When is a Bonus not a Bonus?

And yet, you don’t think me ill-used, when I pay a day’s wages for no work.” That statement by Ebenezer Scrooge to Bob Cratchett in 1843 recognized the then relatively new custom of letting wage-earners have a day off for Christmas without docking their pay. One hundred and seventy years later, business owners aren’t just expected to pay for a day of leisure. Now we have the tradition of the “holiday bonus,” where employees are given additional money beyond their salaries at the end of each year.

As we enter the annual Holiday Season, the advisory groups we operate as The Alternative Board® always bring up the question of how to bonus at year-end. Not giving anything is nearly unthinkable, although it has occurred more often with the economic challenges of the last few years. Should the Holiday Bonus be tied to some performance measure, or is it strictly a sign of the owner’s largesse towards his or her employees?

The first known use of the word bonus was in 1773. It’s defined as “Something more than is expected or strictly due.” But what is it when the “something” is not only expected, but is perceived as due by the recipient?

Incentives fail the basic definition above. If an employee is due money by contract or understanding in return for specific performance, it isn’t strictly a bonus. Yet it has become an accepted use, and is widely understood in that context. Similarly, if a payment at year-end is given according to a generally understood formula, such as years of service or salary level, there is no surprise attached to the payment.

How do you deliver the bonus? Many employers just add it to the normal paycheck. I know a number that complain every year that less than 10% of their employees say “thank you.” That argues strongly against it being unexpected.

Others have a documented program for earning incentive payouts, such as a share in the profitability of the company. These are paid at holiday time, partially to avoid the expectation of something additional. They are called holiday bonuses, but are actually just annual performance incentives with convenient timing.

A real Holiday Bonus should be a gift. It deserves to be credited for what it is; money coming directly from a business owner’s pocket to the employee’s as a sign of thanks and goodwill. It shouldn’t be attached to specific performance, although some subjectivity is normal and appropriate. Like Fezziwig’s Christmas party, it s something you do in the spirit of the season, without expectation of material return, and it is supposed to generate some feeling of gratitude.

As a gift, the Holiday Bonus should be in the range of gifts you would give to others you spend the whole year with (hint: that should be your family.) Why would you spend $300 on gifts for a spouse or child, and $1,000 on an employee? Do you like them that much more?

If you already have a structure for year-end incentive payments, by all means keep to your commitment. If you traditionally tend to “throw in a little extra for the holidays,” don’t. Make that a separate check, preferably on a separate payroll. Make sure that the employees can differentiate “normal” payments from your gift.

Include a note with the bonus. In most cases, telling the employee how much you value their contribution means as much or more than the money. I would be surprised if the addition of a note doesn’t at least quadruple the number of “thank you’s” you get.

If substantial year-end payments are traditional and expected, but historically subjective, start to change that now. Designate part of the payment as related to company or individual performance, preferably with a reference to profitability. Then give the rest as a bonus.

The next step is to make a New Year’s resolution  to document a measurable incentive program, so that next holiday season any bonus is really a bonus.

 

Posted in Leadership, Management | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

When is the Right Time to Sell?

In the last few weeks I’ve had several conversations with owners about selling their companies. In one case a professional firm with whom I’ve worked for the last 4 years completed a merger with a large national company. That was a “Boomer Bust” transaction, driven by an ageing partner group and a lack of willing successors in the next generation.

In another, a relatively young client received an unsolicited offer for the company. He wasn’t planning to sell for at least another ten years or so, but it’s a very interesting offer. Should he sell now for less than he eventually hoped, but for what is still a very large sum?  (Say- enough to start your own foundation.) What is the time value of having the money now, and ten years more to go in a new direction?

In the third, the owner received an offer to consolidate with an entity that is over a thousand times his size. The purchase of his company may be part of their consolidation strategy, or it might just be the equivalent of a signing bonus to bring him onto the management team. It isn’t quite enough money to retire on, or at least not in the lifestyle he currently enjoys.

In the fourth, the owner has quickly built a business that is both lucrative and very attractive to suitors. Should he put it on the market now, and begin something else at a young age with enviable financial security? Or should he grow this business in new directions, and keep all his eggs in this one basket?

In each case save the first, the issues are similar. The owner is far from retirement age. (They range from the early thirties to early fifties.) The money available isn’t theoretical it is either a concrete offer, or a realistic estimate of value in an active acquisition market. The proceeds would be enough to guarantee financial security, but not enough to permit unlimited dreams and ambitions. In the words of Bill Gates, it isn’t “escape velocity” wealth.

Perhaps most importantly, none of the owners are the slightest bit interested in traditional retirement. They all enjoy their industries, and want to keep working. All three are in excellent health, and have young families whose financial security is a high priority.

In my book, “11 Things You Absolutely Need to Know about Selling Your Business,” I discuss the importance of knowing what comes next. in Bob Buford’s book, “Half Time” he discusses how a middle-aged executive who has reached financial security can approach the second half of his or her life, the part where they want to give back to the community.

But these owners aren’t middle-aged. They want to keep building. They are still excited by the chase of business. They still seek the adrenalin rush of the big win. They look in the mirror and, with the insecurity of every entrepreneur, ask themselves the most telling questions.

“Am I good, or was I just lucky? Could I do it again? Could I succeed with something else I don’t know, or in an industry where I don’t have experience? If I give up my company, am I giving up who I am?”

We are the hunters, Hunters don’t succeed by looking back at what is behind them. They are genetically hard-wired to look forward at what is next, where the objective is. When you start thinking about selling the business, it isn’t always because you are tired, or bored, or looking to do something else. Sometimes, a business decision is just a business decision.

But for an entrepreneur it is never “just” a business decision. It is about life, and self-image, and fear, and desire, and family, and ego, and security, and insecurity. It’s about looking where we never look- back over our shoulder. And it’s about looking further ahead than the next monthly statement or sales cycle. It’s about going where you may not set the rules. In fact, you may not even know the rules.

And the answer, and the reasons for the answer, are different for each person. Just as they will be for these three.

Posted in Exit Planning, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

One Response to When is the Right Time to Sell?

  1. Oswald Viva says:

    The right time is NOT when you are down because the business is down. Case in point: a few years ago Mr. X was suffering through a low point in the business because of poor market conditions. He was so affected by it that was seriously thinking about selling (obviously at a very low price because of the down turn in the business). I knew the business had a lot of potential and that the down cycle would be reversed, so I wanted to change his mind. Rather than trying to convince him I decided to talk with his wife who was also very active in the business. I asked her: “What would you and Mr. X do after you sell?” She replied: “I guess we would start another business”. So I asked her: “Tell me, how were the beginnings of this company?” She said: “Oh my God, they were terribly challenging and not much fun”. I said: “So, do you really want to go through all that again?”. She looked at me with puzzled eyes and said: “I never thought about it that way; you are right I don’t want us to have to go through that again”. So they decided to keep the company and work to return it to its rightful place. Today the company is four times the size and they get unsolicited offers for many times the price they would have had to sell at the low point. The moral of the story then is: sell when business is doing well, never when it is down.

    I cover this subject in detail in my book “Its Lonely at the Top”; “A Practical Guide to Help You Become a Better Leader of Your Small Company”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Three Circles of Family Business

What is a “Family Business?” A large percentage of small companies have some family involved. For most, it is simple a case of providing employment to family members. If the founder of the company is also the principle revenue generator, it may be a spouse (most often the wife) who keeps the books and runs the office.

Employment of children who can’t (or won’t) find another job is common, and more so in the current economy. In most instances it is just a matter of income transfer with some value attached. The owner could keep handing over money for the child’s living expenses, but he or she wants the offspring to “earn” that money. The business becomes a vehicle for parenting; teaching life lessons about responsibility. In fewer cases, it is a recruiting tool. The owner tries to get the child interested and involved in the business, with hopes that they will seize the opportunity to become part of a succession strategy.

There are scores of variants, such as the absentee family employee who is really just a charity case. Performing no duties, and frequently not even in the same geography of the business, employment is simply a mechanism for the owner to make tax-deductible contributions for someone’s support.

The three circles of this title refer to when the engagement of multiple family members in the business involves a blood (or marriage) relationship, participation in management decisions, and ownership. For our purposes, all three must be present in order for it to be a “Family Business.”

When all three factors are present, they set up a structural conflict that is challenging to deal with. Issac Newton postulated laws governing mass and attraction; the effect one body has on another in relation to its size. The problem with Newton’s laws is that they apply to two, and only two, bodies acting on each other. When there are three bodies of mass the laws become chaotic, since each change in one body not only alters its effect on the others, but immediately alters their effect on each other.

So it is with the laws governing family business relationships. When there are only two roles, effects are fairly predictable. One role, of course, is always the kinship between the parties. If only one of the family members has ownership, the roles in the workplace are pretty plain. If other family members have ownership, but don’t work in the company, their input can be anticipated and occurs within defined parameters. When family members hold two roles in the business, both employee/manager and ownership, each action in one area causes unequal and unpredictable reactions in the others.

In one business, a brother and sister were sold ownership, but until the parents were paid, the siblings remained dependent on their paychecks for normal living expenses. The brother worked long hours, kept a careful eye on expenses, and ran a “tight ship” when it came to employee issues. The sister came in late, left early, and was fond of showing employer largess by issuing unplanned raises to favorite workers. Her sibling and ownership relationships made it difficult to deal with her radically different management style. She felt that she had an equal “right” to run the company as she wished, even if it was the polar opposite of her brother’s style.

In this case, the brother’s solution was to force his sister to sell her stock, and continue to give her a salary conditioned on her no longer coming to the office. The company is better off, but they don’t speak to each other any more.

In another, a brother’s division of the family business underperformed those of his siblings. Eventually he left to work in another company, although he retains his ownership and they still get together for holidays.

The pressure of decision-making and implementation in a family business adds complexity to every situation. Is Dad overriding our opinions because of his greater experience and wisdom, or is it because he regards any dissent from his children as disrespect? Is Mom against the new initiative because she really judges the market to be weak, or is it just her natural inclination to protect what we already have? Has my brother really studied that opportunity, or is he just trying to do something on his own, without his big brother’s shadow over it?

Family members know each other too well to ever make a completely unbiased analysis. The best you can do is recognize the three circles that influence every action, and discuss the mass and attraction of each one when making decisions.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Exit Options, Exit Planning, Leadership | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

3 Responses to Three Circles of Family Business

  1. Julie Herrington says:

    Ouch, I am living this situation. Vision and leadership is the challenging issue. There is not one right way to run company. I learned from you that each business reflects business owner’s personal values and style. Great article and if others respond too, hopefully you will share more on this topic and transitioning family business.

  2. Bill Seelig says:

    Additional Information,
    Actually the most stable relationship system is a three party system where the third party acts as a calming, reasonable voice that facilitates constructive communication and decision making. In family business succession work we have long advocated a three system view: Family, Business and Board. In the latter we work toward a balance of participants between family representatives and respected, independent outsiders with experience and expertise relevant to the current and future work of the business. We typically do not recommend professionals – lawyers, accountants, consultants… who are aligned and indebted financially to the business. The challenge is to start this process long before succession – through family education and involvement of key family members in learning about and appreciating the complexities of running and growing a successful family business. The earlier the better…
    Bill Seelig,
    bill@seeligs.com

    Bill Seelig

  3. Legal succession planning is also important for family businesses. This is especially true when one beneficiary of the owner’s estate is clearly the right person to take over operations and another beneficiary is clearly not interested.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The New Terrain: 2011-2020

The five-part series “The New Terrain 2011-2020, Winning the Battle in a Slow Economy” is now available as a white paper at http://www.johnfdini.com. It discusses issues and strategies for success in a lethargic economy.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

2 Responses to The New Terrain: 2011-2020

  1. Clare Taylor says:

    Sweetheart! I miss you… your 11 Things is great.
    Sign me up for this one please. Come back again in the spring please…
    a fan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know

This past week I’ve been interviewing prospective participants for our new “Noise Reduction System®” training which was created by Larry Linne. It focuses on teaching Second-In-Command (SIC) managers (anyone who answers directly to the owner, the First-In-Command or FIC) how to communicate, lead and think more effectively.

Last week in “Never, never, never, never give up” I discussed the resistance we get from employees to change. How your employees prefer to learn one way of doing things, and push back when owners try to innovate.

Perhaps I should have read my own column more carefully, because this week I went right out and ran into the same problem I had just warned you against.

Several of my interviews were with both the FIC and the SIC together. I realized that the SIC’s were campaigning against enrolling in the program! In every meeting, the FIC was trying to say why he thought it was a good idea, and the SIC was rebutting him point by point.

I was surprised, since the whole purpose of the NRS approach is to make the SICs more valuable to the owner. Why wouldn’t they jump at the chance to become an even bigger element in the company’s success? What was the harm? Who would it hurt, especially since the boss was in favor of it already?

I couldn’t change the meeting participants on the fly, so I began listening more closely to the dialogue that passed between the three of us.

FIC: “So tell me, what will my SIC get from this?”

JFD: “Well, we work with a number of tools to teach your SIC how to keep you better informed, and how to walk through a decision making process that is based on your vision for the company.”

FIC: “That sound great.”

SIC: “But boss, when do I make decisions you don’t approve of? I always do exactly as you want, that’s why you depend on me.”

It continued throughout all the points. “We will help your SIC understand how to better communicate with you on a daily basis… ” SIC: “But boss, we talk together all day long. You know about everything I do! What don’t you know?”

“We can free up much more of your time to do the things you do best…” SIC: “But boss, all you have to do is tell me what you need me to do. Don’t I do it? Do I not do anything you tell me to do?”

The class itself wasn’t a threat to the SIC. Every one of them admitted that he or she would like to be in a peer group, and have a place to discuss and learn more about running a business. In fact, they were worried that the FIC’s interest in the program is because they (the SICs) are somehow failing in their job performance.

Because the SIC is in the room, the FIC can’t discuss what he or she would like to see happen without embarrassing the SIC in front of a stranger. Every owner wishes for someone who would take more from them; who would proactively look for ways to free up the owner’s time and attention. Every owner wants an SIC (or several) that keeps them fully informed about what they need to know, and acts as a cut out for the “noise,” the things that they don’t want to deal with, but have to do because no one else does it.

The approach of any effort to improve SIC performance is to take the responsibility on yourself. It is what we do as owners and leaders every single day. You would say “I have delegated, and you have taken, everything I think you can. I know you are able to be an even bigger asset to this business, but I’ve been unsuccessful in determining how to make that happen to the level I would like. If I am to be more effective, it has to come from you proactively identifying what you can do, not from what I think you can do.”

Your key employees hold their positions because they accomplished things that others couldn’t. They are proud of that distinction, and of the recognition that their title and responsibilities gives them. If you want them to be even better, it can’t come from making them feel that they aren’t doing the job well enough. They just don’t know what they don’t know. Growth will come by giving them permission to stretch without the fear that they will fail.

Posted in Leadership, Management | 1 Comment

One Response to You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know

  1. Julie Herrington says:

    John,

    I very much enjoy the information you share. These articles are excellent and I pass them along to others. I miss being in the presence of your great drive and insight. You have an amazing gift for speaking the truth and providing direction even when the truth is hard for us as individuals to recognize about ourselves.

    Thanks again,
    Julie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *