NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
2013 CEO Compensation Study
1. Current Developments in Association Compensation
May 15, 2013
National Association of Manufacturers Council of Manufacturing Associations
Charles W. Quatt, Ph.D.
President
Quatt Associates, Inc.
2233 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Suite 501
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 342 1000 x. 103
cquatt@quatt.com
2. 2
Discussion Topics
NAM CMA Survey Trends
NAM CMA Survey New Data – CEO Compensation and Benefits
Approaches to Market Pricing: Defining the Marketplace
Using Survey Data
Current Trends in Executive Compensation
Governance Trends
3. 3
NAM CMA Survey Trends
Participation decreased slightly between 2012 and 2013 but still remains high.
57
71 70 68
12 10 9
6
2010 2011 2012 2013
Operating Associations
Organizations Represented by
Association Management
Companies
4. 4
NAM CMA Survey Trends
The participant group’s median operating budget increased dramatically in 2013. This change is
primarily due to number of new participants.
$4,500,000
$3,307,594
$3,538,925
$5,300,000
2010 2011 2012 2013
5. 5
NAM CMA Survey Trends
Among organizations that participated for the last four years budgets have steadily increased since
2010.
2010 to 2011 Change:
13%
2011 to 2012 Change:
4%
2012 to 2013 Change:
3%
Overall Change
2010-2013: 21%
6. 6
NAM Survey Trends among Four Year Survey Participants
Change in Average Total Cash Compensation
2010-2013 (Among 19 Common Participants)
Change/ 2010
to 2011
Change/ 2011
to 2012
Change/ 2012
to 2013
Overall Change
2010 to 2013
Chief Executive Officer 1.6% 5.9% 4.9% 12.4%
Second Highest Paid 4.8% 4.4% 3.4% 12.6%
Third Highest Paid 3.3% 5.7% 3.9% 12.9%
7. 7
NAM Survey Trends – Incentive Compensation Practices
Percentage Awarding Incentive Compensation 2010-2013
(All Participants by Budgetary Category)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013
Chief Executive Officer 43% 67% 71% 79% 67% 65% 75% 79% 86% 88% 95% 95%
All Survey Positions 39% 60% 59% 63% 62% 61% 69% 74% 72% 82% 83% 87%
$2.5 to $7.5 MillionLess than $2.5 Million
Greater than $7.5
Million
8. 8
NAM Survey Trends – Incentive Compensation Practices
CEO Incentive Compensation Awards as Percentage of Base Salary
(All Participants and by Budgetary Category)
Please note that incentive survey results do not include organizations reporting “0”
2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013
Chief Executive Officer
Q1 12% 8% 6% 8% 9% 6% 4% 7% 12% 9% 4% 8% 10% 16% 17% 28%
Median 20% 14% 11% 20% 16% 10% 8% 9% 20% 13% 10% 13% 14% 17% 27% 32%
Average 21% 16% 18% 32% 19% 13% 15% 10% 18% 16% 18% 15% 20% 21% 23% 42%
Q3 23% 20% 24% 25% 24% 18% 10% 11% 23% 26% 21% 17% 22% 26% 26% 34%
Greater than $7.5 M$2.5 to $7.5 MLess than $2.5 MAll Participants
9. 9
NAM Survey Trends – Incentive Compensation Practices
Executive Incentive Compensation Awards as Percentage of Base Salary
(All Participants and by Budgetary Category)
Please note that incentive survey results do not include organizations reporting “0”
2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013
Executives
Q1 4% 5% 4% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 9% 5% 12% 15%
Median 8% 7% 10% 11% 3% 4% 4% 5% 7% 6% 6% 7% 11% 8% 13% 17%
Average 13% 14% 16% 21% 6% 5% 7% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 16% 16% 19% 21%
Q3 14% 9% 14% 16% 6% 8% 9% 9% 11% 8% 10% 12% 15% 18% 17% 20%
All Participants Less than $2.5 M $2.5 to $7.5 M Greater than $7.5 M
10. 10
NAM Survey Trends – CEO Deferred Compensation
Percentage Awarding Deferred Compensation 2013
(All Participants and by Budgetary Category)
All Participants Less than $2.5
Million
$2.5 to $7.5 Million Greater than $7.5
Million
n 16 of 58 2 of 19 4 of 19 10 of 20
Percentage Providing 28% 7% 21% 50%
Median Award $30,000 na* $34,625 $72,840
Median Award as Percentage of Salary 13% na* 15% 17%
Average Award $65,473 na* $28,917 $87,207
Average Award as Percentage of Salary 20% na* 12% 16%
*Insufficient data to report
11. 11
NAM Survey New Data - CEO Compensation
Compensation Levels Distribution
CEO Compensation levels are closely linked with organization size among NAM CMA
participants. The 2013 NAM CMA participant group displayed an R2 value of 0.43 which
indicates that there is a correlation between budget size and compensation levels.
Compensation
Organization Budget (in millions)
R² = 0.434
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
$1,400,000
$1,500,000
$1,600,000
$1,700,000
$1,800,000
$1,900,000
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40
Millions
12. 12
NAM Survey New Data - CEO Compensation
CEO Total Compensation
2013 marks the first time we are able to report on CEO total compensation which includes the
value of all benefits and perquisites in addition to cash awards and salary.
n Median Average
Total Compensation ** 56 $293,029 $416,692
Total Compensation ** 19 $218,467 $229,494
Total Compensation ** 19 $280,594 $339,668
Total Compensation ** 18 $613,976 $695,593
** Total Compensation includes base salary, extra cash compensation (incentive or bonus), as well as the reported value
of all benefits and perquisites provided by the organization on the CEO's behalf.
All Associations (Median Budget = $5,059,075)
Budgets less than $2.7 million
(Median Budget = $1,600,000)
Budgets from $2.7 to $6.9 million
(Median Budget = $5,200,000)
Budgets greater than $6.9 million
(Median Budget = $20,000,000)
13. 13
NAM Survey New Data - CEO Benefits
CEO Benefits
2013 also marks the first time we are able to report on CEO benefits and their associated value.
The data provided by participants for defined benefit and defined contribution plans is of
particular interest.
All Associations (Median Budget = $5,059,075)
n % Q1 Median Q3 Average
Defined Benefit (Pension) Plans
Does your organization provide a defined benefit (pension) plan?
Yes 6 11%
No 50 89%
Defined Contribution Plans
Does your organization provide a defined contribution plan to the CEO?
Yes 54 95%
No 3 5%
Total defined retirement contribution from organization as percentage of base
salary-All Respondents
48 84% 4.1% 6.5% 10.0% 7.1%
Among organizations with budgets less than $2.7 million 15 26% 5.0% 8.0% 10.0% 7.2%
Among organizations with between $2.7 and $6.9 million 16 28% 3.3% 6.0% 9.0% 6.5%
Among organizations with budgets greater than $6.9 million 17 30% 5.3% 8.0% 10.0% 7.5%
14. 14
Approaches to Market Pricing: Defining the Marketplace
Defining the peer group of market comparators is the most crucial step in market pricing as the
selection of the peer group has received increasing scrutiny by Board members, the public, and
other stakeholders.
Factors in developing an accurate and defensible comparator peer group:
Organizations with similar
Mission
Location
Scope
Budget
Staff size
Impact
Similar talent pool for executive attraction/retention
Specific characteristics of the executive
Work history, professional background, other (e.g., political background)
Education and experience requirements
Time in position
15. 15
Approaches to Market Pricing: Defining the Marketplace
Peer group selection in not-for-profit organizations can be challenging
Starting with specific criteria is essential when creating an appropriate and relevant peer group
Typically it is helpful to develop a market pricing protocol tailored to the position or category of
positions reflective of the labor market for talent
Element Potential Approaches
Mission and Sector Potential organizations should be within similar industry sector and they should have comparable
types of operations
Scope The peer group should reflect the size of the organization in:
Revenue/operating budget
Number of employees
The selected group may reflect the organization’s current size as well as its projected size
Labor Market Labor markets in which the organization currently (or in the future) competes for talent may be
taken into consideration in the peer group
This may result in different peer groups for different types and levels of positions in an
organization
Geographic Locations Where the organization is located may also be a consideration in developing a peer group:
Note that executive positions typically have a national reference market; geographic location is
more relevant below the executive level
Degree of Complexity The peer group should also reflect the organization’s mission and the complexity of fulfilling that
mission
16. 16
Using Survey Data
Understand the database
Ensure sufficient number of data points
Identify the most comparable positions in the survey
Understand use of base salary versus total cash compensation in selecting survey data
17. 17
Setting Executive Compensation Levels
When setting compensation levels for the CEO and other senior positions, consider:
Compensation philosophy
Organization financial status and affordability of executive compensation
Internal pay practices among executives and staff
Board opinion
18. 18
Broader Marketplace Trends vs. NAM CMA Members –
Base Salary
Projected Salary Increase Comparison (2011-2013):
Total Salary Increases 2 2011 Projected Data
(Obtained in October 2010)
2012 Projected Data
(Obtained in October 2011)
2013 Projected Data
(Obtained in October 2012)
General NFP Chief Executive 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
NAM CMA Members Only 3.0% 3.0% 3.5%
General NFP Executives 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
NAM CMA Members Only 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
General NFP Staff 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
NAM CMA Members Only 3.0% 3.0% 3.5%
Percentage of NFP Organizations Holding
Salaries Flat
8.8% 5.9% 5.7%
NAM CMA Members Only 6.4% 4.7% 3.1%
Median Results of Quatt Associates Salary Planning Survey1
1
Data are salary increases measured as a percentage of salary budget, not as a percentage of incumbent salary.
2
Results include organizations reporting holding salaries flat.
19. 19
Broader Marketplace Trends – Annual Incentive
Continued and growing use of incentive compensation plans.
Focus on ensuring:
Goals are defined relative to mission and strategy.
Incentive levels are supported by meeting financial goals
Plan is driving the right types of results and leadership behaviors
Incentive payouts (individually and in total) correspond to the level of performance achieved
More organizations are using formal, objective-based, formula-driven plans rather than subjective
methodologies to determine awards
The best formula-driven plans have formal plan documents and define:
Formal tie between performance goals and the compensation plan
Measurements for success – both an institutional “scorecard” and a leadership assessment
score
20. 20
Broader Marketplace Trends – Governance
Increased level and demands of governance related to executive compensation and performance
assessment due to:
Increased availability of compensation information through the new 990 reporting requirement
Significantly greater scrutiny of compensation data by the public, stakeholders, the press,
government and internal staff
Board Committees, not individual Board Chair, making decisions
Greater engagement of full Board
New 990’s ask if all Board members have received the 990.
Greater practice in documenting compensation philosophy, system, annual performance and
decision processes
Documented defensibility
21. 21
Board Compensation Decision Making Factors
Factors for determining appropriate executive compensation
Market value of the position
Pay trends in the sector in which board members and stakeholders operate
Compensation trends among peer organizations and in the geographical area
Contract terms and compliance with the established compensation philosophy and
compensation system, including the pay for performance system
The performance of the organization, including its financial performance
Staff compensation practice, for example the differential between executive compensation
and staff compensation
Perceived fairness on the part of observers, including:
The Board members
The stakeholders
The public
22. 22
Quatt Associates Background Information
Quatt Associates is a management consulting firm dedicated to serving the not-for-profit sector. Our practice
includes:
Executive compensation systems, including performance-based award plans and deferred compensation
plans. We also conduct intermediate sanctions reviews, including analysis of compensation and benefits
practices. We have published a book on executive compensation for not-for-profit organizations, Nonprofit
Executive Compensation: Planning, Performance, and Pay.
Executive performance systems. We assist organizations in establishing institutional and executive
performance objectives and measures, including development of leadership assessment processes and
tools. We also develop guidelines and processes for boards of directors to assess and manage executive
performance.
Job classification, salary administration, and compensation systems, including career pathing systems,
customized reward systems, and performance-based compensation systems. We conduct annual
compensation surveys of not-for-profit organizations.
Assisting organizations in establishing staff performance objectives measures and systems. We provide
training on performance management and coaching to ensure effective program implementation.
Conducting strategic and business process planning and working with boards on effective board
management and development.
Working with both individual executives and leadership teams to improve their effectiveness in managing
the organization. We develop succession planning programs to support effective institutional
development and management succession.
23. 23
Quatt Associates Contact Information
Charles W. Quatt, Ph.D.
President
Quatt Associates, Inc.
2233 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Suite 501
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 342 1000 x. 103
cquatt@quatt.com
Jonathan Covington
Consultant
Quatt Associates, Inc.
2233 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Suite 501
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 386 7624
jcovington@quatt.com