The pace of progress is quickening as we begin this, our second in the series of our history of banking as if it occurred in one week. But, it isn’t until 7:26 on Wednesday morning that the story of American banking starts to unfold. The actual date is 1741 and the problem is tight British control over the number of coins entering the Colonies. Americans are tired of relying on crop notes and barter, and decide to start banks of their own. The predictable response is a legal roadblock. The British prohibit banking and the experience sours many American Colonists on financial institutions.
This Wednesday of our banking week closes with a very significant American event, the end of the Revolutionary War. It is 14 minutes after midnight on Thursday before Alexander Hamilton establishes a federally chartered Bank of the United States over Thomas Jefferson’s strong objections. Yet the charter of the bank runs just 20 years and by Thursday evening it is dead.
In fact, when the U.S. Government needs to borrow $11 million to buy Louisiana – in our time sequence this 1803 event takes place at 9:29 on Thursday morning – no U.S. bank has enough clout to finance the deal. Fortunately, a British institution steps up to the plate. For America, Thursday turns into a very long night filled with the nightmare of the Civil War. Yet as Friday dawns, the United States enters a promising new day. The country is unified and state banks are flourishing. Though state banks in the South had weakened or disappeared, a rebirth has begun.
It is mid-day on Friday – 11:31 a.m. – when the National Bank Act of 1863 passes. The leaders on this Friday are men of integrity like Israel Lash, who launches the First National Bank of Salem (N.C.) to serve thrift-conscious Moravians, after it becomes clear that The Bank of Cape Fear’s Salem branch (Lash’s former employer) will not be part of the revival. Late this Friday morning, Alfred Austell founds one of the oldest banks in Georgia in his home. Though the Reconstruction Act absolved Austell from any obligation to redeem his former bank’s Confederate money, Austell depleted his personal fortune to exchange this money for gold, an act of faith his former customers clearly remember. As the National Bank Act strengthens federal control over banking and currency, Austell, Lash and fellow bankers are encouraged to make new beginnings.
Over the lunch hour that Friday, it appears American banking has finally gained a stability that has been very elusive during its first two days of life. At long last the nation has a uniform currency, gained primarily by taxing state-chartered bank’s notes, rendering them of insignificant value.
On Friday – the fifth day in our banking week – the nation is charged with great creative energy. Before Friday ends, Thomas Edison produces the first commercially viable electrical lamp and George Eastman markets his first box camera. Yet as Friday – and the first five days of modern banking history – draw to a close, surprisingly little has changed in the way banks operate. The Monday morning customers of Amsterdam Wisselbank would feel comfortable in the Friday evening banks of the United States.
However, there are blips on the radar screen that predict a storm of activity. For example, when transatlantic cable is laid in the 1870s – 3:43 p.m. Friday in our time line – some bankers realize they can take advantage of small price differences in New York and London markets to profit on arbitrage. This begins a much more creative time and one that evidences strategic innovations that will ignite a tremendous leap forward in the pace of change, yet one that also will elevate that risks and develop new challenges for the industry.
We will discuss those changes over the next few weeks.
A few years ago, a well known and well respected bank CEO observed that in today’s world three years of change seem to be compacted into every six months of banking history. I hardly ever disagreed with him, but in this case I believe that his compression idea is on target but a little too conservative.
After meditating on the observation, I thought it might be interesting to try to condense the history of modern banking into a single week—a mere seven days. While daunting, I think it will depict just how much has happened in a relatively short span of time. For the next few months, follow along with me as we review the 7 short days of the week and the evolution and the rapidity of that change. In this context, banking as we know it has developed within the last hour. And, in the next few minutes, banking is almost certain to be changed beyond recognition by profound technological, economic, political and cultural changes buffeting our business. Today, it is not change, but the pace of change that is unique and creates banking challenges of a new magnitude. Creative strategy becomes a necessity, but difficult to tackle.
So, to depict how history’s pace has quickened, try to measure banking events in terms of one ordinary Monday-through-Sunday week. The first day of this week – a Monday – marks the arrival of modern banking, while the latter part of Sunday represents 2009, the 400th anniversary of modern banking. We will have just gone to bed when the first four years of the next century begins – and what a beginning! For this exercise, the first minute of Monday – 12:01 a.m. – is the year 1609. It is when the Amsterdam Wisselbank opens its doors – an excellent beginning for our modern era.
Of course, many aspects of banking predate 1609 and set the stage for our four century banking week. But the banking week we have defined is more than adequate to demonstrate the accelerating pace of change. On the Monday modern banking arrived, Shakespeare was busy writing sonnets, trade was flourishing and the merchant class was on the rise. The Amsterdam Wisselbank opens with a broad charter – to accept deposits and bills of exchange, transfer payments among customer accounts, mint coins and lend money. This institution thrives for 200 years – about 4 days in our compressed time capsule.
Throughout the wee hours of Monday morning, growing numbers of English goldsmiths who safeguard customer deposits discover that owners never demand more than a fraction of their reserves in payment. So they gain more and more confidence about using promissory notes to lend on deposits. These goldsmiths’ paper certificates serve as currency, increase the money in circulation and fuel economic expansion. One might say that their strategic vision was to enable customers to build businesses through providing credit and thereby enhancing profitability. It is now a short step to a bank check. The first check is written at about 9:00 Monday night. This 1659 check evolves from the practices of British institutions that specialize in mortgages and legal services. Adding additional products and services has already begun.
By the end of the century –2:13 p.m. Tuesday, London has become a major financial center and the Bank of England has begun to serve as a role model for central banks. Next time we will see what Tuesday evening and part of the rest of the week brings as the pace of progress is beginning to quicken.
Finding the time and resources for board and committee development is an ongoing challenge. But enhancing the effectiveness of your Compensation Committee can be done with a few key actions. This blog and ones that follow will address:
Setting a workable Committee calendar
Continuing education on executive compensation
The beginning of the year is a great time to update or set up a calendar for your Compensation Committee. Committee responsibilities and activities need to
be spelled out in advance and scheduled throughout the year to:
Balance the Committee’s workload
Allow sufficient time for review before decisions are required
Ensure that decisions are well-timed for effectiveness as well as meeting any regulatory requirements
The first step in building the calendar is listing and grouping activities. You may be surprised at how many issues need to be addressed when you write them all down. Our basic categorized list includes:
Compensation Philosophy Statement
This roadmap for guiding Committee decisions should be reviewed at least annually.
If you don’t have one, you would be surprised how helpful having written principles can be.
Market and Peer Group Review
Update the peer group for relevancy.
Gather compensation data from surveys and proxies.
Monitor performance versus peers.
Performance and Salary Review
Board/Committee review of CEO performance; and CEO review and report on other senior officers.
Committee review of CEO salary and adjust based on market/peer pay levels and executive job performance.
Committee review of CEO recommendations for other senior officers.
Annual Incentive Plan
Update plan in terms of participation, payout ranges, objectives, weights, and performance ranges.
Review performance and potential payout levels at mid-year.
Complete end-of-year review and approve payouts.
Long Term Incentive Plan (if you use stock)
Review existing grants and remaining share reserve.
Determine any need for updating plan and/or share reserve.
Determine new grant (type of grant, total shares, terms, CEO allocation).
Review and approve CEO recommendation for grants to other officers.
Compensation Risk Assessment
Conduct at least annually – ideally just after the end of the year so the Committee can look back at the prior year and plan for the year just beginning.
Determine frequency of review (we recommend an annual review; but at least every third year as a minimum).
Conduct review and recommend changes to Board.
Of course, companies participating in government programs like TARP or those who are required to report to the SEC have a number of other requirements and activities that we won’t try to cover here. Suffice it to say that these requirements are a significant expansion of the previous list.
Filling out the calendar is best done using a grid with the major categories of work down the left side of the calendar, and the months across the top. This approach allows you to schedule the items in each category in logical order as well as look at the volume of Committee work in each month.
Finally, this is a task best completed by the Committee Chair, CEO, and outside compensation consultant if you have one. You may also want your CFO and Chief Human Resources Officer involved if they interact directly with the Committee.
Boards of Directors have a difficult, but critically important job to do with CEO succession planning. If a Board selects the right person to succeed a departing CEO, shareholders, employees and regulators will be happy with the results. On the other hand, a failure with CEO succession can bring about the failure of the enterprise. If it is not THE most important thing a Board does, it is very close.
I am often asked whether a retiring CEO should be on the Search Committee. There are times when the answer is an obvious “no.” However, there are situations wherein the Board feels more comfortable with their role if they have a long-term, successful CEO heavily involved in the process. My 35 years of participation in these processes has taught me that no two companies are exactly alike, so there is no right or wrong answer to the question. To me the ideal is for both the CEO and the Board to have important, but different well-defined roles in the process.
The most productive role for a CEO in succession planning starts the day they become CEO. From the beginning, a CEO should start preparing their potential internal successors by assessing strengths and weaknesses, getting them training, development and coaching as needed while exposing them to the Board. The CEO should be sure the Board understands the efforts being made to develop successors internally and frequently share candid assessments with the Board. If this work is done properly, the Board should have a good idea of their “bench strength” in case of an emergency and when it is time for the CEO to retire.
CEO and Board work together until decision time
The role of the Board (usually with the help of a Search Committee) is to select the best candidate from inside or outside the company. If the departing CEO has done his/her job, the internal candidates should be strong contenders, given their intimate knowledge of the company and its culture. Nonetheless, today, most Boards feel like it is their fiduciary duty to look outside the company as well as inside. So, most often the Board or Committee will have some good internal and external choices. When it comes time to make a choice, a long-term, successful CEO should be available to the Board, but should take a passive role except in extenuating circumstances.
The departing CEO will justifiably favor the internal candidates, and any external candidates the CEO brought in early. However, the departing CEO is most often not going to have to live with the consequences of the selection. The CEO can still be on-call with the Board to answer technical questions about the job, but the sorting and grading of the candidates should not include the CEO unless there are strong reasons to include him or her. Sometimes, the Board will choose a successor a year or two before the departing CEO steps down, in order to give the new CEO time to learn from the departing CEO. In other situations, the departing CEO will be staying on in a Board role, which has its own issues that we will discuss in a future blog.
For now, suffice it to say that including a CEO in the final selection of their successor is fraught with issues and should be avoided unless there are compelling reasons to keep them involved to that extent. If it would help your Board to have a full discussion about this issue, call me at 919-732-2716, or click here and give me your contact information.
For years, larger companies have routinely budgeted to increase base salaries of employees by a few percent based on what everybody else is doing. Then, the annual increase is usually spread among employees based on where they are paid in their job’s policy salary range and, hopefully, based on a merit performance score. There is a good deal of logic in such a process, but it is worth rethinking given the realities of today’s labor market.
Why does an annual increase in the guaranteed base salary make sense? The fact that it is routinely done at the same time each year gives employees a sense of security and if your strategy emphasizes low risk, steady growth with retention of a stable staff, then this approach to base salary management makes sense. On the other hand, if your organization’s strategy is for more risky growth where high levels of performance can make a big difference, perhaps a different approach to base pay would make better sense.
Maybe some of the base should be shifted over time to incentive pay. Perhaps base salary reviews should be done less often with bigger increase potentials when salary increases are eventually granted. How you mix pay between the guaranteed portion and the at-risk portion is a matter of strategy and to be effective, your pay strategy must support your business strategy. We hear HR professionals worrying about the annual 2% to 4% increase having become an entitlement. However, management of companies that have had depressed revenues during the recent economic recession have little patience for any entitlement attitude. HR professionals need to think about how their office can better support the organization’s strategy. Rethinking the annual base pay increase entitlement is a good place to start.
Of course, every organization is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to managing base salaries and overall compensation. Having worked with hundreds of organizations, for-profit and not-for-profit, fast growing and declining, risk-averse and risk-tolerant, we understand the need for a custom solution. As the economy slowly improves, this is a good time to step back and question your organization’s compensation management. We would appreciate your thoughts. Please email, call or comment below.
At the end of last year we emphasized how strategic planning is critical for the survival of banks in the future, no matter how hazy the road to the future may be currently. Let’s drill down a little further.
Thinking strategically requires creative leadership—the ability to develop, sell and cultivate an idea from inception through implementation. Executives who want to lead their institutions as they build strategic plans must add varied skills to their management repertoire, especially skills as teachers and leaders.
Dynamic change is part of any good strategic plan
Strategic planning is a job that never ends. Because the environment and competition often prompt base assumptions to change, strategies need to be revisited at least every 12 to 18 months. Even if major tenets remain constant, strategic plans still should be reassessed periodically. Questions that bankers should ask themselves touch on internal attitudes as well as the outside world:
What have we done successfully?
How has the competition reacted?
What is different in our environment?
Should we continue on our current path or make changes?
Are any failures due to poor strategy or poor execution?
Obstacles to Success
The road from strategic planning to success may not be completely smooth. But, if executives are alert to common roadblocks, they can steer around them with as few serious detours as possible. For strategic planning to succeed, a CEO must view the process as an ongoing commitment and not an exercise to satisfy regulators. Strategic planning is a process, not a sheaf of paper.
Poor communication between an institution’s management and its board can present problems. If these two groups do not have a shared vision and are pulling in different directions, strategic planning has little chance of success. The secret is to engage both groups in the earliest planning sessions. Elitism also represents another common obstacle. In an elitist planning mode, a CEO and one or two top people may complete a strategic plan without involving any of the individuals who will actually execute it. This approach is fraught with peril. First, the planners fail to get input from people who often know far more than they do about operations, customer attitudes or competing products. Second, if middle-level managers do not play a role in developing strategy, they have little personal investment in its outcome.
A putting-out-the-fire management style can create other difficulties. In this case, the institution’s CEO and board may eagerly invest time in developing a strategy, but quickly lose interest when it comes to monitoring progress and overseeing implementation. As soon as the first crisis comes along, interest is diverted and planning is forgotten. A management team does not have to go through many planning-to-oblivion cycles before it loses complete faith in the process.
Strategic planning does not and cannot forecast the future. We have already acknowledged that while the road to the future is hazy, there is hope down the road. Planning cannot predict the exact time a quake might hit your institution, or the size and duration of the tremor. Accept the fact that you will make wrong decisions as well as right ones.
While strategic planning is not infallible, it will help you learn your institution’s strengths and weaknesses and how your resources can be marshaled to survive and thrive. Strategic planning strips change of its power to frighten and immobilize management. It offers executives the power and the skills to harness the energy of change as an engine of creativity.
Citi is finally getting CEO pay plans right! After losing their shareholder “say-on-pay” vote at the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, new Chairman Michael E. O’Neill, who just took over as Chairman last April, interviewed a large number of important shareholders. He was told that paying their CEO a $6 Million Incentive based on a two-year (2011 and 2012) cumulative pre-tax profit of $12 Billion, may sound like a good deal for the shareholders, but it was fraught with problems.
Incentive Pay Must Be Carefully Designed
To begin, the Company had 2010 pre-tax profit of approximately $12 Billion. So, the hurdle for earning the $6 Million was half of the actual earnings in 2010. Yes, the economy has made earnings difficult to produce, and yes, Citi is trying to overcome internal problems, but shareholders were unwilling to allow a hurdle rate that low. There were other problems with the design of the Plan.
Cumulative two-year pre-tax earnings ignores the fact that the bank could grow assets at a decreasing return on each dollar and meet the earnings hurdle while increasing their capital requirements significantly. Using volume of profit as a management performance measurement always has this inherent problem. In fact, increasing volume of profit can and often does result in lower returns on equity in banking. For that reason, shareholders can lose as management earns more, and a lose-win plan is never good.
Finally, building on the last point, there is no clear link between shareholder returns and management pay in the Plan Citi was using. A common objective of executive compensation plans is to align the interests of management with those of the shareholders. The old Citigroup, Inc. Plan did the opposite to some degree. The Board of Citigroup consists of intelligent and successful people, but they got some bad advice along the way. After Chairman O’Neill spoke with shareholders, he tasked the Board’s Compensation Committee to redesign the CEO’s Compensation Plan to address the shareholders’ concerns. He was not about to get a negative “say-on-pay” vote after his first year as Chairman.
Now, in my many years of studying and designing executive compensation plans, I have yet to see the perfect plan. It just does not exist. Business is too complex to allow for such a thing, and the need to keep the plan as simple as possible is an important constraint. Yet, the new Citigroup, Inc. Management Compensation Plan addresses shareholder concerns with an elegantly simple design.
Executives will be granted units worth a certain amount in three years if certain performance is achieved. Citigroup stock must perform in the top three-quarters of a carefully selected peer group of stocks of similar companies, and Citigroup’s Return on Average Assets over the three years must beat a hurdle equal to the previous year’s actual or there will be no units rewarded. Furthermore, if the Return on Average Assets over the three years is better than the previous year by a significant percentage, then a target number of additional units will be awarded.
This design is superior to the old design because it clearly:
aligns management’s interests with those of the shareholders and
it is tied to relative performance compared with peers as well as the Company’s strategic goals.
There are some potential draw backs to such a plan, but the new plan is so much better than the old plan, I will not spend words on the risks in this particular blog. Perhaps in the future, we can look at some of the potential flaws. In the meantime, I say congratulations to Mr. O’Neill. I may go buy some Citigroup stock!
It is never too soon to start developing a succession plan for the top executive positions in an organization. Such plans take time to develop and come to fruition. Here is a brief outline of the steps:
This step should be in process continuously. It involves determining which positions need successors and what knowledge, skills and abilities will be needed for those positions in the future to have a successful enterprise.
Development, when affordable, should start early.
This, too, is ongoing. It is the training and development of the inside candidates and the search for and recruitment of outside candidates that fit the ideal candidate profiles. This step takes time to implement…maybe years if you hope to develop talent internally.
Here you are screening, selecting and negotiating terms with the successor. Often, you will need to circle back and revisit plans and development steps if strategies change. Eventually, though, a successor must be chosen.
This is the handing off of the baton from a retiring executive to his or her successor. It is fraught with risk and should be carefully planned and
monitored. Most new employment relationships that are going to go bad will do so during the first six months while a transition is occurring.
There is a lot to do to make succession planning work. We will be happy to present an overview of the process to your executive team and/or Board at no cost
Last month we discussed the alarmingly similar events and reactions that occurred in the periods of 1988-1992 and 2008-2012. Yes, strategic planning is perhaps needed more today than at any time since the 1980’s; however, the challenges are daunting, and the road ahead has gotten hazier each day.
The road has gotten hazier
The good news is that for the banks and bankers who stick it out and survive over the next five years, the future does look bright because the very pressures bankers feel today will eventually and inevitably squeeze out lower performing banks enabling a return to rational pricing. It is going to take some time for this to occur, but the path appears set.
A wise banker said recently, “there is a long way to go, and the journey has just begun.” Well, just how long is that journey and just what is the future? The regulators have given us a peak into their minds. Here is some of their thinking:
The core deposit franchise will need to be nurtured and managed
An efficient, lean operation will be critical
Capital management will be essential
Sound strategies will be critical
Good financial skills and in-market knowledge will be required of Boards
Credit and Operational risks will be equally challenging
There are a litany of challenges and issues that will need attention for the future. But, any way you slice it, making money in a prolonged low-interest rate environment, providing a decent return to your shareholders, dealing with over reactive regulations and returning to good old-fashioned fundamentals are the underpinnings of success in the future.
Strategic planning is not a panacea, but it is critical to survival. As we stated before, good planning establishes objectives to achieve desired future results. Though it cannot forecast the future, strategic planning does attempt to look at future possibilities so decision makers can rationally choose between courses of action that involve risk. Strategic managers are proactive managers. They tackle questions of structure and focus so they are prepared long before seismic activity is sensed.
That is what some bankers thought when their institutions began to suffer the first shocks of a quake that started rattling the financial industry in the mid-1980s. These bankers figured that if they just hunkered down and minded their own business the tremors would subside.
Bank Failures Since 1979, Source: SNL Financial and FDIC Number of Failed Banks in 2012 is annualized based on 23 failures as of 5/1/12
Instead, many banks – and bankers – vanished. From 1988 to 1992, the U.S. banking industry witnessed more bank failures than ever before, especially in any comparable five year period.
The reasons were complex. Massive change hammered the industry. New banking laws and regulations altered how financial institutions could do business and increased base-line costs. For banks that were already on shaky financial footing, new capital requirements dictated cutbacks and/or injections of hard-to-find investment dollars. The debut of interstate banking intensified price-cutting campaigns to win market share, and margins began to shrink.
Sound familiar? It’s de ja vu all over again! “Same events, different time.” The earthquakes returned in 2008, and the financial world began to come undone once again.
For survivors of repeated quakes, reality has arrived. If we hope to retain our jobs and help our institutions withstand external pressures, we had better prepare for life in an earthquake zone. Strategic Planning is needed today more than any time since the 1980’s. Through strategic efforts, banks can intelligently re-engineer their institutions to gain the resilience and strength needed to absorb shocks – and even expand – in our unstable economy.
Strategic Planning is extremely challenging in this environment, since it requires looking at the future and making assumptions. Today, about the only given is that more massive change lies ahead. Yet, an outline is emerging of the future that banks will face. Over the next four or five months, we will comment on dealing with specific trends.
The plan is never finished. Strategic Planning is a process that never ends. Banks should revisit their strategies every 12 to 18 months. Bankers should ask these questions to reassess internal attitudes and the outside world:
What have we done successfully?
How has the competition reacted?
What is different in our environment?
Should we continue on current path or make changes?
Are any failures due to poor strategies or poor execution?
For strategic planning to succeed, management and the Board must view the process as an ongoing commitment—not an exercise to satisfy regulators.
Management and Board must reach consensus. Poor communication between a bank’s management and its board can present hurdles. If these two groups do not have a shared vision, strategic planning has little chance to succeed. Therefore, it is crucial to engage both groups in the planning sessions.
Many voices must speak. A CEO and one or two people may complete a strategic plan without involving any of those who execute it. The plan will be impractical, and managers will have no personal investment in its success. Banks should search for ways to let employees share in the rewards and risks inherent in the development of strategic plans. This may mean rewarding performance using bonuses or incentives, stock plans and other alternatives to pure salary.
Strategic Planning Cannot Predict the Future
Follow-through is essential. A frenetic management style can create difficulties. The CEO and board may eagerly develop a strategy, but lose interest when it comes to monitoring progress and overseeing implementation. As soon as the first crisis comes along, they forget about the planning.
Power to harness change creatively.Strategic planning cannot predict the future. You cannot predict exactly when a quake might hit your institution—or its size and duration. With strategic planning, you can make wrong decisions as well as right ones. But strategic planning will help you learn your institution’s strengths and weaknesses and discover how your resources can be marshaled to help your bank survive and thrive. Strategic planning strips change of its power to frighten and immobilize bankers. It offers executives the power to harness change creatively.
Two of the current challenges in banking are 1) Gaining Efficiencies, and 2) Utilizing Technology to improve delivery channels. Some strategies are more complicated than others in terms of how to address these two challenges. However, some are more straightforward than you might think.
Tom Brown has made an interesting appraisal of the need for a big branch network in today’s banking world: “Did you see earlier this month that, to cut costs, a couple of banks in the Midwest announced they’re shutting down some of their under-performing branches? Good for them. I’m just surprised more banks aren’t doing the same thing.One of the more pressing—and least-talked-about—issues facing the banking industry is the question of what the heck banks are going to do to contain the costs of their sprawling distribution systems, particularly their branches. Even before the passage of Dodd-Frank added new financial burdens to the industry, branch networks were set to become a serious money pit. First, alternative delivery channels, from ATMs to on-line banking, are cheaper and more convenient for customers. (The newest innovation set to go mainstream, remote deposit capture, will dispose of the final rationale for many more bank customers to ever visit their branches at all.) As it is, in-branch transactions have been declining for years. By many measures, the numbers are truly tiny. For example, the typical branch generates just 20 new demand deposit accounts per month. Yet the industry remains wildly overbuilt, thanks to the branch-building boom that took place during the middle of the last decade. Many of these newer branches (along with marginal legacy branches) are burning cash. This can’t go on forever.
The economics of bank branches vary broadly and can change depending in the level of interest rates, but a good rule of thumb is that a branch needs to have $40 million in deposits to be profitable. If that’s so, a huge number of the country’s bank branches are money losers as it is—and many more will be once interest rates start to rise from their ultra-low levels and savers pull their deposits to seek higher yields elsewhere. Some banks have done what they could to bring branch costs down—by cutting staff, for instance. But in many cases, that won’t be enough. Managements who think they can magically make their most marginal branches profitable are kidding themselves.
Yet despite the challenges branches face, the bankers I talk to seem to be dealing with the problem by basically not thinking about it. Too many apparently believe it will go away by itself. Which is why I think it’s great that Independent Bank Corp. and Old National are proactively recognizing that they have a problem, and are doing something about it. For further discussion about this issue, click here and give me your contact information on the form that pops up.
New technology (and poor prior branch-opening decisions) are making branch banking in its current form untenable. The sooner banks tackle the problem, the better.”
According to new research at Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, more than half of companies today cannot immediately name a successor for their CEO, should the need arise. Boards spend, on average, only two hours a year to discuss this topic, and less than 50% have a written document detailing the skills required for the next CEO. There are large planning and communication gaps, but we have found some helpful suggestions for boards.
If a succession plan exists, but it is intangible, companies can feel a false sense of security. Boards should draft a succession plan one to three years prior to needing one. This is so candidates can be groomed to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to handle the responsibilities of the role if and when it falls upon them. It is also important to create open and direct lines of communication between the board and potential internal candidates, while keeping the “runners up” happy, just in case.
Small companies may think they lack the time to do such planning and development, but a good process only requires a few hours up front and a steady focus over time. A little advanced planning and organizational development, when combined with an effective external search process, will offer your company the most viable pool of candidates. It’s much better than picking names out of a hat.
We have helped six bank boards through CEO transitions over the last two years, and three of the new CEOs came from inside the organization. In these cases, as you might imagine, there were succession plans in process long before the departing CEO reached retirement age. “Rising Stars” were identified and exposed to matters that might have been outside their normal roles, but that process helped to develop the next generation.
Outsiders have halos!
Each of these Boards felt that it was their fiduciary responsibility to look outside as well as inside to find the best successor available. Makes sense, but we all know that outsiders have “halos” on when the come for the interview, while inside candidates’ weaknesses are usually clearly known. The search must, therefore, be structured to balance the playing field if there are serious inside candidates. This is particularly tricky since many outside candidates are happily employed and only got involved because we sold them on the idea of an opportunity. The last thing you want to do is alert their current employers until you know that they are the chosen candidate.
This is just one of the very sensitive issues that must be resolved in a succession plan. Others include:
the amount of overlap between the two CEOs,
the structure of the Management Team’s compensation to facilitate transition,
a plan for managing communications during either a sudden transition or an orderly retirement succession, and
success planning for the first year of the new CEO’s tenure.
Every situation is different, but the list of topical issues is the same. Board’s of smaller companies tend to put off this difficult and sensitive work. No one wants to appear to be pushing the current CEO out, but developing inside talent takes a long time especially in a smaller company. We have found that engaging a Board with a review of the list of issues they need to consider helps get them focused and motivated to start the planning process. Our Firm has become deeply experienced in C-Level Succession Planning and Execution, and we are happy to educate your Board in these matters. For a complimentary presentation of the key issues they need to consider, please reply here, call Tim O’Rourke at 919-644-6962 ext. 1109 or complete the request form on our website when you click here.
Some Federal officials and others from sectors that are removed from day-to-day commerce want to blame risk takers, represented by Wall Street investment bankers, for high unemployment and frozen financial markets, and certainly risk exploded during the decade leading up to 2008. While Wall Street firms need to bear their share of the responsibility for participating in risk-run-wild, there is plenty of blame to go around, including government policies before and since the liquidity and credit crisis hit in late 2008.
It is important now to fully diagnose the reasons for our recent economic woes and pass regulation that helps identify the size and nature of systemic risk in the future. It needs to start with governmental policies, federal, state and local, that interfere with the normal market-driven risk and reward mechanisms that have controlled free enterprise from its inception. Risk rating agencies need to be truly independent in the future. Corporations must do a much better job of assessing the risks they create or support in the marketplace. In addition, American consumers need to be better educated in economics and free enterprise so that they can detect risk in offers that are too good to be true.
FDR is often quoted as saying in his first inaugural address, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” We need to remind ourselves of this wisdom in these times of frozen job markets and banks. One of the primary tenets of capitalism is “no risk, no return.” Fear of risk has things frozen. It is time to take measured risks again, not the senseless risks we saw in the mortgage funding government policies or mortgage-backed securities that could never have produced a lasting return, but reasonable risks that produce reasonable, long-term returns.
One of our greatest risks at this point in the history of our great nation and its great economy is, as FDR put it, the “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” We risk becoming so risk averse that we will never move ahead. Government needs to stop punishing and get out of the way of growth. Banks need to make loans in support of reasonable new ventures. The unemployable must learn new skills. Corporations need to expand and hire people to grow their businesses. The global market will make a comeback if we don’t let our fears of risk prevent it.
A recent headline from WorldatWork indicates the gap between CEO and CFO pay is growing farther apart. The study conducted by BDO USA, LLP indicates that CFOs average 40% of CEO pay at 600 public companies included in the study. One reason offered for the increased disparity is due to CEO pay being more commonly tied to the increase in the company’s equity, which for most public companies, increased substantially in 2010 and 2011.
While CEO’s have historically been paid at levels higher than the rest of the executive team, this recent trend of an increased gap could lead to problems. Shareholders may assume that the change in the CEO – CFO pay comparison could be a reflection of how the Compensation Committee values the relative roles of risk-taker vs. risk-controller. Let’s hope not. That led to some serious problems in the past. It is more likely that the bigger recent gap is due to the 2010 and 2011 run up in stock prices and the CEO’s larger percentage of compensation tied to stock price gains. Should the mix be so different for the two positions? A return to a more equitable internal pay structure will help avoid potential perceptions among shareholders that CFOs are not valued as much as they have been in the past.
With slowly improving economic indicators, organizations are reviewing current compensation practices. In addition to the scrutiny on executive compensation as a result of Dodd-Frank, this renewed focus on executive pay will require organizations to focus on their philosophy and implement equitable compensation plans. Compensation Committees may want to look at how relative compensation has changed over time and consider ways of optimizing compensation mix to stabilize the fluctuation in the comparisons.
In our Firm’s work with client executive teams, we have historically measured the internal pay equity of senior executives measured as a percentage of the CEO’s pay. We have significant, historically viable data showing the relative pay for all executives on the senior team as related to that of the CEO. Two critically important objectives of any company’s compensation philosophy should be to target external competitiveness and be internally equitable.
If you would like a review of your company’s current compensation practices measured against market, industry and custom peer groups, please give us a call (919-644-6962) or visit us at http://matthewsyoung.com.
The DISC style profile instrument is quick, inexpensive and impressively accurate in capturing work style preferences. Instrument is a basic 4 quadrant profiler that has been around since 1934, has been enhanced/validated several times,and is available via web. Great tool for search and selection as well as team building. The DISC is only available through a certified consultant.
I have been a certified user/provider since 1991. We use it at MYMC in our search and team building practice areas, and also supply it to clients. We train clients in interpretation/usage of the instrument, support client usage, and/or simply provide clients with a secure web-based profiling process. I have seen consultants and clients overuse and over-rely on profiling instruments – using numerous instruments in the mistaken thought that they then have all the answers. Such over reliance abuses the very process they were brought in to support, and often the participant as well by trapping him or her in a limited “box” of prescribed behaviors, while also increasing the cost. I recommend a more thoughtful and selective approach to using supportive instruments for search and team building. While valid instruments can provide insights into capabilities or preferences, they can never replace the need to talk with people. We have found that while people have preferences, they also, in the right circumstances, have a remarkable range of performance capabilities. We at MYMC try to always look at “what are we trying to accomplish” first, and then use a few (seldom more than one or two) select and targeted instruments to augment our interview and team building processes.
The right instruments can help provide insights and even a meaningful framework within which to examine how an individual fits with the requirements of a particular job, or into an existing or newly formed team. Ever have doubts about whether or not you really know that team-mate or candidate? Ever get fooled by circumstances, a clever interviewer, or a halo effect? Then try augmenting your interview, selection and or team building processes with instruments like the DISC Style Profiler.
We will be glad to assist. Call me at 919-644-6962.
The short answer is that Salary Surveys provide the necessary market data to build competitive pay structures for your organization. While there are many objectives to a properly formulated compensation strategy, the two most commonly referenced are:
Ensuring our plans are internally equitable, and
Ensuring our plans are externally competitive.
Meeting both of these criteria enables your organization to attract, retain and motivate the right numbers of the right kinds of employees. Good Salary Survey data (i.e. from competitive sources like your State Bankers’ Association’s Salary Survey) provides you with the information needed to ensure your bank’s compensation plan is competitive.
Comparing roles to Salary Survey market data is important, but it’s not the only step to creating a competitive compensation program. First, before you can tailor a compensation strategy to your organization, you should have an understanding of your organization’s compensation philosophy and strategy (How do we want to pay?).
Second, you should clearly define the key roles within your organization including current and accurate Job Descriptions for each position. Accurate job description detail facilitates the comparison of market data to how you’re currently paying your people (Pay Practices vs. Market).
Taking this information into consideration, you can build one or more salary structures, as appropriate, with grades and control points (Grade Minimum, Midpoints and Maximums) customized to our unique organization’s needs. By combining your salary structure(s) with performance management ratings, you can pay for performance delivered as well as accurately anticipate, budget and plan for total compensation costs.
Because building an effective compensation strategy is a nuanced process with varied approaches that depend on your organization’s unique priorities, Matthews, Young Consulting is offering a new Learning Lunch Compensation Webinar Series this fall to help you turn salary data into insight and ensure your organization attracts and retains the staff necessary to achieve your goals. The topics and dates are listed below:
September 7th – Using Survey Data to Value Jobs
September 13th – Building Effective Job Descriptions
September 21st – The Compensation Audit: Do your pay practices match market and your intent?
October 5th – Using Job Values to Build Salary Structures
October 19th – Principles of Merit Pay
November 2nd – Merit Pay Budgeting
All webinars will start at Noon and last for about an hour.
We’re currently discussing the topics on Twitter; send us your questions and suggestions @MatthewsYoung!
Members of the GBA, NCBA, SCBA, TBA or VBA can receive a complimentary invitation by emailing me at W.LaFontaine@MatthewsYoung.com. If you are not a member of the State Bankers Associations listed above but would like to attend the webinars, the fee is $300 per session and you can register at http://matthewsyoung.com/WebinarRegister3.htm. We look forward to working with you to craft a current, competitive and most importantly effective compensation strategy!
The Community Bank CEO of the future may be hard to find
Today’s “American Banker” had an editorial called “Chief Factor in Small-Bank Survival? It’s the Chief.” No question about it! Leadership matters and while the banking industry has always been about people, the quality of the leadership has never been as critical.
The model for success in the future for community banks is changing radically. Margins will be thinner on the traditional business of gathering funds and lending them out. Costs for doing business are rising, if for no other reason than increasing regulation. Customers are shifting banking habits requiring banks to invest more in technology-based solutions. The challenges to success will be sizable. So, what does the ideal candidate profile for the future community bank CEO look like?
I am sure we don’t yet have all of the answers to this major question, but many of the features can be seen in other industries that have gone through massive change. Retail distribution went through similar change over a couple of decades leading to the development of big-box and chain retailers taking the place of the local hardware store and clothier. Some leaders saw the change coming and innovated. Some changed the channel of distribution. Some narrowed the definition of their niche. In every case, survival depended on strategic vision, detailed knowledge of their communities and customers and the leadership abilities to take their people through the wrenching change without destroying their loyalty.
The ideal community bank CEO of the future will need to have a wide array of skills and abilities. They will need a mix of technical skills and interpersonal abilities that may be difficult to find. Technical skills to recognize and analyze risk and understand the opportunities and the limitations of technology will be key. In addition, the leadership traits of visionary strategists and change agents will be essential. The CEO of the future will also need to be able to drive a sales culture and hold people accountable for results. They will need to be a community leader and a master politician to help the local community understand why he or she demands performance and is willing to turn over staff members that may be their neighbors.
We build “Ideal Candidate Profiles” for Boards who ask us to find executives, and while every organization has its unique needs, there are certain traits that are usually needed based on the executive position. We are exploring the changes needed for the future and the community bank CEO profile is one that will change dramatically. Click the button below and register for a free presentation to your Board about the CEO of the future, or call 919-644-6962 and ask for Tim.
According to a recent WorldatWork survey of large companies, over 30% have no succession plans in place and 50% of executives say they do not have a successor for their current role. Why? They cited a number of reasons:
Not enough opportunities for employees to learn beyond their own roles (39%)
Process isn’t formalized (38%)
Not enough investment in training and development (33%)
Not actively involving employees or seeking their input (31%)
It only focuses on top executives (29%).
A lack of succession planning can lead to a lack of strategic direction and weakened financial performance, but it is hard work and Boards tend to make it a task instead of a strategy. We will be happy to share an outline of succession planning as a strategy. Just go here and request it: http://matthewsyoung.com/contact.htm
The three envelopes for succession planning
Or, you could use the three envelope approach. I learned this approach from a fellow who had just been hired as the new CEO of a large, publicly held company. The CEO who was stepping down met with him privately and presented him with three numbered envelopes. “Open these if you run up against a problem you don’t think you can solve,” he said.
Well, things went along pretty smoothly, but six months later, the net interest margin took a downturn and he was really catching a lot of heat. About at his wits’ end, he remembered the envelopes. He went to his drawer and took out the first envelope. The message read, “Blame your predecessor.” The new CEO called a press conference and tactfully laid the blame at the feet of the previous CEO. Satisfied with his comments, the press – and Wall Street – responded positively, the stock price began to pick up and the problem was soon behind him.
About a year later, the company was again experiencing a slight dip in margins, combined with serious balance sheet problems. Having learned from his previous experience, the CEO quickly opened the second envelope. The message read, “Reorganize.” This he did, and the stock price quickly rebounded.
After several consecutive profitable quarters, the company once again fell on difficult times. The CEO went to his office, closed the door and opened the third envelope. The message said, “Prepare three envelopes……….”