Paying for Performance: Priority #1 - Towers Watson
-
Upload
towers-watson -
Category
Business
-
view
1.680 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Paying for Performance: Priority #1 - Towers Watson
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
Paying for Performance: Priority #1The Changing Landscape of Total Rewards
Laura Sejen and David Seitz
December 8, 2011
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 2
Getting Pay for Performance Right: A Business Imperative for Employees at All Levels
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 3
The market: Economic uncertainty continuesMerit pay remains relatively flat
U.S. Merit Budget Increases*
Year Executive Management ExemptNonexempt
SalariedNonexempt
Hourly
2008 3.7% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%
2009 3.3% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%
2010 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7%
2011P 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8%
2012F 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Salary increases still well below
2008 levels
*Data represents median merit increases. Includes participants providing no merit increases.P: Projected for 2011/F: Forecast for 2012. Source: Towers Watson Data Services.
Canada Merit Budget Increases*
Year Executive Management ProfessionalAdministrative/
Support Hourly
2008 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% 3.0%
2009 3.2% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%
2010 2.5% 2.5% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5%
2011P 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9%
2012F 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 4
The market: Economic volatility continuesShort-term incentive funding expected to drop from 2010 to 2011
After an improvement from the lows of 2007 – 2009, funding exceeded 100% last year, but is expected to drop this year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011P
Average Funding (as a Percent of Target)
91% 102% 78% 82% 88% 111% 101%
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey. P = Projected.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 5
The market: Changing conditions and working hoursEmployees are working more
65% of employers think employees have been working more hours than normal over the past three years
53% expect this to continue over the next three years This is especially true for senior managers and professionals
Employees Have Been Working More Hours Than Normal Over the Past Three
Years
Employees Will Be Expected to Work More Hours Than Normal Over the Next Three Years
Employees Have Been Using Less of Their Vacation Days or Personal Time Off Over the Past Three
YearsEmployers 65% 53% 31%Employees Senior and middle managers 57% 47% 44%
First-line supervisors and team leaders 35% 32% 27%Professional individual contributors 46% 40% 30%Administrative/clerical/manual 37% 33% 24%Exempt 50% 43% 33%Non-exempt 35% 31% 25%
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 6
Attraction drivers among broad-based employees The role of compensation
All Employees High-Potential Employees
Rank Employers Employees Rank Employers Employees
1 Base pay Job security 1 Challenging work Job security
2 Organization’s mission, vision and values
Base pay 2 Career development opportunities
Base pay
3 Organization’s reputation as a great place to work
Health care benefits 3 Organization’s mission, vision and values
Career development opportunities
4 Career development opportunities
Length of commute 4 Base pay Promotion opportunity
5 Challenging work Vacation/PTO 5 Organization’s financial performance
Health care benefits
Employers underestimate the importance of “fundamentals” to attracting employees —even top talent
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 7
Retention drivers among broad-based employeesThe role of compensation
All Employees Top Performing Employees
Rank Employers Employees Rank Employers Employees
1 Base pay Work-related stress
1 Promotion opportunity Work-related stress
2 Promotion opportunity Base pay 2 Career development opportunities
Promotion opportunity
3 Relationship w/supervisor
Promotion opportunity 3 Base pay Base pay
4 Career development opportunities
Trust/confidence in management
4 Relationship w/ supervisor
Trust/confidence in management
5 Work-related stress
Incentive pay opportunity
5 Incentive pay opportunity
Length of commute
Employers do not completely understand what would cause employees to leave —especially the best employees
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 8
Segmentation opportunity Differentiating talent management and reward programs
ProgramNot
DifferentiatedCritical-Skill Employees High-Potentials Top Performers
Base pay 34% 45% 39% 57%
Short-term incentives 47% 26% 27% 49%
Long-term incentives 53% 25% 29% 37%
Coaching or mentoring 42% 15% 55% 29%
Recognition programs 74% 9% 11% 24%
Recruiting and selection 50% 46% 23% 17%
Career pathing and planning 47% 19% 51% 32%
Employee learning and development 58% 21% 37% 27%
Leadership development 31% 16% 65% 40%
Succession management 30% 26% 65% 44%
Organizations that invest more resources on targeted groups than other groups
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey. Numbers in bold indicated differentiated strategy for identified group.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 9
Merit pay differentiation Room for improvement
Given the importance of the fundamental forms of reward, pay differentiation is one mechanism to segment high performers
Organizations are differentiating merit pay increases based on performance
What Is the Average Merit Increase as a Percentage of Salary for Each Employee Group at Your Organization:
High-Performing Organizations
Low-Performing Organizations
Employees who did not meet expectations 0.0% 0.0%
Employees who partially met expectations 1.0% 0.7%
Employees who met expectations 2.8% 2.5%
Employees who exceeded expectations 4.0% 3.1%
Employees who far exceed expectations 5.0% 4.5%
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 10
Short-term incentive differentiation Room for improvement
Organizations are differentiating short-term incentive payouts on individual employee performance relative to target funding levels —but there is still opportunity to do more
Target Funding Actual FundingEmployees who did not meet expectations 0% 0%
Employees who partially met expectations 60% 74%
Employees who met expectations 100% 100%
Employees who exceeded expectations 112% 112%
Employees who far exceed expectations 133% 128%
Differentiation* 2.2 1.7
Although organizations target payouts so that top performers will receive 120% more than employees who only partially meet expectations, they typically only get about 70% more
*The ratio of payouts to employees who far exceed expectations relative to those who partially met expectations.Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 11
Segmentation and differentiationExecution is critical
The importance of segmentation and differentiation needs to be socialized throughout the organization
Employees already recognize their organizations’ failure to execute these programs well
In the current market, employers cannot be all things to all people: achieving more meaningful differentials in increases will require that companies raise their game in terms of segmenting the workforce and executing on differentiation
Fewer than half of all employees report that high-performing employees are rewarded for their performance
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 12
Execution is criticalThe role of the manager
Managers are the front line in delivering most programs or changes Managers have limited flexibility to adjust programs and apply policies
to create a compelling employee experience Organizations are very mixed in their views on managerial
effectiveness in executing reward and talent programs
Managers Execute Program Well % of Companies That Agree
Base pay 43%
Short-term incentives 49%
Long-term incentives 32%
Sales force compensation 59%
Recognition 35%
Competencies 40%
Career management 14%
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 13
Execution is criticalMonitoring program effectiveness
Among Rewards programs, organizations are focused on monitoring STI and base pay programs, followed by sales force compensation, LTI and recognition
Formally monitoring the effectiveness of reward and talent programs supports data-driven adjustments to their design or implementation
Organization Monitors Program Implementation to Ensure Consistency with Program Objectives and Guidelines % of Companies That Agree
Base pay 72%
Short-term incentives 75%
Long-term incentives 54%
Sales force compensation 64%
Recognition 46%
Leadership development 77%
Competencies 54%
Career management 26%
Learning and development 49%
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Talent Management and Rewards Survey.
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 14
Making differentiation and segmentation more meaningful Five steps your organization can take
1. Clearly communicate your compensation philosophy to both managers and employees
2. Review rewards plan objectives and design to ensure they align with your pay-for-performance philosophy
3. Reinforce effective performance management practices — these are critical to significantly differentiating pay based on performance
4. Issue guidance on base pay increases and STI awards for specific results achieved
5. Monitor programs: Ensure managers realize desired differentiation relative to performance
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 15
Why Effective Pay-for-Performance Programs Are Critical for Senior Leaders
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 16
Pay-for-performance alignment is likely to be the issue in executive compensation in 2012
Despite the fact that 98% of companies received majority support for their pay programs in 2011 say-on-pay votes… Many compensation committees are concerned that shareholder support for
pay programs might fall below an 80% support level There is a looming concern that lawsuits may proliferate against directors
whose companies fail say-on-pay votes Forthcoming SEC rules under Dodd-Frank are likely to bring added scrutiny
to the issue Possible disconnect between corporate earnings and stock performance may
add fuel to the fire
Companies are continuing to proactively plan for year two of say-on-pay and are enhancing their processes, and not just where shareholder support was lacking or less than anticipated in 2011
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 17
Shareholder concerns about pay for performance were apparent in this year’s say-on-pay votes
37 companies failed to get majority support for their say-on-pay proposals Pay-for-performance disconnect provoked highest opposition
Key Concerns Raised by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) atCompanies that Received Majority Votes Against Say-on-Pay Proposals
Peer Group Benchmarking
Severance/CIC Arrangements
Non-Performance-Based Pay
Compensation CommitteeCommunication and Effectiveness
Pay-for-Performance Disconnect
Note: Based on Towers Watson’s review of ISS reports; categories and ratings are as designated by ISS when making vote recommendation for say-on-pay proposals.
8%
8%
13%
19%
78%
14%
60%
11%
46%
19%
51%
32%
76%
35%
3%
High Concern Medium Concern Low Concern
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 18
Mix of TDC
The total pay mix for senior executives continues to evolve toward more performance-based plans
TDC Levels
Source: Towers Watson 2011 Compensation Data Bank; median revenue = $5 billion.
Long-TermIncentive
Opportunity$4.3 million
Target Bonus$1.2 millionBase Salary$1.0 million
Median Total Direct Compensation (TDC) for CEOs
BaseSalary
Target Bonus
Long-TermIncentive Opportunity
16% 18%
66%
84%Variable PFP
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 19
Forthcoming SEC rules are likely to bring even more scrutiny
Proposed regulations under Section 953 of Dodd-Frank were expected to be published in 2011 SEC delay makes it unlikely the rules will take effect for the 2012 proxy
season Proposed rules will provide guidance on where the SEC is headed
Key issues Will a particular disclosure be mandated, such as pay compared to one-year
total shareholder return (TSR)? Will compensation “actually paid” be defined as the Total Compensation
reported in the proxy, or something else?
To prepare for this new disclosure, companies may want to perform analyses on their own approach to defining pay, performance metrics and a time frame for measuring performance
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 20
The issue could take on greater urgency if market volatility triggers a disconnect with shareholder returns
Year-to-Date Earnings Growth vs. Total Shareholder Return (S&P 500)
25th Percentile Median 75th PercentileEPS Growth 7% 21% 54% TSR -13% 1% 12%
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 21
To ensure proper design and alignment, companies need to look at pay and performance from multiple dimensions
Performance Perspective Summary
Performance Against Plan
Annual incentive plan
Long-term incentive plan
Trend Analysis
Plan payouts over time
Performance over time: incentive plan metrics
Performance over time: other relevant metrics
Alignment Analysis
Actual performance vs. market standards
Goals vs. market standards
Pay outcome vs. performance outcome
Other Considerations
Strategic achievements
Disclosure/proxy advisor concerns
Nonrecurring impacts
Overall Assessment
Favorable
Caution
Concern
Neutral
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 22
Pay/performance monitoring — A continuum of approaches
Less complex
Measure historical pay
and performance
Monitor historical incentive payouts
More complex
Relate historical
payouts to historical
performance
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 23
Analyzing historical incentive payouts — Is our variable pay plan really variable?
Company A: Low-Risk Incentive Company B: High-Risk IncentiveIncentive Payouts (% of Target)
Year Year
Incentive Payouts (% of Target)
100%
0% 0%
50%
150%
06 07 08 09 10
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
06 07 08 09 10
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 24
Another way of looking at it — Incentive payouts in relation to company financial performance
14%15%
12%
9% 8% 8%9%
15%14%
10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Annual Incentives as a Percentage of Pretax IncomeIncentive Payouts (% of Pretax Income)
Year
Year-Over-Year ChangeYear Pretax Income Incentive Pool
1 +12% +8%2 +10% +9%3 -10% +8%
01 10090302 0504 0706 08
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 25
But, conventional measurement approaches are often a mismatch
How much pay has been delivered? How has the company performed?
Pay 2008 2009 2010Performance 2008 2009 2010
A better approach compares pay actually delivered to actual performance
Some companies are now measuring historical pay and performance
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Historical Performance Future Pay Opportunity
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 26
TGT
SVU
GPS
LTD
ODP
SPLS
KSS
JCP
COST
BBY
WAG
HD
LOW
KR
SWY
CVS
SHLD
WMT
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%3 Year TSR Percentile Rank
Top
5 To
tal
Rea
lizab
le P
ay P
erce
ntile
Ran
k
Top Five Executives
ABC
XYZ
XYZ
XYZ
XYZ
XYZ
XYZ
XYZ
Some companies also look at realizable pay in comparison to relative total shareholder return (TSR)
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 27
A thoughtful process for selecting performance metrics is critical, for both annual and long-term incentives
Performance metrics used vary significantly by company size and industry
Performance Metrics in Long-Term Plans — Percent Used Overall
Source: Towers Watson 2011 CDB – LTI Database.
35%
22%18% 17%
10% 9% 8%
TSR EPS Revenue ROIC Net Income EBIT Cashflow
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 28
Key issues to consider in evaluating pay-for-performance alignment
Historical Perspective Are we prepared for the increased scrutiny? What are we doing today to measure and monitor our pay-for-performance
alignment? Are we certain that we have the correct alignment today? Are management
and the compensation committee comfortable with the process and outcomes?
How will we disclose our pay-for-performance alignment in the proxy to help shareholders understand the key links?
Looking ahead (incentive plan design perspective) Have we considered the key incentive plan design issues? Are we using the right performance measures? Do our performance targets have the appropriate degree of stretch? Is the plan leverage appropriate for our industry and historical performance
patterns?
© 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Towers Watson and Towers Watson client use only.
towerswatson.com 29
Questions?
Laura [email protected]
David [email protected]
For more information, visit our new blog atwww.towerswatson.com/newsletters/executive-pay-matters