Who’s innovating? Why is it important to stay focused on innovation? How are companies doing it in today’s economy?

Check out Business Week’s story on the 50 Most Innovative Companies and don’t miss the side bar on the 25 most innovative companies you’ve probably never heard of.

A second innovation commentary comes from consultant Peter Bregman who offers up and interesting perspective on why it’s better to be David in this economy than Goliath.

Finally, what’s happening in compensation these days aside from Wall Street bankers with dubious bonuses?

Here’s the information for those of you wondering what CEOs are earning or whether it’s worth going for an MBA.

Image credit: MykReeve on flickr

Who’s innovating? Why is it important to stay focused on innovation? How are companies doing it in today’s economy? Check out Business Week’s story on the 50 Most Innovative Companies and don’t miss the side bar on the 25 most innovative companies you’ve probably never heard about.

A second innovation commentary comes from consultant Peter Bregman who offers up and interesting perspective on why It’s better to be David in this economy than Goliath.

What’s happening in compensation these days aside from Wall Street bankers with dubious bonuses? Here’s the information for those of you wondering what CEOs are earning or whether it’s worth going for MBA.

That’s it for this week. Have a wonderful weekend and keep your eye on the innovation ball—that’s really what pays.

Image credit: MykReeve on flickr

Now learn about sneaky recruiting

Image credit YouTube

In a post last week I asked for opinions on the ideas presented in a series of articles in Business Week on managing smarter but especially one that claims that “treating top performers the same as weaker ones is ‘strategic suicide'” and said I would add my thoughts in a future post.

Bob Foster left two interesting comments (well worth your time to click over and read). Regarding pay for performance he tells the story of a company where everybody from the CEO down all quit.

“Taking on the task to salvage the company, I hired new people that met unusual qualifications: they had to be qualified for the job they were applying for; they had to be unemployed and available immediately; they had to work at sub-standard wages; they had to work while knowing the company could close at any minute; and they had to work without supervision. The team that came together produced a highly successful company, and it was not because of high pay, or performance bonuses (there were none). The team stayed together, and performed, because of mutual respect, trust, appreciation, and consideration—people were ‘valued.’ To me, this is the truest form of ‘pay for performance.'”

I agree that trust was one of the key ingredients in what Bob accomplished, but it wasn’t the only one—or maybe I should say that it needs to be based on fairness and honesty.

Bob says the pay was ‘sub-standard’, but I assume that it was universally sub-standard relative to position and experience. If he had chosen to pay part of the team, say 10% more than their peers, the team wouldn’t have coalesced.

And that is exactly why I disagree with the idea of paying top performers, AKA stars, big sign-on bonuses or higher salaries than their peers.

• Based on my own experience, 98% of star performers become stars as a function of their management and the ecosystem in which they perform. Change the management, culture or any other parts that comprise that ecosystem and the star may not survive.

• Just as a chain is as strong as its weakest link there is no star in any sport, business, media, etc., who can win with a team that is subject to constant turnover and low morale.

Consider this common example.

Two people are hired at the same time with the same background, same GP0 and similar work experience, but with the one exception. One graduated from a ‘name’ school and the other from a community college. Starting salary is $50K, but the manager adds a 20% premium to the first candidate’s offer on the basis that she must be better to have gone to that school.

Neither candidate lived up to their potential because the manager made poor choices. In doing so he set both up to fail but for different reasons; one thought she had it made and the other that he was low value.

Merit bonuses fairly given for effort above and beyond acceptable performance levels make sense as long as they don’t come at the cost of developing new talent.

But one problem with ‘pay for performance’ is the pay often comes before the performance, but there are others and I’ll discuss them more Thursday. In the meantime, here are links to five posts from 2006 that give more detail on the trouble with stars.

Stars—they’re in your MAP

More about stars and MAP

Rejects or stars?

Star compensation

Retaining Stars

Image credit: sxc.hu

I’m no happier about the AIG and other bonuses paid to screwed up Wall Street banks, but I’m not sure why any of us are surprised.

“In the largest 25 corporate bankruptcies between 1999 and 2002, while hundreds of billions of dollars of investor wealth and over 100,000 jobs disappeared, the Financial Times found the “barons of bankruptcy” made off with $3.3 billion.”

Giant compensation packages, guaranteed bonuses and platinum parachutes are excused by Boards and executives as necessary to attract the “best and brightest,” but here’s what’s really going on.

The ‘names’ demands outsize compensation/stock options/guaranteed bonus/etc. in order to validate their ‘brand’.

Those responsible for hiring not only meet the demands, but even exceed them in an effort to attain or sustain the company’s reputation as a better home for ‘stars’—the more stars you have the greater the bragging rights— mine’s bigger than yours in high school locker room talk.

Now let’s consider the folly of this attitude.

Those hiring often seek a name brand in the mistaken belief that the brand comes with a warranty that guarantees good results.

But no matter who you hire you’re actually paying for their past performance, which is always influenced by

• circumstances—boss and company positioning in its market and industry
• environment—culture and colleagues;

and let us not forget that minor factor

• the economy.

The hiring mindset is that everything the brand accomplished was done in a total vacuum and dependant only on the brand’s own actions, therefore changing every single surrounding factor will have no impact on performance.

Put like that it sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it.

This is one of the prime reasons that so many CEOs bring their ‘own team’ over when they move, as do managers all the way down the food chain—they know they didn’t do it alone.

CEOs aren’t like movie and rock stars whose very names draw consumers into spending money—nobody ever bought a product from GE because Jack Welch was CEO, nor do they carry Jobs iPods—so why pay them that way?

Moreover, assuming that performance occurring during an expansion is a valid yardstick for performance in general, let alone a downturn, is sheer idiocy.

You have only to remember the difficulties faced by people whose management skills were honed between 1991 and 2000, the longest expansion in our history. When the recession hit in March of 2001 they had no experience whatsoever of how to drive revenue or manage in a down economy.

That recession and the previous one in 1990 lasted only 8 months each. The longest recession we’ve had was 2 years, January-July 1980 and July 1981-November 1982, and that one had a 12 month break in it. This means there are a very small number of managers with any actual experience managing in anything even close to what’s happening now.

The current recession officially started in December 2007, so it’s already 15 months old and the end isn’t in sight.

What experience makes these folks the ‘best and brightest’ for today’s world?

Just what the hell are companies still guaranteeing oversized compensation and exorbitant exit packages when now is definitely the time to pay for future performance—no guarantees.

Image credit: flickr

Image credit: bluegum CC license

One of the things that RampUp does for its startup clients is help implement our unique approach to awarding stock options. The original methodology was conceived by RampUp’s angel Al Negrin for his own startups and we’re currently in the process of turning the consulting service into a software program called Option Sanity™.

Among all the neat things that Option Sanity™ does is track award dates and provide an audit trail that discourages backdating.

It also provides the intelligence necessary to avoid the level of idiocy present in TeleTech Holdings’ restatement of 12 years’ worth of financials dating back to 1996.

Yup, 12 years of misdated stock options, but no misconduct!

“If we eliminate misconduct, we find ourselves in the land of cluelessness, sloppiness and ineptitude… There were other goofy mistakes, like recording option grants for folks who were no longer on the payroll…And the firm’s options accounting treated some consultants like employees.

As in many of these options messes, the compensation committee’s use of “unanimous written consents” instead of real meetings (and befuddlement over who had authority to make grants) led to massive confusion about the dates on which options were officially granted. The investigators had to reconstruct the circumstances behind every grant to figure out the “appropriate” date (and hence the real exercise price) for each one. The company admits that some dates “could not be determined with certainty.”

All of which goes to prove Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

What do you think?

Image credit: Sameen

A post on Yielding Wealth asking readers how they defined ‘wealthy’ reminded me of a post I wrote year ago about executive pay, which included having your taxes paid on various perks, and even on compensation.

But the “golden coffins” being made public due to a rule change 18 months ago really blow me away.

This isn’t about life insurance; it’s about really big bucks if they happen to die while still in office. How big?

“Eugene Isenberg, the 78-year-old chief executive of Nabors Industries Ltd… If Mr. Isenberg died tomorrow, Nabors would owe his estate a “severance” payment of at least $263.6 million, company filings show. That’s more than the first-quarter earnings at the Houston oil-service company.”

At 78 there’s a good chance he’ll collect, too.

And then there’s the death-related non-compete clause.

“The CEO of Shaw Group Inc. is in line to be paid $17 million for not competing with the engineering and construction company after he dies.”

We all know that the pay-for-performance principle often doesn’t hold true, but death benefits have to be the ultimate nose-thumbing on that subject.

Shareholders are in revolt and have forced Comcast to scrap its plan to pay the 88-year-old chairman of its executive committee his $2 million annual salary for five years after his death.

In addition to hard cash, stock options are subject to accelerated (read: immediate) vesting resulting in yet more money upon death.

Certainly sounds like a good motive for a murder mystery—unless you’re a shareholder.

Read the article and you tell me, are death benefits fair?

Image credit: dbking

Does one really have to be an accountant, lawyer, minister or whatever expert in order to recognize when something is likely illegal or, at the least, unethical?

“That’s not my area of expertise” is the excuse du jour on most of the financial games being played—especially option backdating.

I find it very amusing when I hear high-powered corporate CEOs explaining that they don’t have the financial or legal savvy to understand that backdating is a no-no.

In one high profile case dating back to 2006 involves Dr. William McGuire, former CEO of UnitedHealth Group, who “…relied on others to assess the legality and appropriateness of backdated stock options granted to top executives and new hires. As such, all allegations against him in a shareholder’s lawsuit should be dropped.”

I love this part, “Dr. McGuire has no formal training or degrees in finance, accounting or law,” the brief states. “His only professional training is as a medical doctor with a specialty in pulmonology.”

Maybe no formal training, but please! There’s no way he was hired to run one of the largest health-care companies in the country without good business knowledge and skills.

No formal training, but didn’t he read or listen to the news? The backdating went on for 12 years and there certainly were news stories of other companies that got in trouble doing it during that time. The cost? $1.56 billion downward restatement of earnings.

But it’s the Cablevision case that really cracks me up.

“Cablevision had awarded 400,000 stock options to a deceased vice chairman, while making it appear as though the options had been granted prior to his 1999 death.”

Cablevision just settled, “…terms of the settlement agreement, certain present and former Cablevision directors and execs will pay Cablevision $24.4 million, while Cablevision’s liability insurer will kick in another $10 million. Cablevision has also agreed to adopt a number of corporate governance changes relating to stock-based compensation awards.”

Who said that greed ends with death?

(To learn why I chose this picture just click it and read.)

Heard any good corporate greed stories lately?

Image credit:a_kartha

Speaking (Tuesday) of corporate culture, one of the most important fundamentals of good corporate culture is fairness—especially in compensation.

Salary differences should be based on factual points, not charm, politics, or managerial whim.

So, how do you draw the lines to achieve fairness?

Number one with most people is peer relativity.

The people working in a small local company don’t compare their compensation to those working in a Fortune 500, nor to their bosses. They compare it to their peers, i.e., people with a similar job, background, title, company, industry and location.

Further, smart compensation policy recognizes that not everyone with the same title deserves the same compensation.

Fairness is also dependent on honesty. Over the years companies have adopted policies saying that compensation was confidential and not to be discussed; managers make candidates offers and tell them not to share it with their new colleagues—amazingly, they not only believe that it will stay private, but they’re shocked when it doesn’t.

They shouldn’t be—telling people ‘not to tell’ is like waving a red flag at a bull, it sets up the assumption that ‘there’s something going on’.

Want practical advice on structuring a fair compensation plan? We’ll do that tomorrow.

Are your compensation plans fair?