Table of Contents - SHRM Online · PDF file©2012 Empsight International, LLC -...

©2012 Empsight International, LLC - Confidential

Table of Contents Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

About Empsight ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Our 2012 Compensation Surveys ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Survey Participants ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Competitive Pay Philosophies ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Competitive Pay Philosophies – Base Pay ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Competitive Pay Philosophies – Total Cash Compensation .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Actual Practice versus Philosophy – Base Salary ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Salary Structure Increase Budget for 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Merit Increase Budget 2012 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Merit Increase Budget for 2012 by Industry ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Merit Increase Budget for 2012 by Revenue Category ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Promotional Increase Budget ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Special Competitive Adjustment Budget .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Total Increase Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 US Salary Budget Increase Commentary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Forecasted Salary Structure Increase Budget for 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Forecasted Merit Increase Budgets for 2013 by Industry ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 by Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Long Term Incentive Targets ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Departmental Staffing Levels – US ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Salary Actions Taken in 2012 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

2011 Bonuses Paid in 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Stock Awards Changes in 2012 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30

Concerns related to Macro-Economic Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Falling Unemployment .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Skill Shortages ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Employee Retention .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Compensation Competitiveness ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

New College Hire Practices ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Number of Weeks Severance .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38


Overview

This report is derived from our On-line Survey of Policies, Practices and Merit conducted between April and June 2012. The analyses are based on the answers provided, in whole or in part, by 270 companies (an increase of 146 companies over last year) and covering the following topics:

• Compensation Philosophy Analysis

• Salary Structure Analysis for 2012

• Merit, Promotional, and Special Competitive Adjustments Increases for 2012

• Salary Structure and Merit Forecasts for 2013

• Comments on Salary Modifications

• Long Term Incentive Targets by Level and Department

• Departmental Staffing

• Law Department Staffing

• Impact on Bonus Payments

• Comparative Analysis of Bonus Payouts in 2012 versus 2011

• Analysis of Concerns relative to presented Macro-Economic Indicators

• Analysis of College Hiring Rates and Sign-On Bonuses

• Analysis of College Hiring Activity

• Severance allowances based on tenure and organizational levels


About Empsight Empsight International, LLC is a human resource consulting firm which helps employers make better decisions about their investment in people. Our primary focus is on conducting compensation surveys in niche markets, domestically and internationally. Our surveys are seen as definitive data reference sources in markets where such information is critical to maintaining competitiveness. Our clients are, predominantly, leading multinational corporations that have a high repeat participation rate in our surveys. Our Principals and staff have significant experience in consulting on compensation, organizational and human resource issues across multiple industry sectors.

Our 2012 Compensation Surveys U.S. Law Department Compensation Survey Available in Three Editions: Large Company, Mid-Market and Small Law Department. With more than 550 participating companies, Empsight's in-house law department compensation survey is the largest of its kind in the U.S. In 2011 the large law survey edition included 186 Participants with an average participant revenue size in excess of $23 Billion. The Survey targets larger Fortune 500 and Multinational companies with revenues of $3 Billion and Above. The survey reports data on base salary, annual bonus, long term incentives, and multiple subcuts. The survey also provides useful legal spending and staffing analyses. Finance & Compliance Compensation Survey The Finance & Compliance Compensation Survey for 2012 incorporates and expands on Empsight’s prior Compliance, Audit & Risk Compensation Survey which has become the leading source of information of its kind and reports on large multi-billion dollar organizations. The expanded survey now includes Finance and Accounting positions to round out this collection of functions more comprehensively. Positions in all these functions have been the subject of recent significant market momentum in the largest, most complex organizations. The Survey covers key benchmark positions at the Executive, Middle Management, Professional and Support Levels in the Finance, Accounting, Compliance, Audit, Risk sub-functions. Reported compensation elements include Base Salary, Annual Incentives, and Long Term Incentives. Government Relations & Corporate Communications Compensation Survey The Government Relations Compensation & Corporate Communications Compensation Survey is the leading source of information of its kind and reports on large multi-billion dollar organizations with larger departments, many facing challenging regulatory, legislative, or taxation environments. The report provides a comprehensive summary of cash based compensation and selected other practices for benchmark positions in these functions. Information Technology & Security Compensation Survey The Information Technology & Security Compensation reports on large multi-billion dollar organizations with larger information technology and IT security departments. The Survey covers key benchmark positions at the Executive, Middle Management, Professional and Support Levels. Benefits of the Empsight IT compensation survey include: Genuinely large company peers - no mixing of large and small participants, Contemporary, full, benchmark descriptions providing clear differentiation between levels, Coverage of new and emerging roles such as Cloud Computing, and 123 Benchmark Positions, including IT and IT Security - covering Executive, Middle Management, Professional and Support levels. Human Resources Compensation Survey - This report is free to participants in 2012 The Human Resources Compensation survey reports on Generalist and Specialist HR positions in large multi-billion dollar organizations. This report provides a comprehensive summary of compensation and selected other practices for benchmark positions in the Human Resources function. Executive Administrative Support Compensation Survey This survey covers high level executive administrative support positions in the U.S. in Fortune 500 companies and other large multi-nationals. These positions are unique in the organizational structure and the Survey provides compensation data from genuine peer type companies. The Survey covers a comprehensive array of compensation elements for these positions and will include coverage of long term compensation, where available.

http://www.empsight.com/s.nl/sc.7/category.97/.f


Survey Participants Abbott Laboratories ABF North America Corp. Accenture ADP AECOM Affinia Group Alaska Airlines Alliance Data Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (ATK) Allstate Insurance Company Altera Corporation American Century Investments American Financial Group American Honda Motor Co., Inc. American International Group, Inc. American National Insurance Anheuser-Busch InBev Apollo Group, Inc. Ascena Retail Group AstraZeneca AT&T AutoNation, Inc. Avaya Inc Avon Products, Inc. BASF Corporation Baxter International, Inc. Beam Inc. Belk, Inc Bemis Company Inc. BG US Services, Inc. BNSF Railway Company Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve BorgWarner Inc. BP

Branch Banking & Trust Broadcom Corporation Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. Brookdale Senior Living Inc Brookfield Renewable Brown Shoe Company, Inc. C. R. Bard, Inc. Cablevision Systems Corporation CACI Caesars Entertainment Corporation Cameron International Capella Education Company Capital One Cargill CarMax Caterpillar Inc. Centene Corporation CenterPoint Energy CenturyLink,Inc. CF Industries Charles Schwab., Inc. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP CHS Inc. Cigna CIT Colgate-Palmolive Comcast Cable Comerica ConAgra Foods, Inc. Con-way Inc Covanta Energy Coventry Health Care Covidien Curtiss Wright

CVS Caremark Deere and Company Del Monte Corporation Denbury Devon Energy DIRECTV Discovery Communications DISH Dollar General Corporation Dominion Resources, Inc. Domtar DST Systems, Inc. DTE Energy Dynegy Inc. Ecolab Eli Lilly and Company Enterprise Products, LP EP Energy Equity Residential Erie Insurance Estee Lauder Exelis Express Scripts F Hoffman La Roche Fannie Mae Fidelity National Information Services First Data First National Bank of Omaha Fiserv, Inc. Fluor Fortune Brands Home & Security Freddie Mac GAF Gannett


Gap Inc. GE Healthcare General Mills, Inc. Genuine Parts Company Genworth Financial Great-West Life and Annuity Insurance Guardian Life Insurance Company H.J. Heinz Company Halliburton Hasbro, Inc. Health Net Helmerich & Payne, Inc. Hertz Hess Corporation Hewlett Packard Hilton Worldwide Hitachi High Technologies America, Inc. Hormel Foods Hospira Huntsman Ingram Micro International Game Technology Iron Mountain Jack in the Box Inc. Jackson National Life Insurance JM Family Enterprises, Inc. John Deere Johnson & Johnson Joy Global, Inc Kaiser Foundation Health Plan KBR, Inc. Kimberly Clark Kinder Morgan KPMG LLP Lear Corporation Liberty Mutual Insurance Group

L'Oreal USA Lowe's Companies, Inc. LPL Financial Macys Inc Magellan Midstream Partners Marathon Petroleum Company Marriott International MassMutual Life Insurance Company MasterCard MATTE, INC McKesson Corporation Mercury Insurance Group MetLife, Inc. Michaels Stores, Inc Micron Technology, Inc. Mohawk Industries Motorola Mobility Inc. MSC Industrial Direct Murphy Oil Corporation Mutual of Omaha National Basketball Association Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company Navistar, Inc NCR New York Life Insurance Company Newell Rubbermaid Nextera Energy, Inc. Nike, Inc. Norfolk Southern Northwestern Mutual Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation NRG Energy, Inc. Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited NuStar Energy Office Depot OGE

ON Semiconductor ONEOK, Inc Orica Mining Services Pacific Life Insurance PayPal / Ebay Pelton & Crane (division of Danaher) Penske Piedmont Natural Gas Plains All American Polaris Industries PolyOne Corp Praxair, Inc. Priceline.com Inc. Pricewaterhouse Cooopers Principal Financial Group Progress Energy Protective Life Corp Publix Super Markets, Inc. PVH Corp. Regions Financial Revlon Robert Bosch LLC Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd Safeway Sallie Mae Sears Holdings Corporation Sentry Insurance Simon Property Group Sirius XM Sodexo Sony Pictures Entertainment Southern California Edison Southern Company Spectra Energy Corp Spectrum Brands Sprint


Staples Inc Starbucks Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. Stryker SunGard Sunoco, Inc. SUPERVALU Symantec Target TD Bank Group Tellabs Inc Tesoro The Coca-Cola Company (Mercer) The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. The Hartford The Hershey Company The Home Depot The Kroger Co. The McGraw-Hill Companies The TJX Companies Inc

The Travelers Cos., Inc. The Walt Disney Company Thrivent Financial for Lutherans TIBCO Software Inc. Tiffany & Co Time Warner Cable Time Warner Inc. Toyota Motor Sales Toys R Us, Inc. TRW Automotive Tyson Foods, Inc. Union Pacific United Rentals United Stationers United Stationers Supply Co Univision Communications Inc. Unum UPS URS Energy & Construction USAA

Valero Energy Corporation Verizon Communications Verizon Wireless Viacom Inc Vornado Realty Trust Vulcan Materials Company Walgreen Co. Warner Bros. Entertainment Waste Management, Inc Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield WellPoint, Inc. WESCO Distribution Inc Weyerhaeuser Williams Wm Wrigley Jr Co. WPX Energy, Inc. Wyndham Worldwide Zurich Insurance


Competitive Pay Philosophies Competitive Pay Philosophies – Base Pay This year was the first time we asked participants to discuss their pay philosophies and we developed a series of questions focused on this topic. The answers from 236 participants are illustrated in the graph below:

Clearly the distribution of responses in the graph above shows that Market Median is the desired, Base Salary competitive position for 75.4% of the participants responding to this question. A Market Average targeted position was reported by 14.4% of the companies.

1.7% 3.4%

14.4%

75.4%

0.4% 4.7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

P75 P65 Average Median Below Median No Philosophy

Base Salary Philosophy / Market Position Frequency of Responses


Competitive Pay Philosophies – Total Cash Compensation In addition to Base Salary competitive positioning, companies were also asked to indicate their desired competitive posture relative to Total Cash Compensation. 237 companies provided responses to this particular question and the answers are summarized in the graph below.

Median is again the dominant competitive posture for Total Cash Compensation as it was for Base Salary at 66.7% of the responses, though at a slightly lower level. There is some shift to the P65 and P75 positions in evidence in the chart above. The No Philosophy position is also almost double when compared to the Base Salary ranking of the same category.

0.4%

5.1% 6.8%

13.1%

66.7%

8.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

Above P75 P75 P65 Average Median No Philosophy

Total Cash Compensation Philosophy / Market Position Frequency of Responses


Actual Practice versus Philosophy – Base Salary Since, philosophy, as represented by a company’s salary structure, is a desired or theoretical position, we wanted to know how closely actual salary practices aligned with the stated philosophical competitive positioning. We asked companies to indicate if their practice on Base Salary was At, Above, or Below the targeted market position. The answers from 230 companies are summarized below:

The majority of companies (76.9%) indicated that their Base Salary practices closely aligned with their desired competitive position as reflected in their philosophy.

7.4%

76.9%

15.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Above Position At Desired Position Below Position

Base Salary Practice -vs- Philosophy


Salary Structure Increase Budget for 2012 Participants were asked to report their Salary Structure Increase Budget for 2012. Responses were obtained form 167 companies and are summarized in the table below:

Survey Element # of Cos. Mean P25 Median P75

Salary Structure Increase for 2012 Incl Zeros 167 2.02% 1.50% 2.00% 3.00%

Salary Structure Increase for 2012 Excl Zeros 133 2.53% 2.00% 2.30% 3.00%


Merit Increase Budget 2012 Merit Increase Budget for 2012 (Includes Zeros) Participating companies were asked to provide the percentage increase in merit budget planned for 2012 and to indicate if this value varied by level. Executive / Management increases were lower than professionals and support, partially due to more zero increases for that level. The survey responses from 240 companies are summarized below.


Overall Merit Budget Increase for 2012 240 2.70% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Executive 194 2.62% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Management 182 2.71% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Professionals 207 2.68% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Support / Non-Exempt 203 2.67% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Merit Increase Budget for 2012 (No Zeros) The following table summarizes merit increase budgets overall and by level without zero increases.


Overall Merit Budget Increase for 2012 232 2.80% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Executive 177 2.87% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Management 178 2.77% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Professionals 199 2.79% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%



Merit Increase Budget for 2012 by Industry The following table summarizes planned Merit Increase budgets for 2012 by Industry for 16 reportable industry classifications. As can be seen below, the Oil / Gas / Services, Real Estate and Technology industries reported above par Merit Increases, while insurance and Financial Services and Telecom / Cable / Satellite reported lower than average Merit Increase budgets for 2012.

Industry No. Cos. Avg Median

Excludes Zeros

Consumer Products 20 2.72% 3.00%

Electric & Gas Util 14 2.79% 3.00%

Financial Services 20 2.54% 2.75%

Healthcare 10 2.62% 2.70%

Insurance 23 2.65% 2.50%

Manufacturing 18 2.84% 3.00%

Media 7 2.84% 3.00%

Oil / Gas / Services 21 3.30% 3.00%

Pharmaceutical / Chemical 10 2.87% 3.00%

Professional Services 5 2.70% 3.00%

Real Estate / Constr / Materials 7 3.04% 3.00%

Restaurants / Hospitality 5 2.80% 3.00%

Retail / Wholesale 33 2.81% 3.00%

Technology 14 3.01% 3.00%

Telecom / Cable / Satellite 7 2.41% 2.50%

Transportation / Trans Services 9 2.82% 3.00%


Merit Increase Budget for 2012 by Revenue Category The following table summarizes planned Merit Increase budgets for 2012 by revenue for 6 reportable categories. Merit Increase budgets tended to be higher in larger revenue companies than smaller revenue companies, with some exceptions. At Median, the reported Merit Increase value at 3.00% was undifferentiated by revenue category.

Revenue Category No. Cos. Avg Median

Excludes Zeros

A. 30 Billion and Above 45 2.85% 3.00%

B. 15-30 Billion 31 2.83% 3.00%

C. 10-15 Billion 34 2.85% 3.00%

D. 5-10 Billion 51 2.77% 3.00%

E. 3-5 Billion 33 2.66% 3.00%

F. 1-3 Billion 32 2.82% 3.00%


Promotional Increase Budget Promotional Increase Budget for 2012 (Includes Zeros) Participating companies were asked to provide the percentage increase set aside for Promotional Increases in the 2012 budget. The survey responses from 98 companies are summarized below. The Median value across all levels was 0.50%.


Overall Promotional Budget Increase for 2012 98 0.78% 0.04% 0.50% 0.85%

Executive 80 0.62% 0.00% 0.50% 0.80%

Management 83 0.63% 0.00% 0.50% 0.80%

Professionals 83 0.63% 0.00% 0.50% 0.80%


Promotional Increase Budget for 2012 (No Zeros) The following table summarizes promotional increase budgets overall and by level without zero increases. In this case, Median Values were 0.50% across all career levels.



Executive 54 0.92% 0.50% 0.50% 1.00%

Management 60 0.87% 0.50% 0.50% 1.00%

Professionals 60 0.86% 0.50% 0.50% 1.00%



Special Competitive Adjustment Budget Special Competitive Adjustment Budget for 2012 (Includes Zeros) Participating companies were asked to provide the percentage increase set aside for Special Adjustments in the 2012 budget. The survey responses from 76 companies are summarized below. The Median value across all levels was 0.00%.



Executive 61 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%

Management 63 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%

Professionals 63 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%


Special Competitive Adjustment Budget for 2012 (No Zeros) The following table summarizes special competitive adjustment budgets overall and by level without zero increases. In this case, Median Values across all levels was 0.50%.



Executive 27 0.90% 0.50% 0.50% 1.00%

Management 31 0.81% 0.45% 0.50% 1.00%

Professionals 31 0.81% 0.45% 0.50% 1.00%



Total Increase Budget Total Salary Increase Budget for 2012 (Includes Zeros) Participating companies were asked to provide the Total Percentage Salary Increase Budget (Merit plus Promotional plus Special) for 2012. The survey responses from 246 companies are summarized below. The Median value across all levels was 3.00%.


Overall Total Salary Budget Increase for 2012 246 3.07% 2.70% 3.00% 3.30%

Executive 202 2.92% 2.50% 3.00% 3.29%

Management 192 3.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.30%

Professionals 212 3.02% 2.70% 3.00% 3.30%


Total Salary Increase Budget for 2012 (No Zeros) The following table summarizes the Total Salary Increase Budget for 2012, overall and by level without zero increases. In this case, Median Values across all levels was 3.00%.


Overall Total Increase Budget for 2012 No Zeros 242 3.12% 2.75% 3.00% 3.30%

Executive 186 3.17% 2.71% 3.00% 3.45%

Management 187 3.08% 2.70% 3.00% 3.30%

Professionals 208 3.08% 2.75% 3.00% 3.30%



US Salary Budget Increase Commentary Participants were invited to comment on their US Salary Budgets for 2012. Responses were obtained from 97 companies. Narrative comments were aggregated and classified. 54.6% of those answering this question indicated that Promotional and Special Increases were not in fact budgeted at all. In these cases such increases were dealt with ad hoc, outside of the planning cycle, and were charged back to the department or function involved, post facto. In the remaining cases, a single percentage amount was set aside to cover both Promotional and Special Increases, but discretion was allowed as to the allocation of weights between those two elements. These findings are consistent with similar responses in prior years.


Forecasted Salary Structure Increase Budget for 2013 Participants were asked to forecast their Salary Structure Increase Budget for 2013. Responses were obtained from 113 companies and are summarized in the table below:


Salary Structure Increase for 2013 Incl Zeros 113 2.16% 2.00% 2.00% 3.00%

Salary Structure Increase for 2013 Excl Zeros 96 2.54% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00%


Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 (Includes Zeros) Participating companies were asked to indicate the forecasted merit increase budget for 2013, if known. Responses were obtained from 174 companies and are summarized in the table below (which includes forecasted zero increases):


Overall Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 174 2.90% 2.75% 3.00% 3.00%

Executive 147 2.80% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Management 138 2.85% 2.53% 3.00% 3.00%

Professionals 159 2.89% 2.75% 3.00% 3.00%


Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 (Excludes Zeros) The following table summarizes forecasted merit increase budgets for 2013 (excluding zero increases).


Overall Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 173 2.92% 2.75% 3.00% 3.00%

Executive 141 2.92% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00%

Management 137 2.87% 2.60% 3.00% 3.00%

Professionals 158 2.90% 2.75% 3.00% 3.00%



Forecasted Merit Increase Budgets for 2013 by Industry The following table summarizes planned Merit Increase budgets for 2013 by Industry for 15 reportable industry classifications. Oil / Gas / Services had the highest average forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013.


Excludes Zeros

Consumer Products 13 2.90% 3.00%

Electric & Gas Util 8 2.69% 3.00%

Financial Services 16 2.79% 3.00%

Healthcare 9 2.84% 3.00%

Insurance 21 2.83% 3.00%

Manufacturing 15 2.95% 3.00%

Media 6 3.17% 3.00%

Oil / Gas / Services 14 3.34% 3.13%

Pharmaceutical / Chemical 7 2.86% 3.00%

Professional Services 5 2.70% 3.00%

Real Estate / Constr / Materials 6 3.08% 3.00%

Restaurants / Hospitality 6 2.75% 3.00%

Retail / Wholesale 21 2.91% 3.00%

Technology 9 3.21% 3.00%

Transportation / Trans Services 6 2.92% 3.00%


Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2013 by Revenue The following table summarizes forecasted Merit Increase budgets for 2013 by Revenue Category for 6 reportable classifications.


A. 30 Billion and Above 50 2.97% 3.00%

B. 15-30 Billion 36 2.97% 3.00%

C. 10-15 Billion 44 2.83% 3.00%

D. 5-10 Billion 55 2.87% 3.00%

E. 3-5 Billion 38 2.81% 3.00%

F. 1-3 Billion 39 3.03% 3.00%


Long Term Incentive Targets Companies were asked to provide their Long Term Incentive Targets Overall, by Level and by functional area, if different. Responses were obtained from 75 companies and are summarized in the following tables: LTI Targets - Executives

Department # of Cos. Mean P25 Median P75

All Departments Combined 75 62.18% 37.50% 50.00% 75.50%

Law 26 61.73% 40.00% 52.00% 75.00%

Finance 22 61.00% 45.00% 56.50% 75.00%

Compliance 19 58.53% 44.00% 50.00% 75.00%

Accounting 20 59.45% 45.00% 52.50% 75.00%

Audit 20 56.15% 42.25% 50.00% 75.00%

Government Relations 18 56.61% 45.00% 50.00% 72.50%

Corporate Communications 19 60.05% 45.00% 54.00% 75.00%

Human Resources 24 62.27% 43.75% 50.00% 76.25%

Information Technology 24 60.94% 38.75% 51.50% 75.00%


LTI Targets - Management



Law 21 25.08% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%

Finance 20 24.86% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%

Compliance 17 26.50% 20.00% 28.00% 30.00%

Accounting 19 24.83% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%

Audit 18 25.50% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%



Human Resources 20 24.66% 20.00% 26.50% 30.25%



LTI Targets - Professionals



Law 13 12.01% 10.00% 10.00% 15.00%

Finance 12 11.63% 10.00% 10.00% 15.00%

Compliance 11 12.18% 10.00% 10.00% 15.00%

Accounting 12 11.63% 10.00% 10.00% 15.00%

Audit 10 11.30% 10.00% 10.00% 14.50%



Human Resources 11 10.78% 10.00% 10.00% 14.00%



Departmental Staffing Levels – US Participants were asked to enter their US headcount for various identified departments. Responses were provided by 169 companies and are summarized below: Departmental Staffing – US


Law 156 95 22 46 95

Finance 149 342 71 155 392

Compliance 87 42 5 15 50

Accounting 93 167 10 99 210

Audit 105 27 10 16 32

Government Relations 85 24 2 6 18

Corporate Communications 121 37 5 13 45

Human Resources 153 194 53 105 252

Information Technology 152 824 164 336 792


Law Department Staffing – US Participants were asked, in addition, to provide information on the staffing of the Law Department in the US, by defined levels. Information was collected from 158 participants and this information is summarized below:

Law Department Staffing – US:

Level # of Cos. Mean P25 Median P75

Legal Executives 158 9 2 4 8

Attorneys 157 36 8 17 37

Paralegals 151 14 3 7 15

Administrative Support 158 19 3 7 15


Salary Actions Taken in 2012 Companies were asked to indicate any actions they have taken in relation to salaries in response to the current economic situation. 207 Companies responded to this question. The majority (89.3%) indicated no actions had yet been taken. For those organizations taking some form of action, the most common action was the use of very targeted remedial increases (9.2% of respondents) on a departmental basis.

Response # Responses % of Total

No Action 185 89.3% Removal of Freeze 2 1.0% Remedial Salary Adjustments 19 9.2% Considering Remedial Adjs. 1 0.5%

Removal of Freeze 1.0%

Remedial Action 9.2%

Considering Remedial 0.5%

No Action 89.3%

Salary Actions Taken in 2012


2011 Bonuses Paid in 2012 Participants were asked to indicate if bonuses paid in 2012 for 2011 performance, were Higher, Lower or About the Same, relative to bonuses paid 2011 for 2010 performance. Participants were also asked to indicate the percentage change, positive or negative, of any variance. 211 Companies responded to this question, over 72% indicated that bonus payouts were either the same or higher relative to payments in 2011. There was a big increase in the number of companies indicating lower payouts in 2012 relative to 2011 (27% vs 13.6%). The Median Change reported was a payout increase of 15.0% over last year. More companies, than in the 2011 survey, commented on a failure to meet corporate goals with a corresponding reduction or elimination of bonuses. The Pie chart below summarizes the distribution of answers provided.

Responses # Responses % of Total

Higher 55 26.1% About the Same 99 46.9%

Lower 57 27.0% Total 211 100.0%

Higher 26.1%

About the Same 46.9%

Lower 27.0%

Bonus Payout Variance 2012 vs 2011


Stock Awards Changes in 2012 Participants were asked to describe any actions they had taken in regard to Stock Awards in 2012. Overall 111 companies provided responses to this question, of which, 95 of which were readily classifiable. No Change was the dominant response reported, accounting for 64.2% of responses. 24.2% of responses reported New Features / Design, typically revolving around the mix of elements provided. The responses from the 95 companies are summarized in the Pie Chart below.

Response # Responses % of Total No Change 61 64.2% Eligibility Change 6 6.3% New Features/Design 23 24.2% No Awards 5 5.3% Total 95 100.0%

No Change 64.2%

Eligibility Change 6.3%

New Features/Design

24.2%

No Awards 5.3%

Stock Plans Changes in 2012


Concerns related to Macro-Economic Issues Participants were asked to indicate their level of concern relative to a list of identified macro-economic variables, using a four point scale of Not at All Concerned to Very Concerned. Three issues were rated “Concerned” or “Very Concerned”: Compensation Competitiveness, Employee Retention, and Skill Shortages. Responses from 198 companies are summarized under each heading, below:

Rising Inflation

Very Concerned 4.4%

Concerned 21.3%

Somewhat Concerned 47.0%

Not at All Concerned 27.3%

Rising Inflation


Falling Unemployment Compared to other factors examined, Falling Unemployment levels are less of a concern to participants with only 17% registering a Concerned or Very Concerned rating.

Very Concerned 2.2%

Concerned 14.8%



Falling Unemployment


Skill Shortages Companies continue to have concerns about Skill Shortages with 52.3% being Concerned or Very Concerned, compared to 47.4% last year.

Very Concerned 18.8%

Concerned 33.5%



Skill Shortages


Employee Retention As the pie shows, 69.4% of companies were, Concerned or Very Concerned about Employee Retention, up from 61.2% last year.


Concerned 38.3%



Employee Retention


Compensation Competitiveness As the pie shows, 62.1% of companies were, Concerned or Very Concerned about Compensation Competitiveness.


Concerned 38.4%



Compensation Competitiveness


New College Hire Practices Participants were asked to indicate their New College Hire Practices with respect to Average Hiring Rates and Average Sign-On Bonuses. Responses from 55 companies are summarized in the two tables below:

Average Hire Rate

Degree Classification # of Cos. Mean P25 Median P75

Bachelors – Non-Technical 55 $49,258 $45,000 $50,000 $54,500

Bachelors - Technical 53 $59,222 $51,000 $60,000 $65,000

Bachelors – Top Tier 31 $59,593 $50,000 $56,000 $65,050

MBA 39 $80,607 $62,500 $82,020 $95,000

Masters – Non MBA 36 $68,697 $59,563 $66,000 $76,250

Sign On Bonus Practices – for those paying Bonuses

Degree Classification # of Cos. Mean P25 Median P75

Bachelors – Non-Technical 20 $4,338 $3,000 $4,500 $5,000

Bachelors - Technical 25 $5,690 $3,000 $5,000 $5,000

Bachelors – Top Tier 11 $5,250 $4,500 $5,000 $5,625

MBA 23 $13,739 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000

Masters – Non MBA 18 $9,847 $5,000 $6,125 $10,000


2012 College Hire Rates vs. 2011 Participants were asked to compare the hiring rates offered in 2012 versus the rates for the same period in 2012, using a scale of Higher, Lower or About the Same. Additionally, they were asked to indicate the percentage difference, positive or negative. 136 companies provided responses to this question and the answers are summarized below:

The Average positive variation reported in 2012, relative to 2011 Hire Rates, was 3.35% with a Median of 3.0%.

Companies also indicated that they expected to hire more Recent College Graduates relative to 2011 with an Average increase in numbers of 2.36%, slightly lower than the 2.90 reported in 2011.

Higher 22.8%

About the Same 77.2%

Lower 0.0%

Hire Rates


Number of Weeks Severance The following table summarizes the number of weeks severance offered by level and tenure with the company. As might be expected, the table shows that the number of weeks increases by level and tenure with the company. Responses are tabulated from 89 companies.

Level Exec Mgmt Prof NX Exec Mgmt Prof NX Exec Mgmt Prof NX Exec Mgmt Prof NX

Tenure 0-1 Year 1-3 Years 3-5 Years 5+ Years

No. Cos. 72.0 87.0 86.0 85.0 75.0 89.0 88.0 88.0 75.0 89.0 88.0 88.0 70.0 81.0 81.0 82.0

Avg 16.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 19.0 9.0 7.0 6.0 21.0 11.0 9.0 6.0 25.0 16.0 13.0 12.0

P25 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 5.0

Median 9.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 12.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 20.0 14.0 12.0 9.0

P75 25.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 26.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 29.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 38.0 20.0 18.0 15.0

Exec – Executive Mgmt – Management Prof – Professional NX – Non-Exempt / Hourly

Table of Contents - SHRM Online · PDF file©2012 Empsight International, LLC -...

Documents

Transcript of Table of Contents - SHRM Online · PDF file©2012 Empsight International, LLC -...