• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

The Colton Group

Pathfinders for Growth

  • The Colton Group
  • Home
  • Services
    • Strategy Development and Execution
    • Change Management
    • Business Development
    • Product Commercialization
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nonprofit Services
    • Nonprofit Strategy and Execution
    • Change Management for Nonprofits
    • Nonprofit Program Launch & Execution
    • Nonprofit Revenue Strategies
    • Nonprofit Alliances and Mergers
  • Blog
  • About
    • Leadership Team
    • History
  • Strategic Wayfinders
  • Contact

Mergers & Acquisitions

November 3, 2015 By Don Springer Leave a Comment

Overcoming Bad Compensation Standards

Board-Meeting-Table-and-Chairs-300x200Is ISS, and other governance watchdogs, leading us to mediocrity and sub-par shareholder returns?

Speaking at a recent NACD North Texas event, Marc Hodak, noted compensation advisor, teacher at NYU Stern School of Business, and CEO Trust member, promised we would hear something we had never heard and he completely fulfilled that promise.

Co-sponsored by CEO Trust and UT Dallas’ Institute for Excellence in Board Governance, the well attended event provided board directors an opportunity to hear the latest compensation research set in a context of expert and candid advice.

Marc organized extensive research in the field by asking and answering the following questions:

  • What is the value of equity to managers?
  • What is the value of management equity to investors?
  • What to do about “underwater options”?
  • How should incentives be awarded?

The research findings for each were startling, especially in the context of most board room compensation discussions today.  Boards predominantly “benchmark” their compensation plans asking questions about their peers and ISS guidelines rather than asking key questions about how a plan would truly motivate revenue growth and cost improvements over the shareholders’ investment horizon.

Among the findings, companies with uncapped bonuses significantly outperform their industry peers and no research study has contradicted this.  On the other end of the “incentive curve”, thresholds have stimulated extreme behavior to cross the line at best and scandals like Enron and WorldCom at worst.  Additional research findings contradicted the standard practices of “non-performance” pay, handling underwater options, budget-based management incentive plans, and others.

Once the empirical data was established, Marc continued by providing a general framework for compensation plans that do, in fact, increase shareholder value and properly incentivize management, as well as the entire workforce.  They hinge on single metrics such as net income, earnings, or EVA, and support longevity to reinforce profit building behavior.

Marc has elsewhere written, “In a world where every dollar denied to management is thought to be a dollar more in the shareholders’ pockets, the accumulated public company compensation requirements and standards make perfect sense.  But in the real world, where costs must be intelligently traded off with retention risk and alignment, SEC requirements and ISS standards get in the way of well-intentioned boards.”

Focusing on standards at the exclusion of research data and market dynamics can lead to unproductive compensation plans.  Marc also candidly added that focusing on proxy approval can create continuing engagements with many compensation consultants as the standards ebb and flow.

As directors in attendance, we recognized a need for incentives that truly promise rewards to drive behavior for the benefit of the shareholders.  Now armed with new information, we will be wary of an advisor who merely monitors an ISS checklist for proxy support.  Instead, we will prefer a research based compensation advisor to help guide the development of a value based plan.

Share Button

Filed Under: Board Governance, Mergers & Acquisitions, Strategy Implementation

October 6, 2015 By Don Springer Leave a Comment

Pruning Your Business

Scissors cutting a cordStrategically, it is just as important to formulate what to stop doing as it is to formulate what to start doing. In Rita McGrath’s book, The End of Competitive Advantage, she argues for healthy disengagements of businesses.

It is a case of recognizing decline as soon as you can and appropriately disengaging from the business in a way that conserves resources and supports your strategic direction.

Signs of decline can easily be spotted and usually long enough before it creates a crisis. But as McGrath identifies, the measurements for decline are not the usual routine operational measurements. She lists the categories of declines as:

  • Diminishing Returns to Innovation – next generation innovations start to be smaller and smaller improvements in the user’s experience
  • Increasing Commoditization – alternatives start to be increasingly acceptable to potential customers
  • Diminishing Returns to Capital Employment – growth rates in certain portfolio offerings begin to perform below an acceptable target

Once a portfolio business becomes a candidate for shifting resources or divestiture, you have to act quickly to conserve the value as it declines. McGrath identifies three reasons a business should be removed from the corporate portfolio:

  • Capability-Offering is core – the offering is heading for obsolescence, but customers, suppliers, and the organization need to be transitioned to a new platform or service offering
  • Capability-Offering has value, but not for us – divest for reasonable prices
  • Capability-Offering is in decline – optimum pay for customer support while decreasing investment

Of course, to complicate each of these reasons and actions is the element of time. If there is relatively little time pressure, then the delineated approach can work in a deliberate fashion, but if time pressure exists, the response becomes more urgent. A migration becomes a divestiture, divesting for reasonable prices become bargain prices, and continuing support becomes transitional in an end-game.

To equip your business to prune in a healthy manner, McGrath recommends that you identify the warning signs of decline, create metrics to highlight the import, and once the decision for disengagement has been made, pick the appropriate approach in accordance with value to the business, the reason for decline, and the pressure of time.

Pruning your business is an important on-going strategic action for businesses who desire to build and exploit transient competitive advantages.

 

Share Button

Filed Under: Business Development, Mergers & Acquisitions, Strategy Analysis, Strategy Design, Strategy Implementation

Primary Sidebar

Blog Categories

  • Board Governance
  • Business Development
  • Emerging Business
  • Growth Strategy
  • Innovation
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Product Commercialization
  • Strategy Analysis
  • Strategy Design
  • Strategy Implementation

Growth Strategy

Growth Strategy

What makes a Strategy actionable?  Is Your Strategy Comprehensive?  Does … [Read More] about Growth Strategy

Recent Posts

  • Private Company Board Compensation
  • Overcoming Bad Compensation Standards
  • Can Entrepreneurship be Taught?
  • Innovation Management
  • Pruning Your Business

Copyright ©2004-2025 The Colton Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.