Upcoming Forums:

BirdsEye View

We spend millions of dollars each year giving our employees and executives incentives for sales, overall performance, efficiencies… And yet, many of the dollars do not bear a strong return on the investment.  I've been asked recently to identify the underpinnings of a solid incentive plan.  In fact, the topic never gets off the "hot" list.  Below are my thoughts regarding the appropriate principles to utilize as you structure your incentives.  Even in the wake of the Wells Fargo fiasco, incentives are important to motivate front-line employees.  Instead of discontinuing them altogether, structure your incentive plans in such a way as to not incentivize bad behaviors, however.

Simple

Our incentives are too complex.  We refuse to exclude even minor elements and dilute incentives by including too many parameters, each of which stands for a few hundred dollars of incentives and, therefore, is marginalized.  We also want to make absolutely sure that no one will get paid inappropriately, so we bind the plan with countless rules.  As a result, the plan becomes so complex that folks don't know EXCATLY what they have to do to earn a SPECIFIC amount of money.  In such situations, incentives cease to be motivational; instead, they become after-the-fact recognition.

Controllable

Incentives that include components not under the employee's control are not only ineffective in motivating behavior, they are DE-motivating.  I know you want your employees to be mindful of all aspects of bank performance, but if they can't control occupancy expense, holding company overhead etc., why saddle them with that item?  It seems arbitrary to the employee and typically does not inspire attention or improved performance.

Focused

Many incentive plans have too many elements to them.  Management doesn't want to detract attention from too many performance indicators, and, consequently, detracts attention from ALL, since employees do not believe they can succeed on so many fronts.  Further, too many items end up with 5-10% of the total incentive dollars at stake, and so they get marginalized.  You'd be better served by focusing on what really matters and allocating meaningful dollars against each of these 3-4 key indicators.  It's management's responsibility to figure out what those indicators are.  Often, a solid leading indicator can ensure the accomplishment of several lagging indicators, which facilitates both employee engagement and shareholder returns.  For example, if you goal the number of "quads" (sales of 4+ products to a single household) sold per banker, you will inevitably get meaningful growth in your debit cards and other simple retail products.  Therefore, you don't have to goal debit card sales; the quad goal will take care of that.  Last, product-agnostic incentives are consistent with “doing the right thing” for customers, an important principal for all community banks, and especially so after Wells Fargo.

Trackable

All incentivized employees must be able to check at any moment in time where they are relative to goal and to being "in the money".  There is huge motivational value in this very knowledge, since employees can then manage their own activities toward achieving the goal and the incentive associated with it. 

Stable

Changing incentive plans and goals too often distracts the sales force.  Inconsistent direction takes the wind out of the people's sails, as they run with all their might in one direction, and then cut mid-stride to change course.  Zig-zagging isn't as effective as a straight line.  Change is inevitable and necessary, but if it occurs too often, it dilutes the power of incentives and casts doubt upon management's judgment.

Well-funded

Everyone acknowledges that incentives are powerful, but funding them is an eternal challenge.  I believe it's better not to pay incentives than to pay puny amounts that won't make a difference in the employee's pocketbook.  So, especially in today's world, where do you find the money to adequately fund incentive plans?  I recommend a simple formula that has worked for me:  out of every $1 that the shareholder makes, take 7 cents and allocate them toward incentives.  This way, the shareholders are assured a fair distribution of the profits generated by the employees, and so are the employees themselves.  Plus, your CFO will be less concerned about over-paying.

A rock in many a CFO's shoe, though, is paying multiple times for each sale.  In theory, one can squander the entire profit from a sale by paying the teller, banker, commercial banker and possibly the cash management rep for the very same referral and sale.  Using the formula above eliminates this concern, and also facilitates de-layering of incentive plans, something most of us do routinely.