HIGHLIGHTS OF MERCER GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES SNAPSHOT SURVEY · London [email protected] +44 (0) 20 7178 3341 New York [email protected] ... 2016 corporate annual incentive

H E A L T H W E A L T H C A R E E R

J U N E 2 0 1 6

H I G H L I G H T S O FM E R C E R G L O B A LF I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E SS N A P S H O T S U R V E Y

© MERCER 2016 1

T O D AY ’ S S P E A K E R SVICKI ELLIOTTGlobal Financial Services Talent Leader

MARK QUINNUK Talent Business Leader

DIRK VINKGlobal Financial Services Talent Project Manager

New [email protected]+1 212 345 7663

[email protected]+44 (0) 20 7178 3341


© MERCER 2016 2

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

• Participant Profile

• Planned Changes toCompensation Programs

• The Changing Employee ValueProposition in Financial Services

• Advances in Building A SoundRisk Culture

• Experiences With ApplyingMalus And Clawback Conditions

• Performance Management inFinancial Services

• The Way Forward

• Q&A

© MERCER 2016 LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3

P A R T I C I P A N T P R O F I L E

47%

32%

21%

Europe

North America

Growth Markets

50%

28%

9%

13%

Banks

Insurance

Investment / Asset Management

Other Financial Services

B Y I N D U S T R Y B Y R E G I O N

6 8 O R G A N I Z A T I O N S A C R O S S 2 0 C O U N T R I E S

© MERCER 2016 4© MERCER 2016 LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 4

P L AN N E D C H AN G E S TOC O M P E N S AT I O N P R O G R AM S


P L A N N E D C H A N G E S T O R O L E - B A S E DA L L O W A N C E S

• Most organizations who have role-based allowances are not planning to make changes to them:‒ Nearly three-quarters of banks are using role-based allowances but only 6% are making changes by

moving role-based allowances into base salary, and the remaining banks are not making any changes.‒ None of the organizations are planning to eliminate role-based allowances at this point.‒ Most insurance organizations (63%) do not have role-based allowances in place.

56%

50%

63%

26%

36%

50%

41%

43%

44%

50%

37%

68%

64%

50%

53%

54%

6%

6%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%


Investment/Asset…

Insurance

Banking

Growth Markets

North America

Europe

All Regions and Industries N/A. No role-basedallowances in place

No changes to role-based allowancesplanned

Moving role-basedallowances into basesalary

Eliminating role-basedallowances


E F F E C T O F M O R E F I X E D C O M P E N S A T I O N O NA B I L I T Y T O A T T R A C T A N D R E T A I N T A L E N T , A N DM O T I V A T E• The majority of organizations reported that fixed

compensation had little to no impact on their ability toattract and retain talent (68%) whereas 22% of theorganizations saw some or substantial positive impact:– Banks in particular have made changes to their

pay mix and placed more emphasis on fixedcompensation due to regulations over the pastyears.

– 24% of the banks saw some or substantial positiveimpact and 18% saw some negative impact ontheir ability to attract and retain talent.

– None of the organizations noted any substantialnegative impact.

• The majority of organizations reported that more fixedcompensation had little to no impact on their ability tomotivate performance (67%) :– 21% of the organizations saw some or substantial

positive impact.– 25% of the banks saw some or substantial positive

impact.– 19% of the banks saw some negative impact on

their ability to motivate talent.– None of the organizations noted any substantial

negative impact.

17%

18%

7%

5%

16%

78%

83%

74%

59%

57%

73%

69%

11%

21%

21%

21%

18%

16%

11%

5%

3%

14%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Insurance

Banking

Growth Markets

North America

Europe

Indu

stry

Reg

ion

22%

19%

14%

5%

17%

67%

83%

79%

56%

43%

82%

67%

11%

17%

16%

22%

36%

9%

17%

5%

3%

7%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Insurance

Banking

Growth Markets

North America

Europe

Indu

stry

Reg

ion

Substantial negative impact Some negative impactNeutral / hardly any impact Some positive impactSubstantial positive impact


P L A N N E D C H A N G E S T O C O R P O R A T E A N N U A LI N C E N T I V E D E S I G N• The majority of organizations are not planning to make changes to their

2016 corporate annual incentive design. Most prevalent changes tocorporate annual incentive design include:– Increasing the link to conduct/compliance behaviors (37%).– Increasing the individual differentiation in bonus distribution (28%).– Increasing the link to performance ratings (24%).

• Changes to annual incentive design vary significantly by region:– North American organizations predict far less changes than

organizations elsewhere.– Increasing the use of risk-adjusted measures at business unit level

(31%) and at individual level (28%) are significantly more prevalentin Europe than elsewhere.

– Increasing the link to conduct/compliance behaviors is the mostprevalent change in both Europe (41%) and Growth Markets (57%).

• Changes to annual incentive design in 2016 are more common in banksthan other industries:– More than half of the banks (56%) are increasing the link to conduct /

compliance behaviors.– 32% of banks are increasing the link to performance ratings and use

of scorecard with both financial and non-financial criteria.– 16% of insurance organizations are lowering the weight of financial

performance measures, whereas only 3% of banks are consideringthe same.

19%

19%

22%

22%

24%

24%

28%

37%

6%

1%

3%

1%

75%

81%

78%

76%

74%

75%

72%

63%

0% 100%

Weight of financial performancemeasures

Use of risk-adjusted measures atindividual level

Use of risk-adjusted measures atbusiness unit level

Use of scorecard with bothfinancial and non-financial

performance criteria

Weight of non-financialperformance measures

Link to performance ratings

Individual differentiation in bonusdistribution

Link to conduct / compliancebehaviors

Increase Decrease No Change


P R E V A L E N C E A N D P L A N N E D C H A N G E S T OM A N D A T O R Y D E F E R R A L• 68% of organizations have mandatory deferral programs in place. Nearly all banks (88%), 67% of investment/asset

management firms and approximately half of insurance firms have a mandatory deferral mechanism in place. Someorganizations are planning to make changes to their mandatory deferral program design in 2016:‒ The most prevalent change is increasing focus on conduct and compliance (22%).‒ In Europe, increasing the mandatory deferral period (performance/vesting period) is more prevalent (32%), than

elsewhere.‒ Increasing the focus on conduct and compliance and increasing the mandatory deferral period (performance/vesting

period) are among the most cited changes to mandatory deferral design for banks (both 30%).

9%

9%

11%

11%

13%

13%

20%

22%

4%

4%

2%

87%

87%

89%

89%

87%

85%

80%

78%

Required mandatory deferred portion of bonus

Eligibility for mandatory deferral

Use of clawback provisions (after vesting)

Use of malus conditions (prior to vesting)

Weight of non-financial performance measures

Weight of financial performance measures

Mandatory deferral period (performance /vesting period)

Focus on conduct and compliance

Increase

Decrease

No Change


P R E V A L E N C E A N D P L A N N E D C H A N G E S T OF O R W A R D - L O O K I N G L O N G - T E R M I N C E N T I V E S• 62% have a forward-looking long term

incentive program in place. Theseprograms are more common in theinsurance industry (84%) than banking(50%) and investment/assetmanagement (33%). However, 9% ofbanks are planning to introduce one.More North American firms (73%) haveforward-looking long-term incentiveprograms than in other regions.

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

11%

11%

11%

9%

2%

82%

91%

91%

91%

91%

86%

89%

89%

0% 100%

Eligibility for forward-looking long-term incentive

Additional required holding period(after vesting period)

Inclusion of strategic goals

Amount of discretion applied

Use of malus conditions (prior to vesting)

Target award levels

Additional required deferral period (after performanceperiod)

Rigor of performance conditions

Increase

Decrease

No Change

• Increasing the additional requireddeferral period (after performanceperiod) and rigor of performanceconditions are more prevalent in Europe(19% and 14% respectively), whereasnone of the North Americanorganizations are planning to makethese changes.– A few banks (16%) are decreasing

eligibility for forward-looking long-term incentive.

• Although changes to forward-looking long-term incentive plansare not prevalent, 11% oforganizations are planning toincrease the rigor ofperformance conditions,additional required deferralperiod (after performanceperiod), and target award levels.


P L A N N E D C H A N G E S I N V E H I C L E M I X

• The far majority of organizations are not planning to make changes to their vehicle mix of multi-year incentives in 2016.‒ 10% of organizations are planning to increase the portion of performance shares.

2%

3%

10%

3%

3%

2%

6%

97%

97%

90%

90%

97%

Cash-based plans

Service-based restricted stock

Performance shares

Stock options / SAR

Contingent capital / debt-based instruments

Increase

Decrease

No Change

© MERCER 2016 11© MERCER 2016 LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 11

T H E C H AN G I N G E M P L O Y E EVAL U E P R O P O S I T I O N I NF I N AN C I AL S E R V I C E S


C H A N G E S T O E M P L O Y E E V A L U E P R O P O S I T I O NB E Y O N D P AY• Financial services organizations are making or planning to make changes to their employee value proposition beyond pay:

22%

25%

29%

34%

37%

37%

43%

47%

3%

4%

1%

75%

71%

71%

66%

63%

63%

57%

51%

0% 100%

Employee choice in benefits provided

Use of (global) mobility programs

Use of job rotation programs

Use of non-monetary recognition programs

Career frameworks

Use of flexible work schedules

Work remotely

Learning and development programs / Education

Increase

Decrease

No Change

‒ Almost half of the organizations are increasinglearning and development programs/education andwork remotely programs (47% and 43% respectively).

‒ Career frameworks, use of flexible work schedules,and use of non-monetary recognition programs areincreased by more than one-third of theorganizations (37%, 37% and 34% respectively).

• Changes toemployee valuepropositionbeyond pay varyby region:

‒ Overall, more organizations in North America and Europe are projecting changes.‒ More European organizations are increasing the use of non-monetary recognition programs, employee

choice in benefits provided, and company's "noble purpose" communication than in North America.‒ More North American organizations are increasing the use of (global) mobility programs than in Europe.

© MERCER 2016 LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 13© MERCER 2016 LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 13

AD VAN C E S I N B U I L D I N G AS O U N D R I S K C U LT U R E


S T E P S T A K E N T O W A R D S F O S T E R I N G A S O U N DR I S K C U L T U R E• More than half of the organizations are making the following steps to a great extent: penalizing misconduct and/or non-

compliance (62%) and showing evidence of setting the right tone at top (60%), top management set and communicate clear(risk) culture objectives (58%), the right values and risk objectives are clearly articulated and reinforced by leadership action(54%), and introducing an annual review of adherence to risk and compliance criteria for all regulated staff (52%).

11%

19%

26%

30%

30%

31%

31%

42%

45%

48%

49%

49%

52%

54%

58%

60%

62%

51%

33%

32%

41%

44%

46%

38%

43%

49%

46%

37%

43%

25%

40%

35%

28%

38%

38%

48%

42%

30%

27%

23%

31%

15%

6%

6%

14%

8%

23%

6%

6%

12%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Rewarding positive risk behaviors

Using a behavior-based hurdle for qualifying to be eligible for an incentive payment

Introducing a separate rating on adherence to risk and compliance criteria

Strengthened clawback policy (possible recoupment of vested and paid awards)

Strengthened role of compliance function in performance expectation setting and evaluation

Strengthened role of risk management in performance expectation setting and evaluation

Strengthened malus provisions (possible reduction of unvested awards)

Increased focus on assessing risk behavior as part of the annual performance review

Training and coaching managers on sound risk culture and risk awareness

Training programs on sound risk culture and risk awareness

Effective use of discretion in qualitative evaluation of performance and behaviors

Values and associated behaviors are instilled, encouraged, and supported throughout theemployee lifecycle

Introducing an annual review of adherence to risk and compliance criteria for all regulated staff

The right values and risk objectives are clearly articulated and reinforced by leadership action

Top management set and communicate clear (risk) culture objectives

Evidence of setting the right tone at the top

Penalizing misconduct and / or non-compliance

To a great degree To some degree Not taken


E X P E R I E N C E S W I T H AP P LY I N GM AL U S AN D C L AW B AC KC O N D I T I O N S


A P P L Y I N G M A L U S

26%

37%

37%

74%

89%

96%

93%

28%

39%

67%

50%

56%

89%

94%

0% 100%

Individual on performance improvementplan

Firm-wide regulatory fines

Restatement of company or businessfinancial statements

Disciplinary case against individual

Negative business performance (financial)

Individual compliance breach

Individual misconduct

North America Europe

• Malus triggered by a restatement of company orbusiness financial statements is more prevalent inNorth America (67%) than in Europe (37%).

• Disciplinary case against individual and negativebusiness performance (financial) are more commontriggers in Europe (74% and 89% respectively) than inNorth America (50% and 56% respectively).

• Over 90% of banks and 72% of insuranceorganizations have malus policies in place.

• Malus policies are mostly triggered by:– Individual misconduct (89%)– Individual breach in compliance (89%)– Negative business performance (financial)

(74%)

C O N D I T I O N S T R I G G E R I N G M A L U S P O L I C YT O R E D U C E A W A R D S


• Typically, amounts reduced under malus conditions are determined on a case-by-case basis (45%).– Prevalent practices in North America are to recuperate all outstanding unvested awards (42%) or

determined on a case-by-case basis (42%).• The majority of organizations (69%) do not retain individuals involved in malus cases.

A P P L Y I N G M A L U S

13%

56%

19%

13%

16%

42%

42%

0%

None, no malus in place

Depends case by case

Only awards that wouldvest that year

All outstanding unvestedawards (multiple years)

P A R T O F A W A R D S R E D U C E D B Y M A L U S C O N D I T I O N S



A P P L Y I N G C L A W B A C K

• North American (80%) and European(71%) firms tend to have a clawbackpolicy in place.– Policies are also prevalent in the

banking (76%) and insurance (65%)industries.

• Policy effectiveness differs across regions.35% of European companies indicatedthat labor laws prevent an effectiveapplication compared to just 5% in NorthAmerica and 7% in Growth Markets. Themajority of North American firms (65%)find that their clawback policy workseffectively, compared to just 23% ofEuropean organizations.– Differences in effectiveness between

industries are small.29%

13%

35%

23%

20%

10%

5%

65%

0%

No such policy in place

Yes, but other challenges preventan effective application

Yes, but labor laws prevent aneffective application

Yes, the policy works effectively


• In the rare instance a clawback policy was applied, nearly90% of employees were not retained following the incident.This is common across all regions and industries.

P R E V E L A N C E A N D E F F E C T I V E N E S SO F C L A W B A C K P O L I C I E S


M A L U S & C L A W B A C K C A S E S A P P L I E D

• Three-quarters of companies have not applied their malus policy in the past 2 years forcompany or business performance reasons– Banks have applied malus for company or business performance reasons more than

insurance firms (39% vs. 18%).– 9% of banks have done so in 4 to 20 cases.– 6% of European organizations have had 21 or more cases of malus in the past two years,

whereas none of the North American and Growth Market organizations have.

• 63% of companies have not applied their malus policy in the past 2 years for individualperformance reasons or misconduct– Banks have applied malus for individual performance reasons more than insurance firms

(52% vs. 29%).– 35% of banks have done so in 1 to 9 cases and 13% percent of banks have done so in 10

to 49 cases, compared to only 24% of insurance firms in 1 to 9 cases.– Europe had the most cases of malus policies being applied due to individual performance

(59%), compared to just 15% in North America. Almost half of European firms (45%) appliedmalus due to individual performance in 1 to 9 cases only, and 13% in 10 cases or more.

• Over the past 2 years, clawback policies were rarely applied (10%), with little differencebetween industries and regions:– In cases where clawback policies were triggered, most instances were typically limited

to 1 – 3 cases.

¾OF

COMPANIES

63%OF

COMPANIES

10%IN

2-YEARS


P E R F O R M AN C E M A N AG E M E N TI N F I N AN C I AL S E R V I C E S


T E N U R E O F C U R R E N T P E R F O R M A N C EM A N A G E M E N T P R O C E S S E S

• Many organizations (41%) have had their current performance management processes in place withoutmaking any key decision changes or revisions for 1-3 years, followed by 4-6 years in 24% of theorganizations.

• Tenure of performance management processes is similar between regions, but differences by industry exist:– 22% of insurers indicated to have used their processes for 7 years or more, compared to only 3% of

banks.– 30% of banks have made changes in the past 12 months compared to just 11% of insurers.

11%

18%

18%

12%

9%

42%

41%

41%

26%

26%

24%

11%

3%

4%

11%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Insurance

Banking

All Industries

Less than 6 months 6 - 11 months 1 - 3 years 4 - 6 years 7 - 10 years Longer than 10 years


P L A N N E D C H A N G E S T O P E R F O R M A N C EM A N A G E M E N T P R O C E S S E S

• 46% of organizations across all industries indicate that they do not have key design changes or revisionsplanned for their performance management processes:– Half of all banks are planning to change their performance management processes in the next 12

months, compared to just 16% of insurers.– 32% of insurers want to change their processes but are unsure when.– 37% of European organizations are planning to change their performance management processes in

the next 12 months with an additional 13% after one year compared to 28% and 5% of North Americanorganizations.

5%

18%

12%

11%

32%

22%

16%

6%

7%

32%

9%

13%

37%

35%

46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Insurance

Banking

All Industries

Yes, in less than 6 months Yes, in 6 to 12 months Yes, in more than 12 months Yes, not sure when No, no changes planned


P E R C E I V E D E F F E C T I V E N E S S O F P E R F O R M A N C EM A N A G E M E N T A P P R O A C H• Only a small portion of the participating organizations

indicated that their performance management approachdelivers exceptional value.– More than half of participants responded that the

performance management approach works well.Reinforces a sound risk culture, involvement of ControlFunctions, linkage to compensation and use ofperformance rating scale were cited as most effective

31%

46%

34%

27%

26%

41%

23%

26%

64%

51%

60%

65%

65%

55%

63%

63%

5%

3%

6%

8%

9%

5%

14%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Setting expectations / Planning process

Feedback process

Evaluation process

Use of performance rating scale

Linkage to compensation

Linkage to development

Involvement of Control Functions(e.g., Compliance, Risk Management)

Reinforces a sound risk culture

Needs work Works well Delivers exceptional value

• There are differences in the perceived effectiveness ofperformance management approach across regions andindustries– 30% of North American organizations reported that the

involvement of control functions delivers exceptionalvalue compared to just 3% of European organizations

– Around half of the European and banking organizationsindicated feedback process and linkage to developmentneeds work compared to 40% and 30% in North Americaand 44% and 24% of insurers


P E R F O R M A N C E M A N A G E M E N T A P P R O A C H A N DP R O C E S S C O M P O N E N T S

The top 4 most cited components that are included in acompany’s performance management approach are:

1. Individual goals (99%)

2. Formal year-end review discussions (96%)

3. Overall performance ratings (85%)

4. Link individual performance ratings andcompensation decisions (85%)

The top 3 components that companies indicatethey are planning to introduce are:

1. Competencies / behaviors (12%)

2. Frequent feedback throughout the year ratherthan only periodic performance review (12%)

3. 360-degree or multi-source feedback (10%)

‒ North America and Growth Markets have the sametop 4 most cited components

‒ European organizations have calibration ofperformance ratings as one of their top 4 most citedcomponents

‒ A majority of banks (82%) indicated they haveperformance scorecard with financial and non-financial criteria

European organizations are also planning for compliance and conduct review

The top 3 components that companiesindicate they do not have:

1. Managers receiving a separate ratingon "people management" (69% do nothave this)

2. Grid rating of goal results andbehaviors ("9-box") (60%)

3. Year-end feedback and compensationdecision occurring in the samemeetings (59%).

74% of banks indicated they do not have year-end feedback andcompensation decision occur in the same meeting, which is more than20% higher than the other industries


F U N C T I O N S I N V O L V E D I N P E R F O R M A N C EM A N A G E M E N T P R O C E S S

• Human Resources and Finance have significant involvement throughout the performance management process. The role of RiskManagement is meaningful particularly in selecting performance measures, performance goal setting, and performance evaluation.

– Across all four performance management processes, more banks have a major involvement of their Risk Managementfunction compared to insurers.

– More European organizations have major involvement of their Finance function in the performance evaluation and bonusdetermination process.

F U N C T I O N S I N V O L V E D I N P E R F O R M A N C EM A N A G E M E N T P R O C E S S

BonusDetermination

PerformanceEvaluation

PerformanceGoal Setting

SelectingPerformance

Measures


T O O L S A N D P R O C E S S E S U S E D F O RD I F F E R E N T I A T I N G P E R F O R M A N C E

• The predominant tool used for differentiating performance is guidelines regarding expected ratingsdistribution (69%)– Relative ranking of employees is more prevalent in North American and Growth Markets organizations

(35% and 43%) than European (23%)– The use of "forced" distribution of ratings is limited to about one quarter of organizations across regions,

however, more prevalent in the insurance industry (33%) than banking (25%), as is the relative rankingof employees (56% vs. 22%)

• Most firms use a 5 point rating system to determine employee performance rating

13%

6%

9%

56%

16%

10%

5%

24%

62%

No rating scale is used

2

3

4

5

More than 5

Points on Performance Rating Scale


P O I N T S O N P E R F O R M A N C E R A T I N G S C A L E


T O O L S A N D P R O C E S S E S U S E D F O RD I F F E R E N T I A T I N G P E R F O R M A N C E

• The most prevalent processes used todifferentiate employee performance levels aremandatory calibration meetings and next-levelmanager reviews (55%). Next-level manager reviewsare more common in North America (70%), than inEurope (44%).– Mandatory calibration meetings (72%), next-level

manager reviews (72%) and guided distribution(67%) are more prevalent in insuranceorganizations than banks (48%, 48%, and 36%respectively).

• Looking ahead, 74% of companies foreseecontinuing with their current performance ratingsystem.– 20% of North American organizations are

planning to move away from performance ratingsand an additional 10% would like to but do nothave an alternative yet.

6%

67%

22%

72%

72%

15%

3%

36%

21%

48%

48%

None of the above

Other

Guided distribution

Forced rankings

Next-level managerreview

Mandatory calibrationmeetings

Banking Insurance

D I F F E R E N T I A T I N G B E T W E E NP E R F O R M A N C E L E V E L S


C R I T I C A L S K I L L A R E A T O B E I M P R O V E D

30%

30%

44%

47%

48%

58%

74%

0% 100%

Gathering "meaningful" information on employee performance (e.g., multi-source feedback)

Holding formal performance evaluation discussions with employees

Ensuring performance evaluations are "fair" and "equitable" (i.e., throughcalibration meetings, gathering performance feedback from others, etc.)

Setting "SMART" goals

Linking individual performance to "actionable" development planning

Providing career development coaching and direction to employees

Having candid dialogue with their direct reports about their performance

Financial services organizations see lots of opportunities to improve critical skills of their people managers.

65% of North American organizations are aiming to improve providing career development coaching and direction to employees.60% of North American organizations are linking individual performance to "actionable" development planning50% of European companies would like to improve ensuring performance evaluations are "fair" and "equitable“50% of European companies are setting "SMART" goals44% of European companies are gathering "meaningful" information on employee performance

55% of banks are focused on setting “SMART” goals, and ensuring performance evaluations are "fair" and "equitable" (52%)than insurers (39% and 39% respectively)94% of insurers are focused on having candid dialogue with their direct reports about their performance and providing careerdevelopment coaching and direction to employees (67%) than banks (73% and 52% respectively)


THE WAY FORWARD


T H E W AY F O R W A R D

• Compensation plan design change has continued in the financial services industry (e.g., creating increasedfixed compensation for key risk-takers in the EU)

• Recent regulatory proposals in the US and the impact of the UK’s EU referendum vote will likely bring aboutmore changes:– Inclusion of non-financial performance metrics in short and long-term incentives;– Limitations on maximum awards as a multiple of target;– Extended deferral and forfeiture/clawback requirements;– Potential changes to pay structures in the UK (a return to CRD III?)

• The emphasis on Employee Value Proposition in financial services is critical in the war for talent, particularlyfor millennials.

• Reinforcing the “right” behaviors and demonstrating a sound risk culture will be a focus and a challenge

• Performance management reform is a key lever to help manage toward desired culture change

• Efforts to achieve a sound risk culture, create an attractive environment for Talent, and meet shareholderrequirements, have to go beyond compensation systems for meaningful change to become embedded

• These initiatives need to be driven by responsible leadership rather than additional regulation


Q U E S T I O N S ?


Q U E S T I O N S ?VICKI ELLIOTTGlobal Financial Services Talent Leader

MARK QUINNUK Talent Business Leader

DIRK VINKGlobal Financial Services Talent Project Manager


[email protected]+44 (0) 20 7178 3341


QUESTIONSPlease type your questions in the Q&A section ofthe toolbar and we will do our best to answer asmany questions as we have time for.

To submit a question while in full screen mode, usethe Q&A button, on the floating panel, on the top ofyour screen.

CLICK HERE TO ASK AQUESTION TO “ALLPANELISTS”


Documents

HIGHLIGHTS OF MERCER GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES SNAPSHOT SURVEY · London [email protected] +44 (0) 20 7178 3341 New York [email protected] ... 2016 corporate annual incentive