立即打开
想要提升企业多元化?那把它和薪酬挂钩吧

想要提升企业多元化?那把它和薪酬挂钩吧

Phil Wahba 2021年04月18日
越来越多的大公司将高管的奖金和改善种族与性别多元化的成绩挂钩。冷冰冰的金钱能否激励领导者推动职场公平?

去年六月,美国全国陷入动荡,种族不平等问题空前尖锐:乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)遭遇警察暴力执法、跪压而死;布伦纳·泰勒(Breonna Taylor)遭警察突袭枪杀,还有许多其他受害者。美国各地都爆发了针对上述问题的抗议活动。与此同时,耐克与许多美国大企业一样也陷入了困境——它们承诺帮助纠正社会对黑人的不公正待遇与排斥,同时又因自身在这方面的缺陷而受到指责。

虽然耐克承诺将重视种族包容,但是一些员工依然在社交媒体上谴责公司的种族主义,声称黑人员工受到歧视、晋升机会不足、以及黑人顾客在耐克专卖店遭到刁难。耐克鼓励员工继续畅所欲言,公司首席执行官约翰·多纳霍(John Donahoe)在一份员工备忘录里承认“我们的重中之重是管好自己。”九个月后,耐克将致力于实现公平的承诺落到实处——将多纳霍的部分薪酬与此成绩挂钩。今年三月,耐克宣布公司高管的部分长期奖金会取决于是否在2025年前完成特定的多元化目标。如果没有完成这些目标,多纳霍可能会被扣除六位数甚至七位数的奖金。

长久以来,商业领袖习惯于高谈阔论种族与性别包容,却很少真正落实(下面仅举一例:在《财富》500强公司里面,仍然仅有5位黑人首席执行官和40位女性首席执行官)。但是,随着多元化成为华尔街、员工和公众日益关注的焦点,越来越多的公司董事会不再仅限空谈,而开始落实解决这些问题,将高管的薪酬与之关联挂钩。负责给公司董事会提供薪酬咨询服务的光辉国际(Korn Ferry)全球高管唐·洛曼(Don Lowman)表示:过去一年的动荡“让公司开始思考,‘如果我们认真对待这一问题,我们就不能光说不做,而要把它纳入高管的绩效考核之中。’”

仅在今年,苹果、麦当劳和墨式烧烤公司(Chipotle Mexican Grill)这些知名公司就将高管的部分奖金与性别与种族平等方面的成果挂钩。Alphabet旗下的谷歌也加入了这一行列,表示将会把这些指标纳入管理层绩效考核之中。优步曾经因为“兄弟文化”而受到批评,两年前已经将奖金和多元化成果挂钩;微软、英特尔和公用事业公司第一能源(FirstEnergy)甚至在更早的时候就采取了类似措施。

不过这种做法并没有引领跟风热潮:根据薪酬咨询公司玻尔·梅耶(Pearl Meyer)的数据,在罗素3000指数的公司中,仅有97家公司(3.2%)为至少一位高管设置了至少一个多元化目标。不过,由于投资者特别希望公司达到环境、社会和公司治理(ESG)标准,企业也迫切希望展现他们正像重视环保和气候变化那样重视多元化和包容性。(在这方面,《财富》也尽了一份力,同金融数据公司Refinitiv一起建立了名为“Measure up”的项目,帮助企业收集与汇报多元化和包容性的数据)。玻尔·梅耶的执行董事埃拉普·沙哈(Aalap Shah)表示,就在2018年,当他和高管与董事会提及将多元化作为薪酬的一项指标时,对方还很疑惑地看着他。但是从去年夏天以来,企业都变得很重视这方面,以免落后于人。

企业通常会把10%到15%的奖金和目标挂钩。根据高管数据公司Equilar提供的数据,奖金占管理层总薪酬的比例约为20%,所以这些目标也仅涉及到高管总收入的2%到3%。尽管如此,首席执行官总薪酬的3%依然不是一笔小数目。比如,麦当劳在二月的一份监管文件中提及,高管15%的奖金将取决于“人力资本”方面指标的完成情况,并且指出,如果首席执行官克里斯·肯普辛斯基(Chris Kempczinski)没有在2020年完成目标,则他将损失高达30万美元的奖金。

诚然,首席执行官与员工之间的收入悬殊,造成了严重的经济不平等,高管也就更需要对性别和种族平等负责。据美国经济政策研究所统计,2019年,上市公司首席执行官薪酬是普通员工收入的320倍,主要是由于高管拥有高额奖金和股票期权。差距如此明显,企业面临压力,需要证明高管的高收入来自于他们的高贡献。一些激进主义者可以借助多元化目标施加这方面的压力。不过,现在还难以判断什么目标效果最好、未完成目标的代价是否足够高。

许多公司将收入与多元化成果挂钩,是顺应自己员工的要求。比如,谷歌因为不公平对待女性和有色人种而遭到了内部员工的集体反对;麦当劳因为所谓的性别歧视管理文化和对待黑人员工与特许经销商的方式而受到严厉的批评。

根据代理投票顾问机构股东服务公司(Institutional Shareholder Services)的数据,在公司去年研究的全球6400家上市公司中,有18.9%(在美国的2800家公司中,有8.3%)的公司将奖金和至少一项环境或社会目标挂钩。“只要有指标来衡量,目标就能达成。”机构股东服务公司的研究总监安东尼·卡帕尼亚(Anthony Campagna)如是说。

但是企业一直难以决定用什么来评估包容性目标的完成程度。可持续发展目标有相对客观的指标,比如碳排放、用水量和减少浪费。可是在多元化方面,完成一定指标(比如提拔一定数量的女性或有色人种到管理层)并不能保证公司文化就一定是包容性的。来自光辉国际的洛曼警告说:“要完成这个指标很容易,你可以明天出去招聘10个人,但是你并没有在多元化文化方面真正取得进展。”Equilar的研究总监考特尼·余(Courtney Yu)表示,最有效的激励措施是奖励培养少数族裔后备管理层的高管,具体措施可以包括扩大招聘目标学校、包含传统黑人高等学院;改进指导项目;为职场母亲提供更好的家庭关爱支持。

余表示,问题在于评估进展的方式要能够让董事会接受。微软的方法可以作为范例。首席执行官萨提亚·纳德拉(SatyaNadella)和其他高管获得奖金,不仅是因为完成了量化指标,比如选择了一定比例的少数族裔供货商和员工;还因为更多定性的成就,比如内部调查一直认为公司为少数族裔群体提供了可以取得成功的工作环境。

不管公司选择哪种指标,如果他们想要更持久的变化,就最好挂钩长期激励奖金,而不是年度奖金。一大例证就是耐克决定将长期奖金和2025年目标挂钩。(耐克的目标包括每年从少数族裔人口地区的供货商处购买10亿美元的商品;45%的管理层职位由女性担任;建立男女同酬制度。)

过往案例表明,首席执行官就算没有完成目标,也未必真的会面临降薪。董事会通常有很大的自由裁量权,可以根据情况判断是否调整薪酬。在新冠疫情肆虐的2020年,包括连锁影院AMC娱乐公司、通用电气以及耐克在内的公司都运用了这一自由裁量权,决定维持高管的薪酬水平。去年夏天,由于疫情,多纳霍无法完成财务目标,但耐克仍然给了多纳霍一笔675万美元的特别奖金。(耐克在一份文件中表示,希望“奖励疫情前的优异表现,并且确保员工的工作热情。)

不过,这样做可能会失去员工、顾客和投资者的信任,董事会或许不敢在多元化的问题上糊弄民众。薪酬专家表示,公众会广泛关注和监督企业在多元化方面的一举一动,这会推动企业将多元化落到实处,形成良性循环。来自玻尔·梅耶公司的沙哈说:“这是一种真正的文化转变。”(财富中文网)

译者:郑立飞

去年六月,美国全国陷入动荡,种族不平等问题空前尖锐:乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)遭遇警察暴力执法、跪压而死;布伦纳·泰勒(Breonna Taylor)遭警察突袭枪杀,还有许多其他受害者。美国各地都爆发了针对上述问题的抗议活动。与此同时,耐克与许多美国大企业一样也陷入了困境——它们承诺帮助纠正社会对黑人的不公正待遇与排斥,同时又因自身在这方面的缺陷而受到指责。

虽然耐克承诺将重视种族包容,但是一些员工依然在社交媒体上谴责公司的种族主义,声称黑人员工受到歧视、晋升机会不足、以及黑人顾客在耐克专卖店遭到刁难。耐克鼓励员工继续畅所欲言,公司首席执行官约翰·多纳霍(John Donahoe)在一份员工备忘录里承认“我们的重中之重是管好自己。”九个月后,耐克将致力于实现公平的承诺落到实处——将多纳霍的部分薪酬与此成绩挂钩。今年三月,耐克宣布公司高管的部分长期奖金会取决于是否在2025年前完成特定的多元化目标。如果没有完成这些目标,多纳霍可能会被扣除六位数甚至七位数的奖金。

长久以来,商业领袖习惯于高谈阔论种族与性别包容,却很少真正落实(下面仅举一例:在《财富》500强公司里面,仍然仅有5位黑人首席执行官和40位女性首席执行官)。但是,随着多元化成为华尔街、员工和公众日益关注的焦点,越来越多的公司董事会不再仅限空谈,而开始落实解决这些问题,将高管的薪酬与之关联挂钩。负责给公司董事会提供薪酬咨询服务的光辉国际(Korn Ferry)全球高管唐·洛曼(Don Lowman)表示:过去一年的动荡“让公司开始思考,‘如果我们认真对待这一问题,我们就不能光说不做,而要把它纳入高管的绩效考核之中。’”

仅在今年,苹果、麦当劳和墨式烧烤公司(Chipotle Mexican Grill)这些知名公司就将高管的部分奖金与性别与种族平等方面的成果挂钩。Alphabet旗下的谷歌也加入了这一行列,表示将会把这些指标纳入管理层绩效考核之中。优步曾经因为“兄弟文化”而受到批评,两年前已经将奖金和多元化成果挂钩;微软、英特尔和公用事业公司第一能源(FirstEnergy)甚至在更早的时候就采取了类似措施。

不过这种做法并没有引领跟风热潮:根据薪酬咨询公司玻尔·梅耶(Pearl Meyer)的数据,在罗素3000指数的公司中,仅有97家公司(3.2%)为至少一位高管设置了至少一个多元化目标。不过,由于投资者特别希望公司达到环境、社会和公司治理(ESG)标准,企业也迫切希望展现他们正像重视环保和气候变化那样重视多元化和包容性。(在这方面,《财富》也尽了一份力,同金融数据公司Refinitiv一起建立了名为“Measure up”的项目,帮助企业收集与汇报多元化和包容性的数据)。玻尔·梅耶的执行董事埃拉普·沙哈(Aalap Shah)表示,就在2018年,当他和高管与董事会提及将多元化作为薪酬的一项指标时,对方还很疑惑地看着他。但是从去年夏天以来,企业都变得很重视这方面,以免落后于人。

企业通常会把10%到15%的奖金和目标挂钩。根据高管数据公司Equilar提供的数据,奖金占管理层总薪酬的比例约为20%,所以这些目标也仅涉及到高管总收入的2%到3%。尽管如此,首席执行官总薪酬的3%依然不是一笔小数目。比如,麦当劳在二月的一份监管文件中提及,高管15%的奖金将取决于“人力资本”方面指标的完成情况,并且指出,如果首席执行官克里斯·肯普辛斯基(Chris Kempczinski)没有在2020年完成目标,则他将损失高达30万美元的奖金。

诚然,首席执行官与员工之间的收入悬殊,造成了严重的经济不平等,高管也就更需要对性别和种族平等负责。据美国经济政策研究所统计,2019年,上市公司首席执行官薪酬是普通员工收入的320倍,主要是由于高管拥有高额奖金和股票期权。差距如此明显,企业面临压力,需要证明高管的高收入来自于他们的高贡献。一些激进主义者可以借助多元化目标施加这方面的压力。不过,现在还难以判断什么目标效果最好、未完成目标的代价是否足够高。

许多公司将收入与多元化成果挂钩,是顺应自己员工的要求。比如,谷歌因为不公平对待女性和有色人种而遭到了内部员工的集体反对;麦当劳因为所谓的性别歧视管理文化和对待黑人员工与特许经销商的方式而受到严厉的批评。

根据代理投票顾问机构股东服务公司(Institutional Shareholder Services)的数据,在公司去年研究的全球6400家上市公司中,有18.9%(在美国的2800家公司中,有8.3%)的公司将奖金和至少一项环境或社会目标挂钩。“只要有指标来衡量,目标就能达成。”机构股东服务公司的研究总监安东尼·卡帕尼亚(Anthony Campagna)如是说。

但是企业一直难以决定用什么来评估包容性目标的完成程度。可持续发展目标有相对客观的指标,比如碳排放、用水量和减少浪费。可是在多元化方面,完成一定指标(比如提拔一定数量的女性或有色人种到管理层)并不能保证公司文化就一定是包容性的。来自光辉国际的洛曼警告说:“要完成这个指标很容易,你可以明天出去招聘10个人,但是你并没有在多元化文化方面真正取得进展。”Equilar的研究总监考特尼·余(Courtney Yu)表示,最有效的激励措施是奖励培养少数族裔后备管理层的高管,具体措施可以包括扩大招聘目标学校、包含传统黑人高等学院;改进指导项目;为职场母亲提供更好的家庭关爱支持。

余表示,问题在于评估进展的方式要能够让董事会接受。微软的方法可以作为范例。首席执行官萨提亚·纳德拉(SatyaNadella)和其他高管获得奖金,不仅是因为完成了量化指标,比如选择了一定比例的少数族裔供货商和员工;还因为更多定性的成就,比如内部调查一直认为公司为少数族裔群体提供了可以取得成功的工作环境。

不管公司选择哪种指标,如果他们想要更持久的变化,就最好挂钩长期激励奖金,而不是年度奖金。一大例证就是耐克决定将长期奖金和2025年目标挂钩。(耐克的目标包括每年从少数族裔人口地区的供货商处购买10亿美元的商品;45%的管理层职位由女性担任;建立男女同酬制度。)

过往案例表明,首席执行官就算没有完成目标,也未必真的会面临降薪。董事会通常有很大的自由裁量权,可以根据情况判断是否调整薪酬。在新冠疫情肆虐的2020年,包括连锁影院AMC娱乐公司、通用电气以及耐克在内的公司都运用了这一自由裁量权,决定维持高管的薪酬水平。去年夏天,由于疫情,多纳霍无法完成财务目标,但耐克仍然给了多纳霍一笔675万美元的特别奖金。(耐克在一份文件中表示,希望“奖励疫情前的优异表现,并且确保员工的工作热情。)

不过,这样做可能会失去员工、顾客和投资者的信任,董事会或许不敢在多元化的问题上糊弄民众。薪酬专家表示,公众会广泛关注和监督企业在多元化方面的一举一动,这会推动企业将多元化落到实处,形成良性循环。来自玻尔·梅耶公司的沙哈说:“这是一种真正的文化转变。”(财富中文网)

译者:郑立飞

Last June, as the nation convulsed with protests against racial inequality and the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and too many others, Nike was in the same predicament as much of corporate America—pledging to help rectify society’s mistreatment and exclusion of Black people, while simultaneously being called out for its own failings on that front.

Even as the sports-gear maker promised to prioritize racial inclusion, some of its own workers took to social media to decry racism at the company, citing microaggressions, lesser advancement opportunities for Black employees, and instances of Black shoppers being profiled at Nike stores. Nike encouraged workers to keep speaking out, and CEO John Donahoe admitted in a staff memo that “our most important priority is to get our own house in order.” Nine months later, Nike made its commitment to equity more tangible—by pegging some of Donahoe’s pay to it. In March, Nike announced that part of its executives’ long-term bonuses would be contingent on hitting specific diversity goals by 2025. Donahoe’s potential penalty for missing those targets: a six- or even seven-figure chunk of his compensation.

Business leaders have long been saying the right things about racial and gender inclusion, with only modest improvements to show for it. (There are still only five Black CEOs and 40 female CEOs in the Fortune 500, to cite but one metric.) But as diversity becomes an ever-greater focus of Wall Street, employees, and the public, more corporate boards are aligning executives’ pay with their platitudes. The past year’s upheaval is “causing companies to think, ‘If we’re serious about this, we ought to make sure there is a visible link between what we say and do and how we’re rewarding our executives,’” says Don Lowman, a global leader at Korn Ferry who advises boards on compensation.

This year alone, Apple, McDonald’s, and Chipotle Mexican Grill are among the boldface-name companies to make bonuses partially contingent on measurable progress on gender and racial equity. Alphabet’s Google took a step in that direction, saying it will include such metrics in executive performance reviews. Uber, once criticized for its “bro culture,” linked bonuses to diversity two years ago; Microsoft, Intel, and utility FirstEnergy have been doing so even longer.

The shift doesn’t yet add up to a mad rush: A mere 97 of the companies in the Russell 3000 (or 3.2%) have at least one diversity goal for at least one top executive, according to compensation consulting firm Pearl Meyer. Still, diversity and inclusion are joining climate-friendliness as areas where companies are being urged to prove their merit—not least by investors who want companies to meet environmental, social, and governance (ESG) benchmarks. (Fortune is part of this effort, partnering with financial data firm Refinitiv on a program called “Measure Up,” to help companies collect and report diversity and inclusion data.) Aalap Shah, a managing director at Pearl Meyer, says that as recently as 2018, when he spoke to executives and boards about diversity as a factor in compensation, he’d get quizzical looks. But since last summer, companies are listening up, lest they be seen as out of step.

Companies are typically pegging 10% to 15% of bonuses to the goals. Bonuses account for about 20% of executive comp, according to leadership data firm Equilar, so the targets put only 2% to 3% of a C-suite dweller’s pay at risk. Still, 3% of a CEO compensation package can add up to a pay cut that’s symbolically large. In a regulatory filing in February, for example, McDonald’s said progress on “human capital” metrics would determine 15% of bonuses—and noted that missing those goals would have cost CEO Chris Kempczinski more than $300,000 in 2020.

Indeed, holding executives accountable on gender and racial equity is particularly crucial given the economic inequity embedded in the CEO worker pay gap. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the ratio of CEO compensation to rank and-file pay at public companies was 320 to 1 in 2019, with much of that gap reflecting the sky-high value of bonuses and stock options. Amid such glaring disparities, companies face pressure to show that their executives earn their riches by contributing to a greater good. Diversity targets could help activists apply such pressure. But it’s too early to tell what targets will work best—and whether the cost of missing them is high enough.

IT’S TELLING THAT many companies have linked pay to diversity following an outcry from their own employees. Google, for example, has faced internal backlash over its treatment of women and people of color; McDonald’s is under withering scrutiny for a purportedly sexist management culture and for its treatment of Black employees and franchisees. (See the stories in this issue.)

According to proxy-vote adviser Institutional Shareholder Services, 18.9% of 6,400 public companies it studied last year worldwide (and 8.3% of 2,800 companies in the U.S.) had tied compensation to at least one environmental or social incentive. “What gets measured gets done,” says ISS director of research Anthony Campagna.

But companies have struggled to decide how to measure progress on inclusion. Sustainability targets involve relatively objective factors like carbon emissions, water use, and waste reduction. But in diversity, hitting numerical goals—say, elevating a certain number of women or people of color to management—doesn’t ensure an inclusive culture. “You can go out and hire 10 people tomorrow and satisfy that objective, but not really have made progress in your diversity practices,” warns KornFerry’s Lowman. Courtney Yu, director of research at Equilar, says the most effective incentives will reward executives for building better pipelines to leadership for underrepresented groups. That could involve recruiting from a wider range of colleges, including historically Black colleges and universities; improving mentorship programs; and providing better family-care support to working mothers.

The challenge, Yu says, is measuring progress on such criteria in a way that boards are comfortable with. Some experts cite Microsoft’s approach as a model. CEO SatyaNadella and other executives earn bonuses both for hitting quantitative marks, such as drawing a certain percentage of suppliers and workers from underrepresented groups, and for more qualitative achievements, such as consensus in internal polling that the company provides a work environment where minorities can prosper.

Whatever metrics companies choose, they’ll be more likely to result in enduring changes if they’re tied to long-term incentive packages rather than annual bonuses. Nike’s decision to link long-term awards to 2025 goals is a testament to that strategy. (Nike’s goals include buying $1 billion a year from suppliers in underrepresented demographics; elevating women to 45% of management jobs; and establishing pay equity between men and women.)

History suggests that CEOs who miss targets may not actually face a pay cut. Boards have wide discretion to change compensation based on extenuating circumstances. Among the companies that used that discretion to prop up pay after a COVID-rattled 2020 were theater chain AMC Entertainment, General Electric—and Nike, which gave Donahoe a special cash bonus of $6.75 million last summer after the pandemic made it impossible for him to meet financial targets. (Nike said in a filing that it wanted “to reward strong pre-pandemic performance and to ensure sustained employee engagement.”)

It’s possible, though, that boards won’t attempt such maneuvers around diversity, since they’d risk losing the trust of their workforces, customers, and investors. Compensation experts note that companies’ actions on diversity already get plenty of public scrutiny, which in turn could fuel a virtuous cycle of adoption of concrete targets. Says Pearl Meyer’s Shah, “This is a true cultural shift.”

最新:
  • 热读文章
  • 热门视频
活动
扫码打开财富Plus App