how to operate a compensation committee<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\ncompensation committee: the system of choice<\/strong><\/p>\nas the chart shows, the cadillac of all systems for multipartner firms is clearly the compensation committee:<\/p>\n
\nlarger firms (those with eight or more partners) prefer the compensation committee to all other systems by a wide margin.<\/li>\n smaller firms (those with four or fewer partners) don\u2019t use the compensation committee very much, primarily because they aren\u2019t large enough to have<\/strong> a committee.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nwhy<\/strong> is the compensation committee the system of choice for larger firms? more than any other system:<\/p>\n\nit gives the compensation committee the most freedom and flexibility to use good judgment and common sense in evaluating partner performance and linking it to income. smaller firms use formulas because they believe numbers never lie. larger firms know better. they understand that standard finding minding grinding metrics don\u2019t<\/strong> tell the whole story and that sometimes numbers can<\/strong> be misleading.<\/li>\nit aligns the firm\u2019s strategic plan and vision with the partners\u2019 contributions to implementing<\/strong> these goals. to be frank, smaller firms\u2019 strategy is as simple as it gets: bring in business, do the work, bill and collect. that\u2019s why formulas appeal to small firms.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nlarger firms subscribe to the \u201cif you build it, they will come\u201d strategy (borrowed from the movie \u201cfield of dreams\u201d). first, build a strong firm with great management, strategy, staff development and marketing. then<\/strong>, the revenue and profits will come.<\/p>\n\nit achieves a balance between tangible and intangible performance factors.<\/li>\n it places the compensation and evaluation decisions in the hands of credible \u201cjurors\u201d who give the partners a degree of comfort that would not be possible if only one person, the managing partner, had the sole responsibility.<\/li>\n it enables the firm to avoid using formulas to allocate income. formula systems are more individual-oriented and less firm-oriented. a compensation committee minimizes the partners\u2019 ability to game the system, one of several huge flaws in compensation formulas.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nthe managing partner, as chair of the compensation committee, should make sure that all of these benefits are realized.<\/p>\n
what should the managing partner do as compensation committee chair?<\/strong><\/p>\n\nmake the compensation committee a year-round activity, not just a \u201cjury\u201d empaneled at year-end for a few hours of meetings. this is why it\u2019s so important for the executive and compensation committees to be one and the same or at least have heavy overlap.<\/li>\n at the beginning of the year, the managing partner, perhaps with one or more compensation committee members, should meet with every partner to create a short list of high-impact goals and expectations. partners should be crystal clear on which aspects of their performance will likely increase their income and which will reduce it.<\/li>\n periodically during the year, the managing partner should meet with each partner to review their progress on meeting goals and see what can be done to help the partner be successful. this is critically important and is the most common area in which managing partners struggle.<\/strong><\/li>\nat the end of the year, each partner should have a performance appraisal session. results should be in writing.<\/li>\n after the income is allocated, the managing partner should meet with each partner to discuss how their compensation number was determined, what increased it and what held it back.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nopen vs. closed system<\/strong><\/p>\nevery managing partner should try to move the system from open to closed because, quite simply, it enables the compensation committee to do the best job it can do. the reason for this was astutely given to us by andrew grove, former chair of intel:<\/p>\n
\u201cif people are concerned about their absolute level of compensation, then they can<\/strong> be satisfied. however, if their focus is on their standing versus others, then they can never<\/strong> be satisfied.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nin an open system, compensation committee members tend to allow their decisions to be influenced by the predicted reactions of certain partners when they see their income numbers in comparison to those of other partners.<\/p>\n
randy nail, managing partner of $50 million hogan taylor, said, \u201cwhen we merged in a large firm, we moved to a closed partner compensation system. we get greater unity when partners stop comparing their income to each other’s. if i can\u2019t have a closed system, i won\u2019t be mp.\u201d<\/p>\n
moving from an open to a closed system is never an easy sell. the firm may have operated with an open system for many years, and it\u2019s hard to take this away from partners who view it as a basic right of being an owner of a business. the managing partner must be up to this task.<\/p>\n
ideally, a firm with a true managing partner uses the compensation committee system for allocating partner income. one of the strengths of this system is that it gives the firm flexibility in recognizing the performance of all partners, the special and unique roles they play, and how well they achieve their goals. different partners have strengths in different areas, all of which serve the firm well.<\/p>\n
the biggest factors in managing partner compensation should be the following:<\/p>\n
\nhow well they managed the firm.<\/li>\n achievement of their goals.<\/li>\n accomplishments such as<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\norchestrating a successful merger<\/li>\n hiring a high-performing partner from another firm<\/li>\n installing a new practice management system that results in fewer write-offs<\/li>\n challenging partners on their wip write-offs, thereby increasing realization<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\nthe firm’s revenue growth and profitability.<\/li>\n to the extent that managing partners have client responsibilities, certainly how much business they bring in and the size of their billing responsibility must be factors. however, the compensation committee must understand that managing the firm is more important than posting strong production metrics. managing partners should never be penalized for lower production numbers. in fact, a strong case can be made for rewarding<\/strong> lower numbers because it means the managing partners have delegated clients to others in order to free up their time for managing the firm.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nthere is no hard and fast rule that says the managing partner should be the highest-paid member of the firm, though he or she often is, or close to it. it\u2019s up to the other partners and the compensation committee to decide the value of the managing partner\u2019s contributions to the firm.<\/p>\n
a question that many firms ask is this: during the compensation committee\u2019s deliberations, when the managing partner’s compensation is on the table, should the managing partner participate in the discussion or step out while the other compensation committee members make the decision? in my experience, most managing partners stay in the meeting, but there is no hard and fast rule on this either.<\/p>\n
managing partners\u2019 compensation when they leave the job<\/strong><\/p>\nwhen a managing partner steps down or is forced out, the compensation problem is obvious, regardless of whether the firm uses the compensation committee or a formula to allocate income:<\/p>\n
\nprior to becoming managing partner, he or she probably had a substantial client billing responsibility accompanied by a decent number of billable hours. before assuming the managing partner job, this person likely delegated some clients and billable hours to other firm members to free up time to perform managing partner duties.<\/li>\n while performing the managing partner job, it\u2019s likely that the managing partner shed more<\/strong> clients and billable hours.<\/li>\nafter stepping down, a former managing partner may need to build up his or her client base and billable hours in order to maintain or increase income. this takes time and requires revving up relationships with contacts that haven’t been nurtured as actively as in the past.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nmany firms address this challenge by guaranteeing the former managing partner\u2019s income in certain ways. the guarantee may last for as long as four or five years. the guarantee may be a fixed amount or a percentage of total income. the latter enables former managing partners to increase<\/strong> their income.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
<\/a> \nif the executive and compensation committees aren\u2019t one and the same, they at least should have heavy overlap.<\/strong> \nby marc rosenberg<\/i> \nthe role of the managing partner<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1339,"featured_media":52068,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1363,3120,3002,2266],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-pro-member-exclusive","category-special","category-partner"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\npartner compensation: a potent weapon - 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n