Posts Tagged ‘Total Rewards Strategy’

HR News Quotes Grahall: Reward Programs Lack Strategic Focus

by Edie Kingston 

No Comments | Share/Save

grahall in the news #2HR News shares information on Grahall’s recent groundbreaking study of Total Rewards Strategic Alignmen.  Link to article.

In a time when businesses MUST pay close atttention to their financials to ensure that they are maximizing sales and revenue and reducing operating expenses, attention must be paid to ensuring that their is adequate return on investment on payroll expenses.  There are many ways to accomplish this, which include development of specific competency sets, targeted talent acquisition, productivity and performance management programs, and compensation/reward plans that are targeted to reward attainment of performance metrics. 

Contradictory to this, a recent Total Rewards Strategy Alignment Study by the Grahall Research Institute shows that more often than not, rewards programs are not tied to business objectives.

Link to HR News article.

Contact Grahall or email Grahall’s Editorial Director at edie.kingston@grahall.com

Filed under: Grahall in the News



It’s Better to be on the Bus than Under It

by Edie Kingston 

3 Comments | Share/Save

expert perspective telescopeExpert Perspective from Grahall’s OmniMedia Editorial Board

The Journal’s Deal Column on June 18, 2009 titled “BofA’s Paying Bonuses to Keep Top Talent? Shocking!” the author discusses: “… the numerous pitfalls in regulating Wall Street pay. [And] the fear was that if Washington clamped down on compensation for all of Wall Street it would put the industry at a disadvantage globally. But by not regulating compensation for all of Wall Street, the Obama administration seems to be hoping that the banks that paid back TARP would follow the “best practices” the TARP banks are required to follow.”

But in the face of near overwhelming competition from overseas banks, non-TARP US banks and boutiques for the best talent, what’s a company to do to select, retain and mobilize key employees?  So far the prominent idea seems to be to pay and pay and pay.  But the question really leads us to a more important point.  That being: who are the organization’s key employees?  Who are those individuals who will really make a difference to the organization and whose contribution is critical to the organization’s success?  You can’t answer that question without understanding the organization’s business strategy.  For B of A and Citigroup, clearly a NEW business strategy is required, as the old strategy wasn’t working.  

As both taxpayers and consultants, we sincerely hope that the bonuses paid at Citi and BofA were reflective of a new strategy and intended to retain and motivate those individuals who will be, for them, the Czars of Change.

Citgroup’s CEO has announced that part of their new strategy will be to capitalize on the company’s strengths in the transaction processing arena with their Global Transaction Services unit (GTS).  “The credit crisis has indeed underscored the value of GTS’s high-margin, low-risk business, which derives its competitive edge from Citi’s global scale and technology rather than big trading bets” Says Julie Segal in an article in June’s Institutional Investor” (Read the full article.)

That commodity business might not deliver a powerful price to earning ratio increase for Citigroup’s stock, but it certainly could be the foundation on which a new a stronger Citigroup will be built.  And don’t discount B of A, with the 2008 bargain basement acquisitions of Countrywide and Merrill, they are well positioned with what will we think soon be highly valuable properties in their portfolio.  

With apologies to Joseph Schumpeter, “creative disruption” has been part of the business landscape for decades.   This time the TARP companies are in the eye of the storm.   The effect of this disruption is that a reshuffling occurs.  Those once “on top” can find themselves far down the pack as perhaps leaner and meaner competitors steal the best talent, picking them off one by one or in teams.  And we can’t blame the defectors, although while it isn’t always just money that provides adequate incentive for a move, if you can get more money for the same job somewhere else, the temptation is generally too strong to resist.

This Great Recession has impacted most if not all industries and business segments. No company that we can think of has the resources now to “just throw money” at people or problems.  Surgical approaches to compensation can help a company to select, retain and mobilize not just its best people but the people best suited to drive success in the future. 

A surgical approach requires a clear understanding of business strategy and what strategy segment the company will pursue.  For example, Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter would suggest that a company’s strategy would follow one of three lines:  Cost based (think WalMart), Differentiated (think Mercedes Benz) or Focused (a combination of cost based and differentiated).  Once the company identifies it’s general business strategy and segment, a surgical approach is highly effective. 

Grahall has been at the forefront of designing surgical compensation strategies around appropriate market attachments that create true incentives to drive desirable and risk-appropriate behavior.   Once a company had decided what organizational capabilities are the key drivers of success, it can identify the positions in the organization that are most highly valued and therefore should be staffed by top talent, who are appropriately compensated to join and stay and work in those jobs.  

We have presented this surgical approach to clients who, in the past, have worried about the impact on corporate culture, but today in most companies cost is king and culture is a distant relative.  Companies no longer have the financial resources to make all employees happy campers.  The bus for Camp Profitability has left the terminal and you are either on it or under it.  

Email Grahall’s OmniMedia Editor at edie.kingston@grahall.com

Filed under: Expert Perspective



UPDATE: Goodbye GM…. Helloooooo GM!

by Michael Dennis Graham 

1 Comment | Share/Save

Expert Perspective by Grahall’s Michael Dennis Graham

The king is dead. Long live the king.

On Monday, June 1, GM filed for bankruptcy.  The company was founded in 1908, and acquired Olds Motor Company.  Olds Motor Company produced its first automobile in 1897, which gives GM well over 100 years in the auto industry.   Throughout this period, GM survived numerous economic crises and was, at its heyday, the king – the largest U.S. corporation and the world’s largest employer. 

An Associated Press article published June 1st, quotes GM Chairman Kent Kresa’s written statement: “Today marks a new beginning for General Motors. … The board is confident that this New GM can operate successfully in the intensely competitive U.S. market and around the world.”  And that is exactly the point. 

Only time will tell if GM can design, engineer, assemble, sell and service cars that people want and can afford to buy; cars that are better than the competition. We are not “car people”.  We do not hail from generations of Americans who helped build GM into an international powerhouse, many working their way up through the ranks to the executive levels. But we have consulted with hundreds of companies in all industries and in all stages of their business cycles, and we believe, like Kresa and others, that “it’s all about the turnaround,” and how quick and successful that turnaround can be.
Continue reading “UPDATE: Goodbye GM…. Helloooooo GM!” »

Filed under: Expert Perspective



What It Really Means to Have Only a 401(k) Plan for Your Retirement

by Michael Dennis Graham 

3 Comments | Share/Save

expert perspective telescopeExpert Perspective from Grahall’s Michael Dennis Graham.

The SHRM article titled “Milestone: Most Fortune 100 Firms Offer Only 401(k)s to Salaried New Hires“, shares that for the first time more than half (that would be 55) of the Fortune 100 companies offer only 401(k) plans to newly hired salaried workers.  The only thing that surprises us about this statistic is how long it was in coming.  401(k) plans grew in popularity with employees (well, at least until account balance growth slowed, stopped and then reversed) and were popular with companies looking to avoid the balance sheet implications of pension plans.  It’s been over 25 years now since section 401(k) was added to the internal revenue code and changed the relationship between workers and organizations, ultimately giving employees responsibility for their own retirement.
Continue reading “What It Really Means to Have Only a 401(k) Plan for Your Retirement” »

Filed under: Expert Perspective



Balance is the Key in Executive Compensation

by Edie Kingston 

No Comments | Share/Save

expert perspective telescopeExpert Perspective from Gahall

In 2007, The UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM issued a report, which concluded “Corporate consultants can have a financial conflict of interest if they provide both executive compensation advice and other services to the same company… [E]xperts have recommended that corporate boards should retain a compensation consultant that performs no other work for the company.”  It further stated: “The report finds that compensation consultant conflicts of interest are widespread.” It was a big problem then and in some cases remains a problem today, but it is not the only problem that companies have with compensation consultants and the advice they provide. 
Continue reading “Balance is the Key in Executive Compensation” »

Filed under: Expert Perspective



The Root of All Evil

by Edie Kingston 

No Comments | Share/Save

Expert Perspective from Grahall

expert perspective telescopeOne sentence in particular caught our eye in an article published in “The Big Money” titled “Are Bonuses Evil?” published by Reuters on May 8, 2009, content by Martha C. White (free lance journalist).  That sentence reads: “Despite the current populist outrage, the underlying idea still makes sense: If I earn $10 million on behalf of my company, shouldn’t I get a few bites of that pie?”  In our view, this is a case of behavioral inertia that got us into the economic mess we’re in right now.  At its root is the perpetuation of a claim without any challenge of its underlying assumptions.

We would argue that the compensation for an individual should reflect the value the individual adds, not the full amount of revenue or profit that he or she takes credit for.  This amount would be the appropriate “value pie” to be divvied up.  We can think of as the amount of revenue or profit a person generates that exceeds the amount that would be produced by the cheapest reasonable alternative.  For example, in investment management, a portfolio manager’s “value pie” is most often based on his or her performance relative to a passive investment in an applicable benchmark.  Compensation for the individual should ideally be a function of that value.  This value-add, or “value pie” concept can apply to all kinds of businesses, not just financial services.  In some businesses, manufacturing perhaps, technology might be able to replace the jobholder at a very low amortized cost and deliver the same (or even better) results.  In that case, the value-add of a highly compensated individual may well be negative.
With that in mind, and in contrast to the author’s point, if employees manage to keep their jobs by fending off cheaper alternatives to their own labor, do they really deserve a few bites of the pie?  Or do they deserve to be replaced by individuals whose demands are tempered by a better understanding of the cost of alternatives to their own effort?

In another section of her article, Ms. White discusses the “glaring anomaly” of Wall Street bonuses being multiples of pay rather than fractions of pay (as is the case in most other industries).  She says: “Have those rewards gotten excessive over the years?  Maybe, but no company is going to stick its neck out and try the equivalent of unilateral disarmament by scaling back.”  Although her statement rings true for the largest financial services firms, we know of at least one case in the financial services industry where she is wrong.  In a recent article by Jason Zweig in the Wall Street Journal titled “CEOs Need to Bring Investors Along for the Ride”  he profiles Alleghany Corporation. Zweig writes: “The small, New York-based insurance holding company hasn’t awarded stock options to managers in decades, doesn’t measure its performance against a peer group when calculating incentive pay and reserves the right to claw back bonuses if results are later revised downward.” And futher adds: “What Alleghany and a few other exemplars in the world of corporate compensation do right says a lot about what the rest of corporate America does wrong.”  We are particularly proud to share that Alleghany has for many years been a client of Grahall’s own Michael Graham.  Graham has assisted Alleghany in developing its model excutive compensation structure we applaud Alleghany for their visionary approach to executive compensation.

Where do we stand on the question: “Are bonuses evil?”  Permit me to draw an analogy:  We can probably all agree that guns don’t kill people.  In fact, people kill people.  But in the wrong hands guns are lethal weapons whose use can have seriously bad consequences.  Bonuses won’t put a company or an executive in mortal danger, but still if they are poorly structured and don’t support business strategy and people strategy, they can certainly cause some serious problems in the press and with company performance. Contact us for more information.

Filed under: Expert Perspective



Developing a Club Survey

by Michael Dennis Graham 

No Comments | Share/Save

Expert Perspective by Grahall’s Claudia DeFrancisco

expert perspective telescopeA club survey can be an effective and efficient method for understanding of the compensation trends and issues.

A club survey is a survey in which the participants — the members of the club — sponsor the survey, share in the cost and are responsible for the survey’s design and administration. Club surveys focusing on rewards components and issues can be an effective tool for targeting specific labor markets and unique jobs.

Filed under: Expert Perspective



Avoid Turnover of Key Employees by Aligning your Rewards Programs with Business Goals

by Edie Kingston 

1 Comment | Share/Save

Expert Perspective from Grahall

expert perspective telescopeIn an April 12, 2009 article titled “Crisis Altering Wall St. as Stars Begin to Scatter” in The New York Times, Graham Browley and Louise Story discussed how boutique firms and foreign banks “see a rare chance to upgrade talent … by luring top minds who would not have considered moving from Goldman or Morgan Stanley in flush times.”  These “top minds” are faced with the double whammy of a 30% to 50% reduction in net worth caused by the decline in stock prices coupled with the limitations in future earnings imposed on compensation that come with the tax-payer support.  Boutique and foreign firms can structure pay packages that have great appeal to top talent. 
Continue reading “Avoid Turnover of Key Employees by Aligning your Rewards Programs with Business Goals” »

Filed under: Expert Perspective



Freddie, Fannie and AIG – It’s Just Not So Simple

by Garry Rogers 

No Comments | Share/Save

expert perspective telescopeExpert Perspective by Grahall’s Garry Rogers

In an April 4, 2009 article in the New York Times, “Big Bonuses at Fannie and Freddie Draw Fire”, Times journalist Charles Duhigg reports that
“…the two troubled companies at the heart of the nation’s mortgage market, are set to pay [7,600] employees “retention bonuses” totaling $210 million, despite [criticism and] calls from [some] lawmakers to cancel the payments.’ Duhigg further states, “Similar bonuses paid by the American International Group, which was also bailed out by taxpayers, incited fiery attacks from the White House and legislators when they were revealed last month.” 

So are these situations, one with Freddie and Fannie and the other with AIG, the same or different?  Should we permit taxpayer dollars to be used for bonus payments for any of the “bailed out” companies?  Should government stay out of it, and leave the business decisions to business leaders? 

The answers may surprise you,
Continue reading “Freddie, Fannie and AIG – It’s Just Not So Simple” »

Filed under: Expert Perspective



ALMOST Unanimously?!

by Robert Cirkiel 

1 Comment | Share/Save

expert perspective telescopeExpert Perspective by Grahall’s Robert Cirkiel

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 2009, Survey Finds Banks Aware of Pay Flaws author Stephen Fidler notes that “Banks almost unanimously agree that their compensation packages contributed to the global financial crisis but still are struggling to correct some of the flaws in their pay structures, according to a survey of financial institutions due for publication Monday.”   We are glad that ALMOST all these folks have caught up with the rest of the world.

So how did this sorry situation develop? 
Continue reading “ALMOST Unanimously?!” »

Filed under: Expert Perspective