Coronavirus (COVID-19) will undoubtedly go down as one of the major disruptors of 2020. There’s the main priority of public health and associated concerns and outcomes. There is also the fact that COVID-19 has already created a significant ripple effect on the business and economic sectors.
With supply chain gaps, halted production of goods, travel grounded for many, consumer reactions in the form of changes in supply/demand, along with other impacts, it’s not hard to see that COVID-19 will affect many businesses. A question is emerging as to how companies should set and monitor their performance goals and metrics in light of such an unexpected and uncertain situation.
Willis Towers Watson recently published insight on how management teams and boards are evaluating the rising questions around short and long-term incentive goals (“COVID-19 uncertainty impacting organizations’ long-term goals” by Heather Marshall and Derek Mordente). Some of those questions include:
If we’ve already approved goals, should we adjust them?
If we haven’t yet approved goals, should we wait?
Should we change metrics for affected performance periods as the focus of the organization pivots?
Do we have the ability to make adjustments or apply discretion, if appropriate, at the end of the performance period?
Should we even consider making adjustments, given our shareholders will feel the negative impact on our financial performance and in our stock price?
How are others responding?
Marshall and Mordente identified a few potential responses to these questions in the form of the following actions:
Delaying metric and goal setting until Q2
Modifying regional level and/or enterprise wide goals
Having proactive discussions about the likely need for discretion later in or at the end of the performance period
The prevailing response appears to be a delay of metric and goal setting until Q2. Marshall and Mordente explain that “Delaying decisions provides more time to determine the success of virus containment, monitor efforts to mitigate economic disruption and better understand the longer-term business impact. It is also less disruptive to existing incentive plans than other potential responses and is now viable given the changes to 162(m) resulting from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (i.e., the flexibility to establish performance goals more than 90 days into a performance period).”
Many organizations are already having conversations about COVID-19 – which include implementation of actions necessary to protect employees and steps to mitigate the uncertainties and disruption to the business. As those discussions occur, companies should consider the above insights in forming decisions around short and long-term incentive goals.
5 Ways to Reinvent Performance Awards
It’s hard to set goals during periods of economic uncertainty, especially for performance awards that are subject to a three-year performance period (as is the case for 82% of respondents ...Read More
Accounting for Modifications to Performance Awards
Here’s the situation: you’ve got an equity award in which vesting is conditioned on non-market targets (i.e., targets other than stock price, market cap, or TSR) and the targets are ...Read More
ISS Policy on Performance Award Modifications
Last week, I discussed ISS’s guidance on repricings. For this week'...Read More
Pay-for-Performance at Smaller-Cap Companies
It’s no secret that performance has been a key element in CEO pay for a while now. What may be surprising is that, according to a recently released study by Willis Towers Watson (“CEO P...Read More
Legal Challenge to Tesla Mega-Grant
A Delaware court has allowed a lawsuit over a massive grant issued to Elon Musk to proceed. As I’m sure many of you know, I am not a fan of mega-grants, so I am intrigued by this developme...Read More