Performance management relates virtually to everything that is important to a company’s progress—execution of its strategy, the customer experience, investor expectations, executive compensation, and the board’s oversight itself. In spite of the importance of performance to a company’s success, there is very little literature on board oversight of performance management. Given the complexity of the global marketplace, the accelerating pace of disruptive change, and ever-increasing stakeholder expectations, how should the board oversee the performance management process so that it is effective in driving execution of the strategy and in its efforts to incent the desired behaviors across the organization?
In August 2017, Protiviti met with 18 active directors during a dinner roundtable at a National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) event to discuss this topic. As the ultimate champion for effective corporate governance, the board engages management with an emphasis on four broad themes: strategy, policy, execution, and transparency. With effective performance management touching each of these themes, many organizations use some variation of a balanced scorecard that integrates financial and nonfinancial measures to communicate what’s important, focus and align processes and people with strategic objectives, and monitor progress in executing the strategy.
Our discussions with the directors identified six important concepts to consider when overseeing performance management.
Return on Expectation
Performance management must embrace the appropriate metrics, given the strategy management seeks to implement and the entity’s expected investments. Alignment with strategic priorities is a challenge. As one director noted, most organizations have yet to bridge the gap between efforts to attract and retain employees and efforts to engage and align them.
The directors agreed that managing the balance between short-term and long-term performance presents particular challenges when determining executive compensation. Executives must be rewarded for performance, and long-term shareholder interests must be preserved. The prevailing view was that performance management should be linked to the storyline articulated in investor communications. However, directors should not allow stock price performance to dominate the spotlight so much that it detracts management from focusing on business fundamentals and strategic drivers.
Performance management must focus on operational excellence in the structure, or business model, in place to execute the strategy. Alignment starts with defining performance expectations, as set forth by the strategy, and communicating those expectations across the organization. Performance measures should be used to track the execution of the strategy at the organizational, process, and employee levels so that accountability for results cascades down into the organization. Tracking for these measures allows for necessary midcourse adjustments to be made on a timely basis to achieve performance targets. Metrics must be linked the reward system in a manner that ensures people are incented in the right way, consistent with the strategy. The impact of incentive compensation on behavior and risk taking should be a board priority.
With this topic sparking considerable discussion, several directors noted that while most boards assess and understand the tone at the top, they neither assess nor understand the tone in the middle. One director suggested the use of organizational health and effectiveness surveys to gauge how employees perceive the current leadership culture and compare that perception to the culture they desire. Gaps in perception revealed by such surveys almost always provide informative insights into what’s really happening in the business and what people below senior management really think. They also reveal opportunities for leadership development and improving the tone at the top and in the middle. The consensus of the group was that boards should encourage and, if necessary, push management to consider culture-related measures that make sense for the company. As one director noted, “What gets measured matters.”
The customer base should be segmented, and metrics should focus on the needs of each targeted segment. Customer experience metrics should address the distinctive attributes of the value proposition underlying why customers choose the company’s product or service over other alternatives and provide insight into what a company needs to do once issues are identified. To that end, these metrics should reach beyond nonfinancial areas and address quality, responsiveness, and other critical aspects of the brand promise, both expressed and implied. Less than half of the directors in the roundtable indicated that their top executives reported on one or more customer experience metrics. Several directors noted that when it comes to the customer experience, and even culture across the company, it is incumbent upon board members to “do some homework.” As one director put it, “Try to do your own research and be a ‘secret shopper.’”
Innovation and Resilience
Metrics should inform the organization’s focus on innovation, changes in technology and the business environment, emerging disruption, and market opportunities. The directors at the discussion dedicated a portion of the evening to innovation as a source of new revenue-generating opportunities and a driver of a positive, thriving culture. Among the key points made, the directors agreed the board should encourage consideration of innovation in the performance management process with emphasis on establishing an “innovation pipeline” with reporting on progress through the pipeline.
Monitoring for “Perfect Narratives”
When it comes to performance management, there is a risk of gaming the system. It is human nature for management to instinctively want measurements to reflect positive results. As one director noted, “Flawed stories are better than perfect ones.” It’s a positive when the performance management process identifies one or more areas requiring attention and improvement. So-called perfect narratives, a term used by the director referenced above, tend to raise questions about the rigor under which performance is measured and monitored, as well as the authenticity of the results.
These points get to the bottom of an essential question: do the CEO and executive team really want to know the unvarnished truth about the culture? The customer experience? Innovation? The effectiveness of the business model?
When executive management commits to managing by fact and earnestly seeks genuine results, the board can stand behind them with confidence when results are communicated to shareholders.
Dig into deeper insights from Protiviti by visiting their Board Perspectives piece on board oversight of performance management.
The succession work boards oversee is more complex than it once was. Oversight of the internal talent pipeline has grown beyond a narrow focus on CEO successors to include other internal and external talent. This relatively new role for the board or governance committee demands the hands-on ability to assess upper-management aptitude and readiness for the top job.
On September 21, the NACD Atlanta Chapter invited three exemplary former CEOs who serve on public boards to advise Atlanta-area directors on how to navigate this more demanding process. The panel, moderated by NACD President Peter R. Gleason, was comprised of Richard Anderson, previously CEO of Delta Airlines, and member of the Cargill and Medtronic boards; Martha Brooks, former CEO of Alcan, and director of Bombardier and Jabil Circuit; and Frank Blake, former CEO and chair of Home Depot, and currently a director at Delta Airlines.
For context, CEO turnover within the world’s largest 2,500 companies has increased in recent years, according to a 2016 study by PwC titled 2015 CEO Success that analyzed CEO turnover data from 2015 in the U.S. and around the globe. Among the study’s findings were the following data:
CEO turnover around the globe reached a record rate of 16.6 percent.
In North America, the rate of CEO turnover was 14.3 percent.
Planned turnover accounted for 10.9 percent of all turnover indicated in the study.
Force-outs were reported at 3 percent.
CEO turnover triggered by mergers and acquisitions occurred at a rate of 2.8 percent globally and in the U.S.
Looking specifically at U.S. turnover data, of all CEO turnovers, 4.4 percent were planned and 2.2 percent of the CEOs were forced out.
The traditional tactic when seeking new CEO talent has been to “go inside” for the most qualified internal candidate, but boards are now deliberately bringing in external CEO candidates. When the same PwC study compared statistics from 2004 to 2015, the percentage of outsiders hired as CEO increased from 14 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2015—a 50 percent increase in external hires in 10 years.
Hiring an outsider to serve as CEO was once seen as a last resort—something that typically only happened when a board had to force out the incumbent CEO suddenly, had failed to groom a suitable successor, or both. In recent years, however, more companies have chosen an outsider CEO, and frequently as part of a planned succession.
The stakes are higher. The process is more transparent and invites activist investors, pundits, and media to scrutinize a company’s process and its decision. Often the current CEO is left somewhat in the dark about the progress and the remaining leadership team may just not know status, which leads to uncertainty and process dysfunction.
The distinguished panel offered these nine valuable lessons learned about successfully navigating this board responsibility.
Succession must be a CEO-driven process. The panelists urged that a board place the CEO in the middle of the succession process but not as a direct party to the final decision process. They argued that the current CEO brings unique knowledge and passion for the future of the business, and that he or she wants a leadership legacy that includes a smooth and smart transition to a new CEO. The CEO also knows the internal talent pipeline better than any director, which could be an asset to the board. The panel added that with the board’s involvement and perhaps that of external resources, the risk of the “favored son” effect could be mitigated.
Succession is a full-board endeavor. Ownership of the process, knowledge of internal candidate development, insight into what could potentially derail the process, external benchmarking, and strategic issues that await the new CEO are matters for the full board to address. Committees can execute on specific tasks but the work, insight, and decision-making process related to CEO succession must be owned by the full board.
One committee member urged every board member to meet and assess final candidates against a written success and impact profile during lengthy one-on-one interviews. The panel expressed their belief that the successful candidate would develop a sound, unique relationship with each director. Panelists also perceive interviews as the gateway to relationship building and ultimately to the CEO being accepted into the board’s inner circle.
The lead director plays an integral role as mentor. The board’s succession method needs a quality control focal point, or someone who will manage group processes among directors so that the “loudest voices” around the boardroom table are not those that necessarily carry the most weight. The panel suggested that the board could task the lead director with this quality-control leadership.
Remember that the board’s loyalty belongs to the company—not the current CEO or internal candidates. The board needs and values input from the CEO and there may be internal candidates who are highly regarded. But decisions must be based single-mindedly upon duty-of-care philosophies—the company’s future.
Competition among internal candidates must be monitored and managed by the CEO and board. Internal candidates should be explicitly informed or they are likely to figure out whether or not they are a candidate for the CEO role. With that information or suspicion, a competitive “horse race” may begin and performance may peak. There is also the inevitable dysfunction that can occur between the contenders as well as their organizations as they “bid up” their candidacy. CEOs and lead directors may intervene to manage negative behavior, and reinforce that senior-level performance is a collective effort. Compensation schemes for these candidates should be aligned in the spirit that “we all row the boat together.”
Get a written exit report from the outgoing CEO. Have the CEO personally develop a lengthy perspective about the future focus of the business and the CEO’s most critical areas of personal attention. Develop an “issues list” of those matters that the new CEO will likely bump into in the market, inside the company, and with regulators. Ensure the list is heavy on issues and light on recommendations. Finally, ask the outgoing CEO to list what strategic items and enabling matters must be done by the incoming CEO.
Develop a plan for easing out a reluctant CEO. The chair or lead director must have a “personal legacy” discussion with the CEO, and the CEO will inevitably get the message that it’s time to transition, and yet the panel emphasized that this should be a clear—not a nuanced—discussion. Have a plan for how and when the cord will be cut and communicate that plan clearly.
Define how unsuccessful transition candidates will be treated. If these executives can see a good path forward, embrace them. If not, help them leave, and do so quickly.
With a C-suite succession event, corporate strategy is likely to change. The board should endeavor to ensure that a sound corporate culture makes it through the transition.