  When that occurs, everyone wins.

If this concept appeals to you, you should sign up today for our webinar next Tuesday entitiled: “Does Your Compensation Strategy Drive or Hinder Growth?”  I hope you can join us.

Ken Gibson
February 25th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Compensation and Creating Change

It is certainly cliche to say that change will be an ever present part of business life in the 21st century–and beyond.  However, cliche or not, many businesses haven’t surrendered to this truth enough to create a plan for managing change and finding the appropriate role of rewards in that process.  The reality is, most business leaders know how to talk about change, but don’t know how to build an integrated approach to addressing it through all levels of the organization.  And when it comes to compensation issues, these same leaders either put too much of a burden on rewards strategies to engineer the new culture they seek or they isolate the issue so completely that it can have no real measureable bearing on execution and results. 

In a recent article in Booz & Co.’s Strategy + Business Magazine entitled “Making Change Happen and Making it Stick,” authors Ashley Harshak, DeAnne Aguirre, and Anna Brown posit five key success factors to making change work in an organization.  I find this list to be in harmony with VisionLink’s philosophy about all of the elements that have to come together if any kind of purposeful, productive transformation is going to take hold in a company’s culture. Let’s look at their list and the corresponding role rewards should play in bringing about the improved outcomes you seek.

Five Key Success Factors

  1. Understand and spell out the impact of the change on people.  Good leaders know how change impacts individuals and can speak to how a course alteration or revision will affect different populations within the organization. Creating clarity around this issue and relating it to the personal visions of employees is essential to alignment.  Leadership must must also communicate how the proposed changes relate to the shared vision and values of shareholders and other stake holders.   Similarly, rewards strategies that are introduced need to be relevant to the core philosophy guiding the change; and, if the new direction impacts pay, employees need to know how the new approach will affect their cash flow, security and/or wealth accumulation opportunities.
  2. Build an emotional and rational case for change.  Most CEOs are pretty good at conveying the rationale behind the change that is being initiated.  They are less effective, however, at appealing to the emotional reasons employees should embrace a new direction. In their book Switch, the Heath brothers use the analogy of an elephant, a rider and a path to make a similar point. The rider is the rational part of our reaction to change, the elephant is our emotional core and the path is clarity about the course we need to follow.  In a compensation context, we encourage companies to make sure they build a rewards gameplan that will address both structure issues (impact on strategy, cost, productivity) and mindset issues (impact on clarity, partnership and engagement).  By doing so, they appeal to all three elements: the rider, the elephant and the path.
  3. Ensure that the entire leadership team is a role model for the change. If companies want to nurture a performance culture, they must make sure that it starts at the top.  That’s why when we speak with companies about building a pay for performance approach to rewards, we suggest it begin with leadership and cascade down from there.  Change, if it is effectively engineered, should improve a company from being merely a wealth creator to becoming a wealth mulitplier, one where it becomes clear to everyone how value is magnified then shared.  This can’t happen if leadership doesn’t hold itself accountable, and management won’t feel fully accountable unless a good portion of their pay is subject to clear performance standards. Ultimately, those performance standards need to be aligned with the new course the company needs to take.
  4. Mobilize your people to “own” and accelerate the change. Here, I quote from the authors directly: “The blunt truth is that most change initiatives are done ‘to’ employees, not implemented ‘with’ them or ‘by’ them. Although executives are pushing behavior change from the top and expecting it to cascade through the formal structure, an informal culture left to instinct and chance will likely dig in its heels.”  I can’t imagine how an organization can expect to affect meaningful change if its rewards systems and strategies make no attempt to help the workforce think more like owners.  This doesn’t mean equity needs to be shared.  It does mean, however, that how employees are paid should help them better understand what’s at “stake” and how they should think and execute as a result.
  5. Embed the change in the fabric of the organization.  In this step, leadership needs to communicate the various people-oriented elements of the change and not just the structural components.  Continuity maps are good for this–charts and explanatory material that draw clear relationships between the different parts of the change effort and the role each person has in that process.  Compensation’s role in this is to help employee’s understand the complete value proposition that is associated with the “future organization” so there is a sense of partnership about bringing about its fulfillment.  We encourage companies to construct a Value Statement for key people in particular that brings together in one place all of the elements of their pay package (salary, short-term incentive, long-term incentive, retirement plan, etc.) with a five to 10 year projection of the opportunity.  This helps cement the concept of partnership and provides real clarity about what the future holds.  Such an approach embeds a vision of “what’s coming” in the minds and hearts of the company’s human resource.  Meaningful and measurable change will not occur if this vision doesn’t take hold.

As you consider the multitude of changes your business will need to live with over the coming years, I recommend you consider these guidelines in navigating your course.  I don’t promise it will be easy, but my experience is that world class performers learn to integrate this kind of approach consistently and effectively. In the words of Machiavelli: “Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times.”

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.