The family business and its cast of characters

Last month we began a series on family businesses and the ways in which they are unique. We took a look at the problems that can surface when roles taken within the family unit contrast or sometimes trespass on those assumed within the business structure.

This month, we’ll break things down further by exploring the perspectives brought to a family business by its “actors” – whether in a leading role, a supporting cast member or working behind the scenes.

First up, a family member who is an employee but not an owner. Conflict could arise if someone in this category starts to feel a sense of inequality with family members who have ownership and therefore are in decision-making positions. They may feel left out and even resentful if not asked to participate in decisions that affect the company’s bottom line. It’s not always the case, but typically family members employed by a family business generally expect to be treated differently from non-family members.

For the family member who is an employee and an owner, things can sometimes become quite challenging. This individual is typically the founder or chief executive of the business and as such must be able to successfully oversee the business while deal with concerns of family and non-family employees.

Normally falling within the category of family member who is an owner but not an employee are siblings and retired relatives whose major concern is the income provided by the business. They may be resistant to certain business decisions if they feel their financial security could be adversely affected, even for the short haul.

They may seem like bit players, but a family member who is neither an employee nor an owner can place great pressure on a family business. Typically falling into this category are children who may resent the amount of time a parent spends at the business. In-laws are also cast in this role. For example, a son-in-law could play a pivotal role in a family business without being directly involved as confidant to his wife, who is an owner.

Non-family members who are an employee but not an owner may find themselves dealing with issues of nepotism and coalition building and the effects of family conflicts played out within the workplace.

And there are non-family members as employee and owner. Stock option plans have made this category more commonplace among family businesses, particularly if the ultimate goal is to select a non-family member as successor. Employees who share part ownership want to be treated like owners, a concept that could prove difficult for family members/owners to understand and more importantly, accept.

Regardless of its origin, when conflict occurs in a family business, it can characteristically be traced to a disparity in the goals of the individuals, the family or the business. One essential mechanism to both define and align family and business goals is through strategic planning – in essence a mission statement for both the business and the family that allows each element to complement the other.

Next month we’ll zero in on business strategic planning and its critical function in formulating the policies and procedures of a successful family business.

About our Benefits Installment Author: James E. (Jim) Moniz, CEO of Northeast VisionLink, a Massachusetts firm that specializes in structuring executive compensation. James E. Moniz is a national speaker on the topic of wealth management and on executive compensation. Jim Moniz will be presenting at this years SHRM conference in Phoenx, be sure to check out our presentation: “Creating and Sustaining a Competitive Advantage, The Role and Impact of Effective Compensation and Rewards Strategies”

I’m paying out $1 million in bonuses for my top five people – what’s in it for me?

October Benefits Installment by Jim Moniz:

When Jack Welsh left GE, he received – and by the way continues to enjoy – a retirement benefit valued at about $ million a year, plus perks. Lots of press attention and much controversy followed, but the reality is Welch’s package amounted to less than 3/100s of 1% of the shareholder value that was created while he was at GE. In fact, his total compensation during Welch’s entire time at the company was less than 2/10ths of 1% of the value created.

OK so what’s my point? The Welch example illustrates a fundamental premise in examining the value of compensation. If you juxtapose Welch’s compensation arrangement with GE’s results during his tenure there, it hardly seems exorbitant…that’s because his “rewards” are being evaluated in the context of the bottom line. While the numbers may not be as dramatic in your business, the same premise and principles still apply. Compensation should drive and be tied to results that are quantifiable and measurable.

Here’s the big question – what are you getting right now for what you’re paying out? You’re getting the current result, whatever that may be. But if the results you achieve this year are not measurably different than what you had last year, what are you going to do next year to drive a different performance level? And how will pay differ in regards to these changes? Growth implies different results and by extension the strategies you’ve used to get current results can’t be the same in the future if a different result is desired or expected. Because compensation is one of the strategic tools in a business’ arsenal to affect change, companies looking to develop different performance results can’t expect to achieve forward motion if their rewards programs don’t match up to their goals.

Let’s break it down a little. If your company sets its target on growing net income by 20% per year over the next three years, you need to ask yourself a few important questions. What part of our compensation and rewards plan communicates that goal to employees? If we achieve or exceed that number how much are we willing to share? Who will get their fair share and then some if we meet our financial targets? To what extent will key employees’ participation fuel this desired growth? In other words, what comes first – growth or employees that are motivated by incentives to create growth?

For growth to occur sustained performance must be achieved…and since these results are largely a function of your key employees, compensation becomes a focus. As a business owner you have to determine the right mix of compensation components. These elements should include a strategic mix of core benefits, executive benefits, qualified retirement plans, supplemental retirement plans, salary, short-term incentives, long-term incentives and long-term equity incentives.

Ultimately the proverbial “rubber meets the road” when a rewards plan prompts employees to rise to a higher level of performance. For rewards to be effective they have to create increased focus on the part of participating employees – this focus is a direct result not only of financial reward, but also of a positive work environment and the path that you, as company owner, have drawn for their personal and professional development. Remember, money may be motivating, but so is an atmosphere where a culture of confidence exists.

At the end of the day, compensation can only do its part in changing results within an organization if the model and the compensation plan are understood and valued, results are achievable, and if employees are committed and feel a sense of ownership.

Results must also be concrete and measurable and communicated regularly. If these elements fall into place you will know that you’re paying your key people appropriately and you will also know what you’re getting in return.

About our Benefits Installment Author:

James E. (Jim) Moniz, CEO of Northeast VisionLink, a Massachusetts firm that specializes in structuring executive compensation. James E. Moniz is a national speaker on the topic of wealth management and on executive compensation.

Jim Moniz will be presenting at this years SHRM conference in Phoenx, be sure to check out our presentation: “Creating and Sustaining a Competitive Advantage, The Role and Impact of Effective Compensation and Rewards Strategies”

New Tricks

It's a cooling economy... sort of. It would be a stretch (though it's made everyday) to claim economic hardship across every industry. With these “troubled times” comes a series of booms and busts.

HR Vendors are booming. Why?

Employees are expensive (everybody knows that). But it is estimated that a new hire can cost around $5,000 in time and money spent. That's quite a bit of money and a lot of companies have decided that, given the way things look (with the fed estimating a stabilization of the markets sometime in the middle of 2009) they no longer want to throw that kind of cash around on straight gambles.

So, the old selection methods learn new tricks. Metrics and quantifiable analysis made possible by on-line reference checking systems (external 360's and the like) shave the “time spent” column down a hair while revamped internal performance assessments, employee and organizational engagement / climate assessments help manage, benchmark and improve existing “human capital investments”.

Firms are starting to see these methods not as new-fangled “techie” approaches, but as smart, cost conscious and effective reinvestments in their capital assets. The picture doesn't even have to look that sterile. When employers are viewed as caring about their employees, they are viewed as caring about their business just like when they take time to wash the windows and cut the grass, do the books, and send out their PR announcements.

How does your company reduce turnover, improve employee engagement, streamline performance reviews, etc.? To put it another way, what are your “new tricks”?