by Adam Hartung | Jun 13, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
If your boss told you that he enjoyed your hard work, but he wanted to cut your pay 50% I bet you would feel – well – violated. Your hard work is just that; hard work. If you received $100,000 (or $50,000 or $250,000) for that work last year it would be hard to accept receiving some fractionally lower amount for that same work next year. Especially given that every year you are able to work smarter, better and faster at what you do. Because your execution constantly improves you'd expect to receive more every year.
But in reality, it doesn't matter how hard we work. What matters is the value of that work. It's why nearly incoherent ball players and actors make millions while skillful engineers barely make 6 figures. In other words, pay inevitably ends up being the result of not only the output – it's volume and quality – but what it is worth. And that the compensation is a marketplace result – and not something we actually control – is hard for us to understand.
Every years many pundits decry "excessive" executive pay. There is ample discussion about how an executive received a boat load of money, meanwhile the company sales or profits or customer performance was less than average, or possibly even declined. Of course the executives don't think they are overpaid. They say "I worked hard, did my job, did what I thought was best and was agreed to by my Board of Directors. I did what most investors and my peers would have expected me to do. Therefore, I deserve this money – regardless of the results. I can't control markets or their many variables (like industry prices, costs of feedstock, international currency values, or the loss of a patent or other lawsuit, an industrial accident, or the development of a competitive breakthrough technology) so I can't control the results (like total revenues, or total profits or the stock prices). Therefore I deserve to be compensated for my hard work, even if things didn't work out quite like investors, customers, employees or suppliers might have liked."
This answer is hard for the detractors to accept. To them, if top management isn't responsible for results, who is? Yet, shockingly, each time this happens investment fund managers that own large stock positions will be interviewed, and they will agree the executives are doing their jobs so they should get paid based up on their title and industry – regardless the results.
An example of this behavior was reported by Crain's Chicago Business in "Tribune's $43M Bonus Plan Lambasted by Trustee." Even though Tribune Corporation's leadership, under Sam Zell, took the company from profitable to bankruptcy, and even though they've been unable to "fix" Tribune sufficiently to appease bondholders and develop a plan to remain a going concern thus exiting bankruptcy, the management team thinks it should be paid a bonus. Why? Because they are working diligently, and hard. So, even though there really are no acceptable results, they want to get paid a bonus.
We all have to realize that our company sales and profits are a result of the marketplace in which we compete, and the Success Formula we apply. The combination can produce very good results sometimes; even for a prolonged period. Newspapers had a good, long profitable run. But markets shift. When markets shift, we see that the old Success Formula must change because RESULTS deteriorate. Slow (or no, or negative) growth in revenues and/or profits and/or cash flow is a clear sign of a market shift creating a problem with the Success Formula. When this happens, rewarding EXECUTION (or hard work) is EXACTLY the WRONG thing to do! Doing more of the same will only exacerbate bad results – not fix them
What's bad for the business, in revenues/profits/cash flow, must (of necessity) be bad for the employees. Not because they are bad people. Or lazy, or incompetent, or arrogant, or any of many other bad connotations. But because the results are clearly saying that the value has eroded from the Success Formula . Usually because of a market shift (like readers and advertisers going from newspapers/print to the internet). What we MUST reward are the efforts to change the Success Formula, to get back to growing. Not hard work. As much as we'd like to say that hard work deserves money – we all know that money flows to the things we value regardless of how hard we work.
I've long been a detractor of many executives – Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee has been a frequent victim of this blog. Whitacre of GM another. Steve Ballmer at Microsoft. That the Boards of these companies compensate these leaders, and the teams they lead, is horrific. It reinforces the notion that what matters is hard work, willingness to toe the line of the old Success Formula, willingness to remain Locked-in to industry or company traditions – rather than results. Results which give independent feedback from the marketplace of the true value of the Success Formula.
Let's congratulate the Tribune Trustee. For once, more attention is being paid to results than to "hard work" or "execution." Tribune – like General Motors – needs a wholesale makeover. An entirely new team of leaders willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to define a new Success Formula. Willing to move the resources in these companies, including the employees, back into growth markets. If more Boards acted like the Tribune Trustee we'd be a lot better off because more companies would grow and maybe we'd move forward out of this recession.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
About 30 years ago Roberta Flack hit the top of the record charts (remember records anybody?) with "Killing Me Softly" – a love song. Today we have 2 examples of CEO's softly killing their shareholders, employees and investors. Definitely NOT a love song.
Sears has continued its slide, which began the day Chairman Lampert acquired the company and merged it with KMart. I blogged this was a bad idea day of announcement. Although there was much fanfare at the beginning, since day 1 Mr. Lampert has pursued an effort to Defend & Extend the outdated Sears Success Formula. And simultaneously Defend & Extend his outdated personal Success Formula based on leveraged financing and cost cutting. The result has been a dramatic reduction in Sears stores, a huge headcount reduction, lower sales per store, less merchandise available, fewer customers, empty parking lots, acres of unused real estate and horrible profits. Nothing good has happened. Nobody, not customers, suppliers or investors, have benefited from this strategy. Sears is almost irrelevant in the retail scene, a zombie most analysts are waiting to expire.
Today Crain's Chicago Business reported "Sears to Offer Diehard Power Accessories for Sale at Other Retailers." Sears results are so bad that Mr. Lampert has decided to try pushing these batteries, charges, etc. through another channel. At this late stage, all this will do is offer a few incremental initial sales – but reduce the appeal of Sears as a retailer – and eventually diminish the brand as its wide availability makes it compete head-to-head with much stronger auto battery brands like Energizer, Duralast, Optima and the heavily advertised Interstate. Sears has attempted to "milk" the Diehard brand for cash for many years, and placed in retail stores head-to-head with these other products it won't be long before Sears learns that its competitive position is weak as sales decline.
Mr. Lampert needed to "fix" Sears – not try to cut costs and drain it of cash. He needed to rebuild Sears as a viable competitor by rethinking its market position, obsessing about competitors and using Disruptions to figure out how Sears could compete with the likes of WalMart, Target, Kohl's, Home Depot, JC Penneys and other strong retailers. Now, his effort to further "milk" Diehard will quickly kill it – and make Sears an even less viable competitor.
Simultaneously, Chairperson Barnes at Sara Lee has likewise been destroying shareholder value, employee careers and supplier growth goals since taking over. During her tenure Sara Lee has sold buisinesses, cut headcount, killed almost all R&D and new product development, sold real estate and otherwise squandered away the company assets. Sara Lee is now smaller, but nobody – other than perhaps herself – has benefited from her extremely poor leadership.
As this business failure continues advancing, Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to Spend $3B on Stock Buyback." In 2009 Sara Lee announced it was continuing the dismantling of the company by selling its body-care business to
Unilever and its air-freshener products and assets to Procter & Gamble Co. for approximately $2.2 billion. As an investor you'd like to hear all that money was being reinvested in a high growth business that would earn a significant rate of return while adding to the top line for another decade. As a supplier you'd like to hear this money would strengthen the financials, and help Sara Lee to invest in new products for growth that you could support. As an employee you'd like this money to go into new projects for revenue growth that could help your personal growth and career advancement.
But, instead, Ms. Barnes will use this money to buy company stock. This does nothing but put a short-term prop under a falling valuation. Like bamboo poles holding up a badly damaged brick wall. As investors flee, because there is no growth, low rates of return and no indication of a viable future, the money will be spent to prop up the price by buying shares from these very intelligent owner escapees. After a couple of years the money will be gone, Sara Lee will be smaller, and the shares will fall to their fair market value – no longer propped up by this corporate subsidy. The only possible winner from this will be Sara Lee executives, like Ms. Barnes, who probably have incentive compensation tied to stock price — rather than something worthwhile like organic revenue growth.
Both of these very highly paid CEOs are simply killing their business. Softly and quietly, as if they are doing something intelligent. Just because they are in powerful positions does not make them right. To the contrary, this is an abuse of their positions as they squander assets, and harm the suburban Chicago communities where they are headquartered. That their Boards of Directors are approving these decisions just goes to show how ineffective Boards are at looking out for the interests of shareholders, employees and suppliers – as they ratify the decisions of their friendly Chairperson/CEOs who put them in their Board positions. The Boards of Sears and Sara Lee are demonstrating all the governance skill of the Boards at Circuit City and GM.
It's too bad. Both companies could be viable competitors. But not as long as the leadership tries to Defend & Extend outdated Success Formulas unable to produce satisfactory rates of return. Lacking serious Disruption and White Space, these two publicly traded companies remain on the road to failure.
by Adam Hartung | May 19, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lock-in
Have you ever heard of a company paying an employee to die? Hard to figure out how that's "pay for performance." Yet, many companies have executive compensation agreements with "golden coffin" provisions which agree to pay the executive's estate substantial sums in the event that executive dies. I first heard about this with the company AM International, which I profiled in my book Create Marketplace Disruption. AM International's Chairman/CEO Merle Banta had a provision in his contract which continued his pay, and guaranteed his bonus, even if he died! This was somewhat remarkable, because during the years he led AM it went bankrupt twice (the last time ending the company), and he laid off thousands of employees. It was hard for the people at AM to understand why this provision existed, since they not only lost their jobs but also their pension fund when Mr. Banta put it all into a company ESOP that went under with the company,
This still goes on today. Probably a lot more than many of us guess. Today's headline "Golden Coffin proposal narrowly defeated at XTO" covers how some shareholders tried to kill the "pay to die" provision for company executives. The Chairman received $1.63M in salary, and $30M in bonus last year – and the Golden Coffin provisions for him are worth more than $90M!!! But I ask you, do you think XTO Energy did well because of the decisions made by Chairman Bob Simpson – or because oil prices spiked to record levels having nothing to do with the management team at all?
When you get paid to hammer nails, or insert rivets, or spot weld, or wash dishes piece pay can make sense. The harder and smarter you work, the more you get done and you can make more money. This is pure pay for performance.
But does this make sense for executives, or even most managers, in a modern corporation? According to its bio, XTO energy owns oil and gas reserves (some proven, some not) under the ground. No matter what management does, the value of those reserves goes up or down with the value of oil and gas. Why should an executive be rewarded if oil jumps to $150/barrel? Sure, his company can be very profitable, but did he have anything to do with it? A 5 year chart of XTO demonstrates that the value of the company is mostly tied to the value of its commodity asset (oil), and not much else.
And the same can be said for most companies. The current value is tied to many factors, including decisions made years before, as well as shifting markets. Companies are quick to point this out when "other factors" conspire to do the value poorly, and they pay executive bonuses anyway. But when the value goes up, there's a willingness to pass along a big chunk of that value to the executives as if they caused it. In reality, about the only thing an executive can do to affect value in the short term (meaning less than 2 or 3 years) is cut R&D, cut product development, cut marketing, cut sales expenditures, outsource functionality to low cost centers, sell assets and lay off employees. Most actions which pad the short-term bottom line but each of which can fatally doom the organization's future. Compensation that's tied to short-term results reinforces doing more of the same, Defending & Extending the company's past, and ignoring needs to invest in shifting the company along with dynamic markets.
Good management keeps its eyes on markets so the company keep can keep positioning itself for growth as markets change. Good management obsesses about competitors so it isn't caught off guard by current or emerging players that drive down returns. Good management disrupts the organization so it is able to shift with markets, rather than getting stuck in behaviors and decision making processes that become outdated and unable to create value. And good management maintains White Space where new products, services, operating practices, metrics and behaviors are tested in order to keep the company evergreen. But how do you tie compensation to these behaviors?
I recently had coffee with someone who worked at AM International when it was declining. He still remembers, painfully, how executive compensation was not linked to what the company needed to do to survive. He told me how later, after AM, he was working for a large manufacturer in central Michigan and he could not believe how every Director, V.P. and other management personnel tied every decision to maximizing their bonus. Eventually, he grew tired of the self-centered behavior and he's now an entrepreneur.
If we are to believe in pay for performance, management bonuses should lag by 1 to 5 years. Bonuses should be based on results – and the results of management decisions actually come to fruition over time. They aren't like pounding nails. This sounds absurd, but we all know that the real impact of executive decisions are seen years after the decision. If CEO incentive compensation for 2009 were tied to performance in 2012 or 2013 do you think the behavior and decisions of executives would change? Would they be more likely to focus on making decision that are for the business's long term health than trying to maximize short-term pay?
Those who've won the CEO lottery have done much better than those who have not. It's very hard to say we "pay for performance" when huge bonuses are paid to the departing chairman of GM, or the CEO who quit launching new products at Motorola to maximize Razr sales. Clearly, they were not paid for performance. And it's unimaginable how paying someone to die makes any sense. When compensation on the downside is guaranteed, and on the upside is maximized by short-term actions or market events not even tied to management decisions, the whole discussion of pay for performance becomes fairly absurd.
I was always struck that the founders of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream came up with a formula that paid everyone based upon rank – and there was a set ratio between ranks. As a result, the CEO's pay could not go up unless the pay of a worker on the line went up. The inherent fairness was extremely hard to argue with. And it meant everyone did better, or worse, as markets shifted and they either shifted with them – or not. It would seem like the time has long come when we should reconsider exactly what we base pay upon. And when measuring performance is as complex, or time lagged, as management we need to rethink the entire concept. Maybe we should go back to compensating people for doing the right things, with most pay in salary, and tying people together for the long-term company interest.
