Incentive Pay Practices:
Nonprofit/Government
Organizations
A Report by WorldatWork
and Vivient Consulting
February 2016
About WorldatWork® – The Total Rewards Association
WorldatWork (www.worldatwork.org) is a nonprofit human resources association for
professionals and organizations focused on compensation, benefits, work-life effectiveness and total rewards – strategies to attract, motivate and retain an engaged and
productive workforce. WorldatWork and its affiliates provide comprehensive education,
certification, research, advocacy and community, enhancing careers of professionals
and, ultimately, achieving better results for the organizations they serve. WorldatWork
has more than 65,000 members and subscribers worldwide; 80 percent of Fortune 500
companies employ a WorldatWork member. Founded in 1955, WorldatWork is affiliated
with more than 70 local human resources associations and has offices in Scottsdale,
Ariz., and Washington, D.C.
Contact:
WorldatWork Customer Relations
14040 N. Northsight Blvd.
Scottsdale, Arizona USA
85260-3601
Toll free: 877-951-9191
Fax 480-483-8352
[email protected]
WorldatWork Society of Certified Professionals® is the certifying body for six prestigious designations: the Certified Compensation Professional® (CCP®), Certified Benefits
Professional® (CBP), Global Remuneration Professional (GRP®), Work-Life Certified
Professional® (WLCP®), Certified Sales Compensation Professional (CSCP)™ and
Certified Executive Compensation Professional (CECP)™.
The WorldatWork group of registered marks also includes: Alliance for Work-Life
Progress or AWLP, workspan and WorldatWork Journal.
About Vivient Consulting
Since 2002, Vivient Consulting has provided independent compensation expertise to
board compensation committees, chief executive officers and human resource
professionals. Vivient works with public and private companies, and non-profit
organizations. Clients represent many different industries, sizes and stages of growth.
The firm’s partners deliver high-quality solutions in the areas of compensation strategy,
executive and board pay, incentive-compensation plan design and communications.
For more information about this study,
[email protected] or (847) 636-8919.
contact
Bonnie
Schindler
at
©2016 WorldatWork Any laws, regulations or other legal requirements noted in this publication are, to the best of the publisher’s knowledge, accurate and current
as of this report’s publishing date. WorldatWork is providing this information with the understanding that WorldatWork is not engaged, directly or by implication, in
rendering legal, accounting or other related professional services. You are urged to consult with an attorney, accountant or other qualified professional concerning
your own specific situation and any questions that you may have related to that.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork.
METHODOLOGY
In November 2015, Vivient Consulting and WorldatWork invited a sample of
WorldatWork’s nonpublicly traded members to answer an online survey about their
incentive pay practices.
More than 125 nonprofit and government organizations responded to the survey, as did
200 private for-profit companies. The survey results for the private for-profit companies
appear in a separate report.
Of the respondents, 70% are nonprofits, such as charitable and education
organizations. The remaining 30% are public-sector organizations, such as state, local
and federal government entities. The most common industries represented in the survey
are health care and social assistance (29%); educational services (15%); public
administration (14%); finance and insurance (12%); and consulting, professional,
scientific and technical services (10%).
The size of nonprofit and government organizations responding to the survey tends to
be large. Of the respondents, 75% have more than 1,000 full-time equivalent (FTE)
employees. Organizational budgets range from more than $20 billion to less than $100
million. About half of the respondents reported budgets of more than $1 billion, and onethird reported budgets of $100 million to $1 billion.
This report provides a high-level summary of the survey results. For detailed results,
including the sample size by question, please see the Detailed Survey Results section
beginning on page 9.
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 1
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
OVERVIEW
U.S. nonprofit and government
organizations continue to make
significant use of short-term cash
incentives to motivate and reward
employees, according to the 2016
Vivient Consulting and WorldatWork
survey of incentive compensation
programs at these organizations. Shortterm cash incentives are more prevalent
at nonprofits than at government
organizations, and the incentive budgets
are larger. Long-term incentive usage
continues to be rare at both types of
organizations.
The incentive compensation survey was
first conducted in 2007 and targeted
private companies. It was conducted
again in 2011, where nonprofit and
government participation grew. In 2013,
Vivient and WorldatWork created a
special report for these organizations
because of the increasing interest in
incentive pay practices. This is the
second iteration of that report.
Short-term incentive (STI) and long-term
incentive (LTI) usage have remained
steady at nonprofits and government
organizations over the past two years.
Graph 1
Short- and Long-Term Incentive
Prevalence
100%
2015
2013
77%78%
75%
50%
16%16%
25%
0%
Short-term
Long-term
Nonprofits are more likely to use STIs
than government organizations, but the
practice is prevalent across both
organization types. The prevalence of
STIs is driven by the need to compete
for talent with public and private
companies.
Graph 2
STIs by Organization Type
2015
100%
2013
86%82%
67%
55%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Nonprofit
Government
LTIs continue to be used sparingly at
nonprofits. Nonprofits may still use
pension plans and other retirement
plans to provide the retention hook that
LTIs offer for public and private
companies. As in 2013, only one
government respondent reported an LTI
plan.
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 2
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
SHORT-TERM INCENTIVES
promises, and are not
guaranteed.
Nonprofit and government organizations
favor simplicity by offering a limited
number of STI plans. Of the
respondents, more than 75% reported
having three or fewer STI plans in place.
•
Spot awards: Awards that
recognize special contributions,
as they occur, for a specific
project or task. The project or
task is usually accomplished over
a short time period.
•
Profit-sharing plan: A plan
providing for employee
participation in an organization’s
profits or surplus. The plan
normally includes a
predetermined and defined
formula for allocating funds
among participants, and for
distributing funds accumulated
under the plan. However, some
plans are discretionary.
•
Team/small-group incentives:
Any incentive program that
focuses on the performance of a
small group, usually a work team.
These incentive programs are
often used when measurable
output is the result of group effort
and individual contributions are
difficult to separate from group
effort.
•
Project bonus: A form of
additional compensation paid to
an employee or department as a
reward for successfully
completing a specific project
within a certain timeframe.
Graph 3
Number of STI Plans at Organizations
with an STI Plan
4%
6%
5%
10%
2%
11%
8%
5%
Number of STI Plans
11+
6-10
5
4
2015
2013
27%
19%
27%
24%
27%
25%
3
2
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
For 2015, the survey asked participants
whether they had any of the following
six types of STI plans:
•
•
Annual incentive plan (AIP): A
pay plan designed to reward the
accomplishment of specific
results. Rewards usually are tied
to expected results identified at
the beginning of the performance
cycle. In contrast to bonuses,
they are not primarily
discretionary but may have a
discretionary component.
Discretionary bonus plan: A
plan in which management
determines the size of the bonus
pool and the amounts to be
allocated to specific individuals
after a performance period.
These plans have no
predetermined formula or
By far, the most common type of STI
plan at nonprofit and government
organizations is an annual incentive
plan (AIP).
Graph 4
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 3
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
STI Prevalence at Organizations with
an STI Plan
86%
76%
AIP
51%
42%
45%
40%
Spot awards
Discretionary
17%
23%
14%
21%
5%
2%
Team/group
Project
bonus
Profit-share
0%
have increased significantly. The
nonprofit STI budgets are starting to
approach the levels reported by the
private, for-profit organizations. This
increase is driven by the need to recruit
and retain the top talent required to
operate the underlying business of the
nonprofit organization.
Graph 6
2015
2013
50%
100%
12%
Respondents provided their
organizations’ approximate spending for
STIs as a percentage of operating
budget for 2015 and projected spending
for 2016. Reported STI budgets
increased significantly since the survey
was last conducted.
Graph 5
STI Budget/Spend as a Percentage of
Operating Budget
12%
2016 (Proj.)
2015
2013
10%10%
10%
8%
6%
5%
3% 3%
4%
1%
2%
2016 Projected STI Spending as a
Percentage of Operating Budget:
Government vs. Nonprofit
11.0%
Government
10%
Nonprofit
8%
6%
4%
4.5%
3.0%
1.3%
2%
0.9% 1.0%
0%
75th Percentile
Median
25th Percentile
Annual Incentive Plans
The most prevalent STI plan at nonprofit
and government organizations, the AIP,
is usually available to employees at the
exempt salaried level and above. About
half of nonexempt employees are
eligible for AIP awards.
1%1%
0%
0%
75th Percentile
Median
25th Percentile
When STI spending is broken down by
organization type, the data show that
nonprofit incentive levels are driving the
increased expenditures and budgets.
The following graph depicts projected
government and nonprofit incentive
spending for 2016 as a percentage of
operating budget. Government budgets
remain modest, while nonprofit budgets
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 4
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
Graph 7
Graph 8
2015 AIP Eligibility
for Organizations with AIPs in Place
AIP Effectiveness at Achieving
Objectives
50%
2015
80%
CEO
40%
Other
Executives
90%
30%
Managers/
Supervisors
70%
20%
65%
Exempt
0%
50%
27% 28%
32%
22%
18% 17%
16%
10%
52%
Nonexempt
2013
38%
2% 1%
0%
100%
The respondents with AIPs in place
reported on the primary objectives of
their plans. The most common
objectives were to:
1. Reward employees (65% of
respondents).
2. Focus employees on specific
goals (62%).
3. Align employees’ incentives with
short-term goals (55%).
Participants were asked to rate the
effectiveness of their AIPs. More than
80% of nonprofit and government
organizations said their AIPs were
moderately effective to effective,
indicating continuing organizational
satisfaction with these incentive plans.
1
effective
2
3
4
5 not
effective
In addition, nonprofit and government
organizations found their incentive plans
to be more effective than those at their
private-company counterparts, as
reported in the sister survey of for-profit
organizations.
Plan elements cited most often as AIP
strengths were:
AIP Strengths
Type of performance measures
Performance linkage
(corporate, unit, individual)
Goal setting
Level of award opportunity
79%
75%
62%
56%
Plan elements cited most often as AIP
weaknesses were:
AIP Weaknesses
Risk-reward trade-off
Level of discretion
Plan communication
73%
62%
61%
The results indicate that nonprofit and
government organizations largely view
their AIPs as successful, particularly
with regard to the performance
measured, the award opportunities
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 5
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
available to participants and how goals
are set. AIP improvement opportunities
exist for payouts relative to results, use
of discretion and plan communication.
Most nonprofit and government
organizations specify a maximum cash
payment, or cap, in their AIPs. Similarly,
most organizations specify threshold,
target and maximum awards for
participants. The most typical threshold
level is 50% of target, while the most
typical maximum payout level is 150%
of target.
Nonprofit and government organizations
employ a wide variety of performance
measures in their AIP plans and use
different methods to combine the
measures. Just over half of the
organizations rely on four to six
performance measures, while a quarter
rely on one to three measures.
Graph 9
the number of performance measures
used in 2015, suggesting a trend toward
simplification.
Organizations that use more than one
measure must combine those measures
in some way to generate an AIP award.
Approaches to combining measures
vary, but most organizations either use
a balanced-scorecard approach or
calculate performance separately for
each measure.
Combining Measures to Calculate
AIP Awards
Method
Description
Financial
and
Balanced
40%
operational
Scorecard
Additive
Variation by
Participant
Number of Measures Used in AIPs
10+
3%
Multiplicative
7-9
15%
1-3
27%
One Measure
4-6
55%
Other
Nonprofit and government organizations
continue to use more measures than
their for-profit counterparts, implying a
more holistic approach to performance
measurement and incentive awards.
However, a number of nonprofit and
government organizations did reduce
measures are
balanced.
Performance is
calculated
separately for each
measure.
Different measures
are used for
different plan
participants.
Certain measures
are used as
modifiers to
increase or
decrease the
award.
Only one measure
is used.
Variation by plan or
individual and
discretion are two
methods.
28%
10%
8%
8%
5%
Survey participants were asked which
AIP performance measures they use
with regard to three different categories:
financial, operational and individual.
Nonprofit and government organizations
favor operational measures over
financial measures. Customer
satisfaction was the most widely used
operational measure, with
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 6
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
service/quality a close second. Nearly
one-quarter of respondents reported
using “other” operational measures, so
organizations are using a variety of
distinct measures that fit their unique
needs and goals.
Operational Measures
Customer satisfaction
Service/quality
Operational efficiency
Employee satisfaction/
engagement scores
Safety/occupational injury
Other operational objectives
53%
48%
43%
25%
13%
23%
With regard to financial measures,
revenue and revenue growth replaced
measures of surplus, revenue over
expenses or income as the most widely
used financial measures in this year’s
survey.
Financial Measures
Revenue/revenue growth
Measures of surplus, revenue
over expenses or income
Cash flow/cash-flow growth
A return measure (return on
equity, assets or investments)
Other financial
48%
38%
8%
7%
about two-thirds of nonprofit and
government organizations continued to
report that their plans used some level
of subjectivity in AIP award decisions.
Respondents view the use of discretion
as both a strength and weakness.
Positive aspects include who applies the
discretion, and the amount subject to
discretion. Discretion also provides a
useful mechanism to incorporate
qualitative performance measures. This
is particularly important in nonprofit
organizations, as many evaluate how
well they achieved their missions. The
negative aspects of discretion are
communication of the rationale for its
use, perception of the fairness for
payouts and consistency of use across
the organization. These findings indicate
that communicating the discretionary
elements of STIs should be an area of
focus for nonprofit and government
organizations in 2016.
As was the case in 2013, approximately
two-thirds of the respondents with AIPs
fund their plans using a pool established
at the organization level based on
financial and/or strategic goals.
Graph 10
Method of Funding AIP Pool
17%
Individual objectives are also widely
used. About 40% of the organizations
use performance ratings as the basis for
AIP awards, while another 40% use
achieving specific individual goals to
help determine incentive awards.
AIP performance targets at nonprofit
and government organizations are
typically based on budgets,
improvement over prior year,
management discretion and
achievement of milestones. In 2015,
Financial
formula at
division,
unit or
group level
10%
Sum of
each
individual’s
target
14%
Discretion
7%
Other
3%
Financial
formula
at org.
level
66%
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 7
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
LONG-TERM INCENTIVES
SUMMARY
Long-term incentive (LTI) plans are
scarce at nonprofit and government
organizations, with only 16% of
organizations reporting an LTI plan. The
only types of LTI plans reported were
performance awards, which include
long-term cash and performance units:
A final question asked participants to
select the top three tools besides
incentive pay that they found effective in
retaining top talent. The most prevalent
responses were job advancement and
promotion, retirement plans, additional
base pay and flexible work
arrangements.
•
•
Long-term cash plan: Cash
awards where payment is
contingent on performance as
measured against predetermined
financial or strategic objectives
over a multiyear period of time
(typically three years).
Performance units: Grants of
dollar-dominated units with value
that is contingent on performance
against predetermined objectives
over a multiyear period of time.
Government organizations rely on
retirement plans as a long-term
component of compensation, as do
nonprofits to a lesser degree. It will be
interesting to see if more nonprofits
adopt long-term performance award
plans — which are basically multiyear
bonus plans — in the future.
Graph 11
Retention Tools for Top Talent
70%
Advancement
Retirement plan
49%
Additional base pay
48%
Flexible work
arrangements
Developmental
assignments
45%
20%
17%
Additional benefits
10%
Specialized training
1%
Additional perqs
0%
50%
100%
Job advancement was by far the most
prevalent and important tool, which
reinforces the old adage that workplace
rewards are not all about compensation.
Employees want to learn and grow in
their jobs, and be recognized for their
efforts.
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 8
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
INCENTIVEPAYPRACTICESSURVEY:NONPROFIT/GOVERNMENTORGANIZATIONS
DETAILEDSURVEYRESULTS
(DataeffectiveasofDecember2015)
Yourorganizationis:
Nonprofit,not-for-profit
Publicsector,government
89 70%
38 30%
N= 127
SHORT-TERMINCENTIVES
1.Doesyourorganizationhaveashort-termincentiveprogram?
Yes
No
97 77%
29 23%
N= 126
Onlyparticipantsanswering"yes"inQuestion1receivedthefollowingshort-termincentive
programquestions.
2.Howmanyshort-termincentiveprogramsdoesyourorganizationhave?
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Sixto10
11ormore
26
26
26
8
2
5
4
N=
27%
27%
27%
8%
2%
5%
4%
97
83
49
43
16
13
5
N=
86%
51%
45%
17%
14%
5%
96
3.Whichtypesofshort-termincentiveplansdoesyourorganizationuse?(Selectall
thatapply.)
Annualincentiveplan(AIP)
Spotawards
Discretionarybonus
Team/small-groupincentives
Projectbonus
Profit-sharingplan
Blank
31
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 9
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
4.Isyourorganizationplanningtoaddashort-termincentiveplanormodifyashort-term
incentiveplanfor2016?
No
Yes
74 76%
23 24%
N= 97
4a.Ifyes,whatpromptedtheadditionormodification?(Selectallthatapply.)
Changeinstrategyoralignmentwithstrategicplan
Regularannualreviewandupdateoftheplan(s)
Alignmentofprogramswithmarketpractices
Changeinbusinessresults
Companygrowth
Reorganization
Newownership/management
Changesduetoregulatoryrequirements
Other
Ÿ Strengthenpayforperformance
Ÿ Gaincompetitiveadvantage
Blank
104
15
11
7
4
3
2
1
0
2
65%
48%
30%
17%
13%
9%
4%
0%
9%
N= 23
4b. If you're modifying a plan, what changes are being implemented? (Select all
thatapply.)
Addingoneormoreperformancemeasures
Eliminatingoneormoreperformancemeasures
Raisingperformancegoals
Increasingtargetawardlevels
Removingparticipantsfromtheplan
Addingparticipantstotheplan
Increasingtheuseofdiscretioninincentivepayouts
Wideningtheincentivepayoutzone
Decreasingtargetawardlevels
Reducingtheuseofdiscretioninincentivepayouts
Loweringperformancegoals
Narrowingtheincentivepayoutzone
Other
Ÿ Eliminatingplans
Ÿ Improvinggoalsandtargets
Blank
104
9
9
8
5
5
4
4
3
3
1
1
0
3
39%
39%
35%
22%
22%
17%
17%
13%
13%
4%
4%
0%
13%
N= 23
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 10
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
5.Whatisyourorganization’sapproximatetotalannualbudget/spendingforshort-term
incentives,expressedasapercentageofoperatingincome?(Operatingincomeisearnings
beforeinterestandtaxes,orEBIT.Nonprofitsshouldusenetsurplus,orrevenueminus
expenses.)
2015
2016(expected)
Percentile
25th Median 75th Blank
1%
3%
10%
54
1%
3%
10%
N= 73
AnnualIncentivePlans
Onlyparticipantsselecting"annualincentiveplan"inQuestion3receivedthefollowing
section.Responsesinthissectionarebasedontheannualincentiveplaninwhichmost
ofanorganization'semployeesparticipate.
6.Pleaseindicatewhichofthefollowingpositionsareeligibleforannualincentivesin2015.
CEO
Otherexecutives/officers
Managers/supervisors
Exemptsalaried
Nonexemptsalariedandhourly
Blank
67
48
54
42
39
31
N=
80%
90%
70%
65%
52%
60
7.Whatarethetopthreeprimaryobjectivesofyourannualincentiveplan?(Selectupto
three.)
Rewardemployees.
Focusemployeesonspecificgoals.
Alignemployees’incentiveswithshort-termgoals.
Becompetitivewithotheremployers.
Sharetheorganization’sfinancialsuccesswithemployees.
Retainemployees.
Providespecialrecognition.
Recruitqualifiedemployees.
Other
Blank
67
39
37
33
23
13
13
7
4
1
N=
65%
62%
55%
38%
22%
22%
12%
7%
2%
60
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 11
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
8.Onascaleof1to5,howeffectiveisyourannualincentiveplanatachievingitsobjectives?
1Effective
2
3
4
5Noteffective
13
16
19
11
1
N=
22%
27%
32%
18%
2%
60
9.Pleaseclickanddragthefollowingincentive-planelementstotheappropriate“Strength”
or“Weakness”box.
Typeofperformancemeasures
Performancelinkage(corporate,unit,individual)
Goalsetting
Levelofawardopportunity
Plancommunication
Levelofdiscretion
Risk-rewardtrade-off
Strength
79%
75%
62%
56%
39%
38%
27%
Weakness
21%
25%
38%
44%
61%
62%
73%
N=
56
55
52
57
56
52
44
10. How often are incentives paid during the year? (Select all that apply.)
Annually
Quarterly
Twiceayear
Other
Ÿ Acombinationofways
Ÿ Adhoc
Ÿ Monthly
Ÿ Twiceamonth
Blank
67
54 90%
2 3%
0 0%
7 12%
N= 60
11.Doesyourincentiveplanspecifyamaximumcashpayment(i.e.,acap)forindividualsin
theplan?
Yes
No
48 83%
10 17%
N= 58
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 12
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
12.Doesyourorganization’sincentiveprogramspecifythreshold,targetand/ormaximum
awardsforparticipants?
Yes
64%
80%
77%
Threshold
Target
Maximum
No
36%
20%
23%
N=
59
59
60
13.Whatisyourthresholdpayoutlevel?
25%oftarget
50%oftarget
75%oftarget
80%oftarget
Nothresholdintheplan
Other
Ÿ Otheramountsnotlistedabove
Ÿ Variesbyplan
5 13%
20 53%
3 8%
2 5%
2 5%
6 16%
N= 38
14.Whatisyourmaximumpayoutlevel?
Thetargetisthesameasthemaximum
120%oftarget
125%oftarget
150%oftarget
200%oftarget
300%oftarget
Nomaximumintheplan
Other
Ÿ Fixeddollaramount
Ÿ Variesbyplan
Ÿ Variesbyposition
5
1
6
23
6
0
1
4
11%
2%
13%
50%
13%
0%
2%
9%
N= 46
15.Howmanyperformancemeasuresareusedinyourannualincentiveplan?
Onetothree
Fourtosix
Seventonine
10ormore
16
33
9
2
N=
27%
55%
15%
3%
60
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 13
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
16.Whichofthefollowingperformancemeasuresareusedinyourincentiveplan?(Selectall
thatapply.)
N= 60
FinancialObjectives
Revenue/revenuegrowth
Measuresofsurplus/revenueoverexpenses/income
Cashflow/cash-flowgrowth
Areturnmeasure(returnonequity,assetsorinvestment)
Otherfinancialobjectives
Ÿ Investmentfundperformance
Ÿ Marketshare
Ÿ Netassets
Ÿ Performanceagainstbudget
OperationalObjectives
Customersatisfaction
Service/quality
Operationalefficiency
Employeesatisfaction/engagementscores
Safety/occupationalinjury
Otheroperationalobjectives
Ÿ Compliance
Ÿ Enhancedreputation
Ÿ Enrollment
Ÿ Membershipgrowth
Ÿ Progresstowardgoals
Ÿ Projectcompletion
Ÿ Turnover
IndividualObjectives
Overallindividualperformance,perhapsasexpressedinaperformancerating
Achievementofspecificindividualgoals
Otherindividualobjectives
29 48%
23 38%
5 8%
4 7%
10 17%
32
29
26
15
8
14
53%
48%
43%
25%
13%
23%
25 42%
24 40%
2 3%
Typicalnumberofindividualgoalsreported:
Only15participantsrespondedtothisquestion,soresultscan'tbereported
becauseofinsufficientdata.
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 14
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
17.Howaredifferentmeasuresusedtogetherinyourincentiveplan?
Abalancedscorecardapproachisused.
Awardsarepaidforperformanceineachmeasure.
Differentmeasuresareusedfordifferentparticipants.
Certainmeasuresareusedasmodifierstoincreaseordecreasetheaward.
Onlyonemeasureisused.
Other
24
17
6
5
5
3
N=
40%
28%
10%
8%
8%
5%
60
18.Whatbasisdoesyourorganizationusetosetperformancetargets?(Selectallthatapply.)
Budget
Improvementoverprioryear
Managementdiscretion
Achievementofmilestones
Formula
Fixedstandard
Relativepositiontopeers
Other
Blank
69
39
22
17
16
11
10
5
1
N=
67%
38%
29%
28%
19%
17%
9%
2%
58
19.Whatisthelinkageforyourannualincentiveprogrambyposition?Incentivesfor
individualsintheemployeecategoryarebasedon:
CEO
Executive/officer
Managers/supervisors
Exemptsalaried
Nonexemptsalariedandhourly
Organization Division/ Individual
Performance UnitPerf. Performance
96%
21%
42%
84%
48%
54%
73%
48%
58%
57%
36%
69%
61%
27%
61%
N=
53
56
48
42
33
20.Howmuchdoessupervisordiscretionorsubjectivityplayaroleinyourincentiveprogram?
Significantly
Somewhat
Toalesserdegree
Notatall
12
16
11
19
N=
21%
28%
19%
33%
58
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 15
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
21.Ifdiscretionisused,pleaseassessitseffectivenessbyclickinganddraggingthefollowing
elementstotheappropriate"Strength"or"Weakness"box.
Whoappliesthediscretion
Amountsubjecttodiscretion
Mechanismtoincorporatequalitativeperformance
Consistencyofuseacrosstheorganization
Perceptionoffairnessforpayouts
Communicationofrationalefordiscretion
Strength
70%
67%
57%
35%
30%
29%
Weakness
30%
33%
43%
65%
70%
71%
N=
33
33
30
37
33
34
22.Howisyourincentiveplanfunded?
Financiallybasedformulaatthecorporatelevel
Sumofeachindividual’starget
Financiallybasedformulaatthedivision,unitorgrouplevel
Discretionaryfunding
Other
39
8
6
4
2
N=
66%
14%
10%
7%
3%
59
23.Whatmethodsdoyouusetocommunicateyourincentiveplan?(Selectallthatapply.)
Writtenplandocumentviaindividualemailorinternalcompanywebsite
Annualcommunicationbycompanyofperformancetargets,linkstostrategy
Verbaldescriptionbyhumanresourcesorsupervisorthroughindividual
communications
Periodicupdatesonprogressbycompany
Company/teammeetings(inpersonorvirtual)toreviewincentiveplaninfo
Nomethodofcommunication(notcommunicated)
Other
Blank
68
39 66%
34 58%
33 56%
27 46%
22 37%
4 7%
2 3%
N= 59
LONG-TERMINCENTIVES
24.DoesyourorganizationhaveanLTIplan?
No
Yes
84 84%
16 16%
N= 100
Onlyparticipantsanswering"yes"inQuestion24receivedthefollowinglong-termincentive
questions.
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 16
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
25.Whichtypesoflong-termincentiveprogramsdoesyourorganizationoffer?(Selectall
thatapply.)
Long-termcashplans
Performanceunits
Performanceshares
Phantomstock
Restrictedstock
Stockappreciationrights(SARs)
Stockoptions
Blank
111
11 69%
5 31%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
N= 16
GENERAL
26.Beyondincentivepay,pleaseselectthetopthreerewardstoolsthatyourorganization
hasfoundeffectiveinretainingtoptalent.
Jobadvancement/promotion
Retirementplan
Additionalbasecompensation
Flexibleworkarrangements
Developmentaljobassignments
Additionalbenefits
Specializedtraining
Additionalperquisites
Other
Ÿ Organizationalculture
Blank
28
69
49
48
45
20
17
10
1
3
70%
49%
48%
45%
20%
17%
10%
1%
3%
N= 99
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 17
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
DEMOGRAPHICS
27.Underwhichindustrydoesyourorganizationfall?
Healthcare&socialassistance
Educationalservices
Publicadministration
Finance&insurance
Consulting,professional,scientific&technicalservices
Utilities,oil&gas
Otherservices(exceptpublicadministration)
Transportation
Realestate&rental&leasing
Accommodations&foodservice
Admin.&support&wastemanagement&remediationservices
Agriculture,forestry,fishing&hunting
Allothermanufacturing(37)
Arts,entertainment&recreation
Computer&electronicmanufacturing
Construction
Information(includespublishing,ITtechnologies,etc.)
Managementofcompanies&enterprises
Mining
Pharmaceuticals
Retailtrade
Warehousing&storage
Wholesaletrade
29
15
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N=
29%
15%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 18
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
28.Howmanyfull-timeequivalent(FTE)employeesdoesyourorganizationhave?
100,000ormore
40,000to99,999
20,000to39,999
10,000to19,999
5,000to9,999
2,500to4,999
1,000to2,499
500to999
100to499
Fewerthan100
2
4
8
13
10
13
25
13
8
4
N=
2%
4%
8%
13%
10%
13%
25%
13%
8%
4%
100
5
1
2
4
11
24
11
21
14
7
N=
5%
1%
2%
4%
11%
24%
11%
21%
14%
7%
100
29.Whatisyourorganization’sannualrevenue/budget?
Morethan$20billion
$15billionto$19.9billion
$10billionto$14.9billion
$5billionto$9.9billion
$2.5billionto$4.9billion
$1billionto$2.49billion
$500millionto$999million
$100millionto$499million
Lessthan$100million
Don'tknow
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 19
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”
Participating Organizations
AAA National Office
Affinity Health Plan
AlloSource
American Red Cross
Arapahoe County Government
Ascension Health
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota
Brown University
Cape Cod Healthcare Inc.
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
City of Naperville
City of Seattle
Clemson University
County of Kent
Delta Dental Plan of Michigan
Denver Public Schools
Economic Resources Corp.
EmblemHealth
Emory Healthcare
Employers Resource Association
Energy Northwest
Fallon Health
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles LLC
Geisinger Health System
General Board of Pension and Health
Benefits of The UMC
Harrisburg Area Community College
Idaho National Laboratory
Indiana State University
IRC
JEA
Lancaster General Health
LL Global
MaineGeneral Health
Maricopa County
Maryland Department of Transportation
Memphis Light, Gas and Water
Milwaukee County
MidMichigan Health
Mountain America Credit Union
MRA - The Management Association
Northwestern University
NRUCFC
NSF International
OhioHealth
Omaha Public Power District
Orange County Transportation Authority
Oregon Health & Science University
Otterbein Homes
Port of Seattle
Princeton University
Providence Health & Services
Provincial Government of BC
Salt River Project
Security Service Federal Credit Union
Spectrum Health
SRC Inc.
St. Mary's Hospital Madison
State of New Mexico
Summa Health
Sutter Health
Teacher Retirement System of Texas
Texas Mutual Insurance
The Johns Hopkins U/Applied Physics
Laboratory
The University of Alabama at
Birmingham
The University of Texas Health Science
Center at San Antonio
UMass Memorial Health Care
Union County Local Government
University of Dayton
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
Village of Glenview
Washington Metro Area Transit
Authority
Wellstar Health System
WorldatWork and Vivient Consulting | 20
“Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations”