Toner Industry CEOs With The Worst Reputations

[Anonymous]

Xerox Ranks #5 of Industry CEOs With The Worst Reputations
5. Ursula M. Burns
 Company: Xerox
CEO rating: 30%
Company rating: 2.74
Years as CEO: 5
 No. of employees: 140,000

Ursula Burns made headlines in 2009 when she became the first African-American woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Burns has been exceptionally visible during her tenure, making frequent public appearances even as the company’s prospects have faltered. Burns pushed for the $6.4 billion acquisition of Affiliated Computer Services that closed in 2010, claiming it would help the business. Xerox Corp. (NYSE: XRX), though, has yet to see any substantial benefit from the deal. Late last year, the company called the police prior to announcing 168 layoffs at its Cary, N.C., facility, noting they “were expecting trouble.” It was the second round of a total of roughly 500 layoffs. This treatment of employees stands in contrast to how the board treats Burns, awarding her an average of $13 million a year between 2010 and 2012. One former employee, commenting on Glassdoor, said, “Most upper management have received salary increase over the last 6 years, but staff has not.”

476687101A good manager understands the contribution of his or her employees. In return, managers often receive the respect of their workers. And indeed, more than two-thirds of American employees approve — even like — their companies’ chief executive officers.

Some CEOs, however, are not popular with employees. At nine major companies, 40% or fewer employees gave their CEOs a positive review. Sears Holdings’ CEO, Edward Lampert, received positive reviews from just 20% of Sears employees and from just 26% of Kmart employees, the lowest rated CEO. Based on 24/7 Wall St.’s independent review of employee ratings provided by Glassdoor, these nine CEOs have the worst reputations.

Click here to see the nine CEOs with the Worst Reputations

According to Glassdoor spokesperson Scott Dobroski, “While this list was compiled by independent research by 24/7 Wall St., it’s clear that some CEOs may want to take note that their own employees feel they can improve when it comes to leadership.” 24/7 Wall St. identified a number of factors that can hurt a CEO’s reputation within his or her own company. These include a CEO’s propensity for humiliating the company in public, poor stewardship of the company and a compensation package that employees perceive to be excessive.

A number of CEOs have failed to represent their companies adequately in public. On some occasions, a CEO’s public conduct was nothing more than a nuisance, while in other instances it became a liability for the company. Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Michael Jeffries is an infamous example of the latter. His comments about the retailer’s target audience — “cool, good-looking people” with “washboard stomachs” — have created negative feelings. Both the press and general public heaped scorn on Jeffries for his blatant lack of sensitivity and the company’s customer discrimination.

Many of the CEOs with poor reputations also ran their companies poorly. Xerox CEO Ursula Burns has repeatedly claimed the company’s 2010 buyout of Affiliated Computer Services would rekindle Xerox’s years of flagging fortunes. Instead, Xerox’s services business has faltered and revenue flattened. The acquisition’s once-prized assets have barely turned out to be valuable at all. Less than one-third of Xerox employees gave Burns a positive review.

One measure of stewardship is the evaluations employees gave their companies. Companies run by the CEOs on this list received scores of less than 3 out of 5 as an overall company rating, indicating workers were unhappy with their jobs and the companies. Employees of Sears Holdings’ Kmart stores gave their company just a 2.0 overall rating.

Dobroski noted that the relationship between overall rating and CEO approval was not a surprise to him. “The same is conversely true for the top [rated CEOs]. CEOs with high approval ratings tend to lead companies with higher than average satisfaction ratings as well.” According to Dobroski, this is because “leadership and the tone for the company going forward is generally set at the top and then trickles down to the rest of the company.”

Layoffs can also breed animosity toward management among employees. Since the beginning of 2013, GameStop has closed 500 stores. It is unlikely that company CEO J. Paul Raines is popular with current and former employees for that decision.

Other cuts can have a similarly negative effect on employee morale. Last year, Forever 21, run by CEO and founder Do Won Chang, cut employee benefits and moved a number of workers from full-time to part-time status. The company denied this was intended to limit some employees from working more than 30 hours per week — which would have required the retailer to provide workers with health coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Continued store cuts at Sears Holdings, which are central to the company’s plans to streamline operations, may also create negative feelings toward management among workers.

Extravagant pay can also lead employees to resent their CEOs. The three members of the Dillard family who run Dillard’s not only serve as management, but they also control the company’s board. The three brothers were paid a total of more than $58 million between 2011 and 2013. With a share price that has risen dramatically in recent years, from just a few dollars to nearly $100, investors may feel this money has been earned. It is unlikely that employees were as enthusiastic.

The chief executives with the worst reputations may want to look at their more popular counterparts at other companies to determine how they can improve and win over their employees. According to Dobroski, well-liked executives focus on “clearly communicating their vision, including being transparent about where the company is going, how they’re going to get there, and how each employees plays a vital role in this.”

However, for many executives there is little incentive to improve those perceptions without direct intervention from the stockholders. Despite the company’s weak financial performance, and his own rash statements, Abercrombie & Fitch’s Jeffries only stepped down as chairman of the board after hedge fund Engaged Capital launched a campaign to split the roles of CEO and chairman. Sears Holdings’ Lampert not only serves in both these roles, but he also engineered the 2005 merger of Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Kmart, widely considered to be a failure. Additionally, ESL Investments, Lampert’s investment fund, owned 48.5% of all shares outstanding as of March 19.

In order to identify the CEOs with the worst reputations, 24/7 Wall St. examined employee reviews at Glassdoor. To be considered, companies had to have a minimum of 500 reviews. Of the more than 225 companies with more than 500 comments, 24/7 Wall St. identified the nine CEOs with the lowest favorable reviews — 40% or lower. Positive reviews of Eddie Lampert, CEO of Sears Holdings and subsidiary Kmart, were both below 40%. Reviews of Michael Jeffries, CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch and subsidiary Hollister, were also both below 40%. Data on average wages by position were also from Glassdoor. Additionally, we reviewed financial statements from these companies, where available, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Employee counts are from companies’ own financial statements, as well as Yahoo! Finance. Estimates of employee counts of Forever 21, a privately held company, were taken from Forbes.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/07/xerox-ceo-pay-proxy-statement/7417099/
Burns' $7.75M in Xerox stock arrives later than usual
Matthew Daneman,

Xerox Corp.'s top executives took a big pay cut in 2013, but only because a considerable chunk of their compensation was put off until Jan. 1, 2014.

The area's largest publicly traded employer put out its 2013 proxy statement Monday. The 75-page document, which goes to shareholders in advance of the company's annual shareholder meeting on May 20, spells out what its top executives were paid in 2013.

Related story:Burns among CEOs with bad reputations, survey says

According to the proxy statement, Xerox — as a cost-cutting step — put off handing out millions of dollars in stock to those executives until Jan. 1. Those shares, usually given on July 1, are part of the company's long-term bonus program.

For CEO Ursula M. Burns, for example, that was $7.75 million worth of shares she received technically in 2014 — roughly the same she received in 2012. Lynn Blodgett, president of Xerox Services, received $3 million worth of stock on Jan. 1, the same as he did in 2012.

Those fortunes worth of stock are typically the single largest component of what executives like Burns pocket each year, though that long-term bonus program is not the sole source of income.

Burns' actual paycheck, at $1.1 million in 2013, was unchanged from 2012 and 2011. And though the company's 2013 performance fell short of what the board of directors — which determines the compensation of top executives — had wanted to see, it still was good enough for Burns to see a nice bump in her short-term cash incentives. She received $1.3 million in cash bonus in 2013, up from $1.1 million in 2012. Xerox's annual short-term bonus program is based on revenue growth, adjusted earnings and operating cash flow. For 2013, revenue growth and adjusted earnings came in below what the company wanted.

As of the end of February, Burns personally owned 2.2 million shares of Xerox.

When Burns' stock awards are factored in, she received $10.2 million in cash and equity for 2013, up roughly 2.2 percent over 2012. A lot of top American CEOs are doing quite a bit better. A USA Today analysis of roughly 200 members of the S&P 500 found that 2013 median pay — including salary, bonus, incentive awards, perks and gains from vested shares and exercised stock options — jumped 13 percent. Rising stock prices was a big factor in that boost.

Xerox's shareholders, meanwhile, had a better 2013 than 2012. Xerox's average stock price in 2013 was roughly $9.50, with it gaining steadily over the course of the year from roughly $7 early in the year to more than $12 by year's end. In 2012, by comparison, Xerox stock averaged $7.50, with its share price remaining generally between $7 and $8.50.

The company's shares closed Monday at $11.43, down 5 cents or 0.5 percent.

Xerox Ranks #5 of Industry CEOs With The Worst Reputations
5. Ursula M. Burns
 Company: Xerox
CEO rating: 30%
Company rating: 2.74
Years as CEO: 5
 No. of employees: 140,000

Ursula Burns made headlines in 2009 when she became the first African-American woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Burns has been exceptionally visible during her tenure, making frequent public appearances even as the company’s prospects have faltered. Burns pushed for the $6.4 billion acquisition of Affiliated Computer Services that closed in 2010, claiming it would help the business. Xerox Corp. (NYSE: XRX), though, has yet to see any substantial benefit from the deal. Late last year, the company called the police prior to announcing 168 layoffs at its Cary, N.C., facility, noting they “were expecting trouble.” It was the second round of a total of roughly 500 layoffs. This treatment of employees stands in contrast to how the board treats Burns, awarding her an average of $13 million a year between 2010 and 2012. One former employee, commenting on Glassdoor, said, “Most upper management have received salary increase over the last 6 years, but staff has not.”

476687101A good manager understands the contribution of his or her employees. In return, managers often receive the respect of their workers. And indeed, more than two-thirds of American employees approve — even like — their companies’ chief executive officers.

Some CEOs, however, are not popular with employees. At nine major companies, 40% or fewer employees gave their CEOs a positive review. Sears Holdings’ CEO, Edward Lampert, received positive reviews from just 20% of Sears employees and from just 26% of Kmart employees, the lowest rated CEO. Based on 24/7 Wall St.’s independent review of employee ratings provided by Glassdoor, these nine CEOs have the worst reputations.

Click here to see the nine CEOs with the Worst Reputations

According to Glassdoor spokesperson Scott Dobroski, “While this list was compiled by independent research by 24/7 Wall St., it’s clear that some CEOs may want to take note that their own employees feel they can improve when it comes to leadership.” 24/7 Wall St. identified a number of factors that can hurt a CEO’s reputation within his or her own company. These include a CEO’s propensity for humiliating the company in public, poor stewardship of the company and a compensation package that employees perceive to be excessive.

A number of CEOs have failed to represent their companies adequately in public. On some occasions, a CEO’s public conduct was nothing more than a nuisance, while in other instances it became a liability for the company. Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Michael Jeffries is an infamous example of the latter. His comments about the retailer’s target audience — “cool, good-looking people” with “washboard stomachs” — have created negative feelings. Both the press and general public heaped scorn on Jeffries for his blatant lack of sensitivity and the company’s customer discrimination.

Many of the CEOs with poor reputations also ran their companies poorly. Xerox CEO Ursula Burns has repeatedly claimed the company’s 2010 buyout of Affiliated Computer Services would rekindle Xerox’s years of flagging fortunes. Instead, Xerox’s services business has faltered and revenue flattened. The acquisition’s once-prized assets have barely turned out to be valuable at all. Less than one-third of Xerox employees gave Burns a positive review.

One measure of stewardship is the evaluations employees gave their companies. Companies run by the CEOs on this list received scores of less than 3 out of 5 as an overall company rating, indicating workers were unhappy with their jobs and the companies. Employees of Sears Holdings’ Kmart stores gave their company just a 2.0 overall rating.

Dobroski noted that the relationship between overall rating and CEO approval was not a surprise to him. “The same is conversely true for the top [rated CEOs]. CEOs with high approval ratings tend to lead companies with higher than average satisfaction ratings as well.” According to Dobroski, this is because “leadership and the tone for the company going forward is generally set at the top and then trickles down to the rest of the company.”

Layoffs can also breed animosity toward management among employees. Since the beginning of 2013, GameStop has closed 500 stores. It is unlikely that company CEO J. Paul Raines is popular with current and former employees for that decision.

Other cuts can have a similarly negative effect on employee morale. Last year, Forever 21, run by CEO and founder Do Won Chang, cut employee benefits and moved a number of workers from full-time to part-time status. The company denied this was intended to limit some employees from working more than 30 hours per week — which would have required the retailer to provide workers with health coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Continued store cuts at Sears Holdings, which are central to the company’s plans to streamline operations, may also create negative feelings toward management among workers.

Extravagant pay can also lead employees to resent their CEOs. The three members of the Dillard family who run Dillard’s not only serve as management, but they also control the company’s board. The three brothers were paid a total of more than $58 million between 2011 and 2013. With a share price that has risen dramatically in recent years, from just a few dollars to nearly $100, investors may feel this money has been earned. It is unlikely that employees were as enthusiastic.

The chief executives with the worst reputations may want to look at their more popular counterparts at other companies to determine how they can improve and win over their employees. According to Dobroski, well-liked executives focus on “clearly communicating their vision, including being transparent about where the company is going, how they’re going to get there, and how each employees plays a vital role in this.”

However, for many executives there is little incentive to improve those perceptions without direct intervention from the stockholders. Despite the company’s weak financial performance, and his own rash statements, Abercrombie & Fitch’s Jeffries only stepped down as chairman of the board after hedge fund Engaged Capital launched a campaign to split the roles of CEO and chairman. Sears Holdings’ Lampert not only serves in both these roles, but he also engineered the 2005 merger of Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Kmart, widely considered to be a failure. Additionally, ESL Investments, Lampert’s investment fund, owned 48.5% of all shares outstanding as of March 19.

In order to identify the CEOs with the worst reputations, 24/7 Wall St. examined employee reviews at Glassdoor. To be considered, companies had to have a minimum of 500 reviews. Of the more than 225 companies with more than 500 comments, 24/7 Wall St. identified the nine CEOs with the lowest favorable reviews — 40% or lower. Positive reviews of Eddie Lampert, CEO of Sears Holdings and subsidiary Kmart, were both below 40%. Reviews of Michael Jeffries, CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch and subsidiary Hollister, were also both below 40%. Data on average wages by position were also from Glassdoor. Additionally, we reviewed financial statements from these companies, where available, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Employee counts are from companies’ own financial statements, as well as Yahoo! Finance. Estimates of employee counts of Forever 21, a privately held company, were taken from Forbes.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/07/xerox-ceo-pay-proxy-statement/7417099/
Burns' $7.75M in Xerox stock arrives later than usual
Matthew Daneman,

Xerox Corp.'s top executives took a big pay cut in 2013, but only because a considerable chunk of their compensation was put off until Jan. 1, 2014.

The area's largest publicly traded employer put out its 2013 proxy statement Monday. The 75-page document, which goes to shareholders in advance of the company's annual shareholder meeting on May 20, spells out what its top executives were paid in 2013.

Related story:Burns among CEOs with bad reputations, survey says

According to the proxy statement, Xerox — as a cost-cutting step — put off handing out millions of dollars in stock to those executives until Jan. 1. Those shares, usually given on July 1, are part of the company's long-term bonus program.

For CEO Ursula M. Burns, for example, that was $7.75 million worth of shares she received technically in 2014 — roughly the same she received in 2012. Lynn Blodgett, president of Xerox Services, received $3 million worth of stock on Jan. 1, the same as he did in 2012.

Those fortunes worth of stock are typically the single largest component of what executives like Burns pocket each year, though that long-term bonus program is not the sole source of income.

Burns' actual paycheck, at $1.1 million in 2013, was unchanged from 2012 and 2011. And though the company's 2013 performance fell short of what the board of directors — which determines the compensation of top executives — had wanted to see, it still was good enough for Burns to see a nice bump in her short-term cash incentives. She received $1.3 million in cash bonus in 2013, up from $1.1 million in 2012. Xerox's annual short-term bonus program is based on revenue growth, adjusted earnings and operating cash flow. For 2013, revenue growth and adjusted earnings came in below what the company wanted.

As of the end of February, Burns personally owned 2.2 million shares of Xerox.

When Burns' stock awards are factored in, she received $10.2 million in cash and equity for 2013, up roughly 2.2 percent over 2012. A lot of top American CEOs are doing quite a bit better. A USA Today analysis of roughly 200 members of the S&P 500 found that 2013 median pay — including salary, bonus, incentive awards, perks and gains from vested shares and exercised stock options — jumped 13 percent. Rising stock prices was a big factor in that boost.

Xerox's shareholders, meanwhile, had a better 2013 than 2012. Xerox's average stock price in 2013 was roughly $9.50, with it gaining steadily over the course of the year from roughly $7 early in the year to more than $12 by year's end. In 2012, by comparison, Xerox stock averaged $7.50, with its share price remaining generally between $7 and $8.50.

The company's shares closed Monday at $11.43, down 5 cents or 0.5 percent.

[Author]

April 8, 2014 at 11:03 AM