wat

sonw

yatt.

com

wat

sonw

yatt.

com

Looking Toward Recovery: Realigning Rewards and Re-Engaging Employees

2009/2010U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary and Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

About the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Restructuring Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Landscape of Current Reward Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Impact of the Recession on the Employee Value Proposition and Employee Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Retention Risk for Top-Performing Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Summary and Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Selected Figures

Figure 1: Number of actions taken to minimize workforce downsizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2: Actions taken to avoid or minimize layoffs and their effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 5: Impact of changes on business and employee experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 6: Drop in employee engagement since 2008 . . . . . . . . . . 8

At a GlanceOrganizational restructuring has been pervasive and deep.

Actions taken to combat the downturn have had a significant negative impact on employee engagement.

Employees believe the changes made by their companies are affecting work quality and delivery to customers.

2009/2010U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

2 | 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

Executive SummaryThe recession has had widespread and unprecedented impact on U .S . employers and their employees . While the worst might be over, companies need to be prepared for the effects to linger even after the economy recovers . The scope and number of actions employers have taken in response to the economic crisis have resulted in a drop in employee engagement (particularly among top-performing employees), and this could have a long-lasting and detrimental impact on productivity, quality and customer service .

But many companies have not considered the impact of their actions on their Employee Value Proposition (EVP) and consequently have created significant attrition risk among top-performing employees. As companies emerge from the recession, they need to ensure their EVP aligns with their new business environment. Reviewing and rebuilding their

EVP will enable these employers to engage and retain the current workforce and to provide a compelling employment deal to critical-skill and top-performing employees.

Key FindingsOrganizational restructuring has been perva-■■

sive and deep.

Seventy-two percent of participants have ■—

gone through a restructuring or made layoffs since the economic downturn began in 2008.

Regardless of whether companies down-■—

sized, 89 percent of respondents report taking at least one or two actions to minimize the extent of workforce downsizing.

■ On average, survey participants report taking 3.5 different actions.

There has been a significant negative impact ■■

on employee engagement.

While organizations have been making ■—

major changes, employee engagement has dropped 9 percent since last year for all employees and close to 25 percent for top-performing employees.

About the SurveyThis report includes research findings from two recent Watson Wyatt surveys.

The 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Survey, conducted by Watson Wyatt Worldwide and WorldatWork and representing 235 organizations, is the primary source for the employer data in this report. These organizations span all industries and have a minimum of 1,000 employees each. The survey was fielded in May 2009.

Selected data featured in this report are drawn from the August issue of Watson Wyatt’s Effect of the Economic Crisis on HR Programs, our bimonthly survey series. The August survey included responses from 175 companies.

Data cited in the report are from the U.S. Strategic Rewards Survey unless otherwise noted.

The employee data are taken from a survey of a representative sample of 1,300 full-time workers at organizations with more than 1,000 employees.

watsonwyatt.com | 3

Top-performing employees are 20 percent ■—

less likely to agree that they understand the link between their own goals and the company’s goals than in 2008.

Employees believe the changes made by ■■

their companies are affecting work quality and delivery to customers.

Forty-one percent of employees indicate ■—

that changes have had an adverse impact on quality and customer service, while only 17 percent of employers believe this is the case.

These results are a signal that things are not going to return to “normal.” As a consequence, companies must take proactive measures to mitigate the negative effects of cost-cutting actions on employee morale and productivity. Employers will need to re-evaluate the “deal” with employees — the Employee Value Proposition — and create a renewed bond as the economy recovers.

DefinitionsHigh-performing organizations This report differentiates companies based on self-reported responses to the question, “How well did your organization perform financially compared with other firms in your industry over the past year?” Respondents were given five choices, ranging from “substantially below peer group” to “substantially above peer group.” In our analyses, we characterized companies that identified themselves as “above peer group” or “substantially above peer group” as high-performing organizations. Where possible, we have validated these responses by comparing them with publicly available financial performance data.

Top-performing employees Top-performing employees are those whose performance was rated “far exceeds expectations” (i.e., in the top 10 percent) by their supervisor in their most recent performance review.

Employee Value Proposition The Employee Value Proposition (EVP) encompasses the collective array of programs the organization offers in exchange for employment and is influenced by the organization’s brand, values, culture and leadership.

Employee engagement Engagement is a combination of commitment and line of sight. Committed employees are proud to work for their companies and motivated to help drive success. Line of sight is the focus and direction that guide employees in their day-to-day efforts so they know what to do to contribute to business success.

4 | 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

Restructuring ActivitiesEmployers have taken a range of actions in response to economic conditions. Seventy-two percent of participants have gone through a restructuring or made layoffs since the economic downturn began in 2008. The average number of layoffs speaks to the depth and breadth of the recession. High-performing organizations laid off (or expected to lay off) an average of 7 percent of their workforce, while all other firms laid off (or expected to lay off) an average of 9 percent of their workforce. Employers restructured to protect their bottom line.

Eighty-four percent of participants indicate their key objective for downsizing was to maintain profitability, while 66 percent say they cut staff-ing levels to reflect future demand. Regardless of whether companies downsized or why they did so, the majority of respondents report taking action to minimize the extent of workforce down-sizing (Figure 1). On average, survey participants report taking 3.5 different actions to minimize or avoid layoffs.

The most prevalent action taken was imple-menting a hiring freeze, followed by salary freezes and restrictions on overtime. There were significant differences between companies that took fewer actions (three or fewer) and more actions (four or more). Companies that took fewer actions focused activity on freezing pro-grams as a pre-emptive measure, while those that took more actions began to cut into the core financial components of total rewards. As the data indicate, financially high-performing organizations took fewer actions (an average of closer to three actions, while all others took closer to four actions). In fact, high-performing organizations were better positioned to respond to the crisis and to avoid cutting the core components of total rewards such as salary, benefits or bonus (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Number of actions taken to minimize workforce downsizing

Figure 2: Actions taken to avoid or minimize layoffs and their effectiveness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Reducedbenefits

Salaryreductions

Reduced oreliminated

401(k) match

Mandatoryfurloughs

Reducedbonuses

Restrictionson overtime

Salaryfreezes

Hiringfreezes

� High-performing organizations � All other organizations � All organizations

� Very effective/moderately effective

Act

ion

take

n

64%

73%68%

54%

69%

60%

52%59%

55%

19%

30%24%

19% 19% 19%12%

23%17% 15% 16% 15%

10%15% 13%

57%

44%

56%

40%

53%

41%

58%53%

Per

cent

of r

espo

nden

ts

11%

45% 44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

4 or moreactions

3 or feweractions

NoAction

watsonwyatt.com | 5

Planning and preparation prior to the downturn provided high-performing firms with tools to utilize in the crisis.

Seventy-eight percent of financially high-■■

performing organizations indicated their exist-ing contingency plans were effective for responding to the recession versus only 56 percent of all other firms.

Fifty-seven percent of high-performing ■■

organizations used a formal workforce plan to determine which employees to lay off versus less than half of all other firms (47 percent).

Fifty-three percent of high-performing ■■

organizations indicated their performance management system was effective for evaluating which employees to lay off versus less than half of all other firms (45 percent).

Performance management tools have ■■

been critical this year: 71 percent of organizations used performance as a factor in determining which employees to lay off (73 percent used functional skills as a factor as well).

Landscape of Current Reward ProgramsAs a consequence of the cost-cutting actions companies have been forced to take, many employees are experiencing a net decrease in the value of their total reward programs. As outlined in Figure 2, many companies have reduced the value of their core reward programs. For example, companies report bonus funding levels are dropping (from 82 percent for 2008 to 75 percent for 2009) (Figure 3). In addition to the changes to core reward programs, a

Figure 3: Most recent year funding for annual incentive awards*

2007 actual

99%

2008 actual

82%

2009 forecast

75%

*Average funding as a percentage of target

6 | 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

majority of companies have also implemented restrictions on travel (74 percent*), and some have reduced training opportunities (45 percent*). Slightly offsetting this trend perhaps is the finding that 23 percent of companies* have increased their use of recognition programs. Such programs offer a cost-efficient opportunity to recognize the contributions of top-performing employees at a time when the average company has reduced core forms of compensation and benefits.

As the economy begins to turn around, compa-nies are making plans to reinstate the changes made to their reward programs. For example, although companies have significantly cut back on merit budgets (in line with salary freezes for 2009), these are expected to rebound in 2010 (Figure 4). The majority of participants report they will reverse hiring freezes and salary freezes (72 percent and 79 percent respectively*). Even so, most companies do not foresee a return to “business as usual.” Twenty-two percent indicate they will not restore reduced salaries

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

2010 forecast††

2009revised(Jun)

2009revised(Apr)

2009revised(Feb)

2009revised(Dec)

2009revised(Oct)

2009projected†

2008actual†

Per

cent

of s

alar

y

3.5% 3.5%

2.5% 2.5%

1.5%

2.0% 2.0%

3.0%

� †U.S. data as reported in the 2008/2009 Global Strategic Rewards Survey. Collected in May 2008.

� ††As reported in the 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Survey and the August 2009 update to “Effect of the Economic Crisis on HR Programs.”

Figure 4: Trend in median merit increase budgets (as a percentage of salary)

to their earlier levels, two-thirds (66 percent*) say they will not reverse increased percentages employees now pay for health care premiums, and 22 percent* are unsure when they will reinstate the 401(k)/403(b) match.

Looking ahead three to five years, employers view the landscape as changing in comparison to the pre-economic crisis level (September 2008). Eighty-three percent* expect an increase in employees working past their desired retirement age, and 68 percent* believe employees will pay a greater percentage of health care costs. At the same time, 43 percent* expect a decrease in staff sizes. These changes will certainly have an impact on attracting and retaining critical talent. For example, despite the finding that many employers say staff sizes will be smaller, 46 percent* think they will face increased difficulty attracting critical-skill employees, and 50 percent* say retaining such employees will be harder. As employers begin to rebuild, it will be important to look at the impact of current and future changes on employee engagement.

* As reported in “Effect of the Economic Crisis on HR Programs – Update: August 2009”

watsonwyatt.com | 7

Impact of the Recession on the Employee Value Proposition and Employee Engagement

Employee Value PropositionThe EVP encompasses the collective array of programs the organization offers in exchange for employment and is influenced by the firm’s brand, values, culture and leadership. Given the numerous actions taken at U.S. companies over the past year, few are immune to changes to their EVP. However, many companies misunderstand the significance of the EVP to employees.

Seventy-three percent of employers indicate their EVP is informal (implicit and evolved over time); only 27 percent indicate their EVP is formal (articulated, documented and communicated). Employees’ views are just the opposite: 74 percent indicate their company has a formal EVP, and 26 percent say their company’s EVP is informal.

In other words, employees view the array of programs offered by employers as an articulated deal. At the same time, a majority of employers do not recognize the explicit power of their reward programs or the impact of the changes they have made on both employee engagement and on the business overall in terms of produc-tivity and customer satisfaction.

Only 20 percent of the companies that took four or more actions related to their reward program (to avoid layoffs) believe the changes have negatively affected their EVP. Most employers might not believe the changes are negatively affecting their EVP, but they do rec-ognize the impact on the employee experience, particularly on workload. While this is a first step, employees tell a different story. Forty-two percent of top-performing employees indicate that cost-cutting and/or restructuring activities resulted in significant changes to their EVP. Employees agree their workload has increased, but they also report these changes have had an impact on the business, specifically on productivity and quality and customer service. And while 41 percent of employees think that changes have had an adverse impact on quality and customer service, only 17 percent of employers agree. These trends are even more pronounced in organizations that took increased actions to avoid layoffs (Figure 5).

This decline in productivity might be attribut-able in part to employees’ feeling they lack the resources to do their job well, but it is also due to declining employee engagement, weakened commitment, less clarity of expectations and fewer rewards for job performance.

Figure 5: Impact of changes on business and employee experience

Changes have had an adverse impact on:

BusinEss imPACT EmPLOyER

EmPLOyEEs in ORGAnizATiOns THAT TOOk 3 OR fEwER ACTiOns

EmPLOyEEs in ORGAnizATiOns THAT TOOk 4 OR mORE ACTiOns

ALL EmPLOyEEs

Quality/customer service 17% 34% 47% 41%

Productivity 36% 36% 56% 44%

EmPLOyEE ExPERiEnCE

Loyalty/commitment to the company 49% 37% 54% 47%

Ability to have a healthy balance between work and personal life 64% 36% 52% 44%

Ability to manage work-related stress 69% 42% 59% 48%

workload 79% 57% 76% 65%

8 | 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

Employee Engagement Employee engagement is a combination of employee commitment and line of sight. Engaged employees are proud to work for their company, they are committed and they want it to succeed. They understand what they need to do day-to-day to help contribute to that success and they expend discretionary effort. As organizations have been making major changes, employee engagement has dropped 9 percent since last year for all employees and 23 percent for top-performing employees (Figure 6). These top-performing employees are substantially less engaged than before the recession. Because firms rely on the discre-tionary effort of these employees, this drop in engagement poses a significant attrition risk as more job opportunities become available in the recovering economy.

Line of sight is a critical component of employee engagement. Top-performing employees are 20 percent less likely to agree that they under-stand the link between their own goals and the company’s goals than in 2008 (Figure 7). Other indicators of line of sight show an even steeper decline.

Historically, top-performing employees have seen pay commensurate with their performance. But this year, they don’t anticipate the same bonus or pay increase. Sixty-one percent say their company has reduced or suspended bonuses, and only 35 percent agree their employers reward top-performing employees for their performance. Further, many believe the bar for earning a bonus has been raised: 43 percent of top-performing employees report that individual performance expectations have increased since 2008, and 32 percent say their firm’s financial performance expectations have increased. As the overall “deal” has changed, top-performing employees are 24 percent less likely to agree that their objectives are motivating.

Figure 6: Drop in employee engagement since 2008

score on watson wyatt’s Engagement index

2008* 2009PERCEnTAGE

CHAnGE

All employees 100 91 ■■■–9%

Top-performing employees 119 92 ■–23%

*2008 score set as baseline

Figure 7: Drop in line of sight among top-performing employees (2009 vs. 2008)

PERCEnTAGE CHAnGE

my performance goals are linked to my company’s strategy and goals ■–20%

my supervisor ties my rewards (compensation) to organizational performance ■–37%

my performance objectives are motivating ■–24%

*2008 score for top-performing employees set as baseline

watsonwyatt.com | 9

Retention Risk for Top-Performing EmployeesChanges in the economy and related changes within the organization have had a major impact on the views of top-performing employees and particularly on their long-term commitment to their company. Thirty-six percent of top-performing employees say their company’s situation has worsened in the last 12 months, and the number who would recommend others take jobs at their company has declined almost 20 percent. Further, top-performing employees are 22 percent less confident that senior management is doing the right things to help the company return to growth and 29 percent less confident in management’s ability to grow the business.

As we emerge from the recession, employers must specifically focus on responding to the concerns of top-performing employees. Compared with last year, these employees are 26 percent less likely to be satisfied with the opportunities for advancement at their company (Figure 8), and 29 percent say promotion opportunity would be one of the top three reasons they would leave. Overall, they are 14 percent less likely to want to remain with their company instead of taking a comparable job elsewhere than at this time last year. Clarifying the promotion opportunities available to top-performing employees and proactively working with them to ensure they develop the competencies necessary to assume these roles would help address this concern.

While employers are benefiting from reduced difficulty attracting and retaining employees this year (Figures 9 and 10, next page), employers should expect retention risk to increase as the economy rebounds. Employees are already reporting a decline in productivity and customer service, and the loss of top-performing employ-ees would likely exacerbate these concerns for years to come.

Figure 8: Top-performing employees’ declining satisfaction with key aspects of employment deal (2009 vs. 2008)

PERCEnTAGE CHAnGE

Company lives up to the employment deal ■–30%

Company aligns the employment deal with what it stands for in the market ■–31%

satisfied with opportunities for advancement ■–26%

satisfied with organization culture ■–28%

Prefer to remain with company rather than take comparable job elsewhere ■–14%

10 | 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

Attraction and RetentionThe economic downturn caused a drop in difficulty attracting and retaining employees.

Figure 9: Trend in difficulty attracting employees

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

200920082007200620052004

Per

cent

rep

ortin

g di

ffic

ulty

46%

42%

18%

58%

48%

22%

63%

53%

29%

64%

60%

34%

66%

54%

28%28%

25%

8%

� Critical-skill employees

� Top-performing employees

� All employees

Figure 10: Trend in difficulty retaining employees

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

200920082007200620052004

Per

cent

rep

ortin

g di

ffic

ulty

30%

27%

17%

39%

30%

20%

43%

36%

20%

49%

40%

27%

47%

37%

19%

16%

14%

5%

� Critical-skill employees

� Top-performing employees

� All employees

watsonwyatt.com | 11

Response to Legislation and Governance Along with the economic changes, 2009 also brought legislative developments that affect how organizations set and manage pay. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act redefines the statute of limitations on discrimination, which now restarts every time someone receives a paycheck or other remuneration that has been affected, in some way, by a prior discriminatory decision. Seventy-one percent of organizations indicate they plan to review their HR programs in light of the act, and 53 percent have already begun planning a response. Implications of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act suggest employers take a proactive approach to ensure their pay programs are credible, rational, defensible and bias-free. Best practices include:

Job Classification Sixty-five percent of respondents indicate they have a systematic, organization-wide job leveling process in place. Of these, 55 percent continue to rely on market-based job slotting to develop the job hierarchy. Organizations might consider a hybrid approach that balances internal equity with market value to ensure like jobs can be easily organized by level in a defensible way.

Pay Audit Fifty-two percent of respondents report they conduct pay audits to review pay programs on an annual basis, and another 33 percent indicate they do so but at no set time. Organizations are currently auditing competitiveness of pay (93 percent) and the way jobs are assigned to levels (39 percent), and conducting statistical analyses of base pay differences by demographic group (38 percent).

Reward Plan Governance The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act requires that companies retain records regarding pay decisions. Seventy percent of respondents say their organization is working to improve governance procedures related to gathering, storing and monitoring data in the United States, and 73 percent are implementing consistent tools, processes and/or technology to improve governance procedures.

12 | 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards Report

Summary and Next StepsThe worst part of the downturn may be behind us, but the recession is likely to have a longer-term legacy for employers. Employees — particularly top-performing ones — are significantly less engaged by their work than before the economic downturn. This poses attrition risks that could affect business performance for years to come.

Rebuilding for future success requires that companies review their total reward offerings and related employee value proposition in light of the new business environment. Reframing the EVP and communicating the revised EVP to employees will help re-engage the workforce.

By re-engaging their top-performing employees, companies will mitigate the risk that key workers will leave as the economy improves (and more jobs are available elsewhere). Employers should take the next year to review and rebuild their EVP and associated programs. This will require both strategic changes to reward and talent management programs as well as tactical changes to address immediate needs of the workforce, as follows:

Determine organizational business drivers ■■

and objectives in the new economic environment and their implications for human capital management.

Redefine the EVP for relevance and strategic ■■

alignment with the business objectives.

Identify and implement changes to reward ■■

and talent management programs that the business can support.

If salaries were reduced as part of ■—

cost-cutting measures, reinstate those as quickly as business results allow.

Return merit increase budgets to ■—

pre-recession levels in 2010 if possible and differentiate increases to the greatest extent possible based on employee performance.

Review short-term incentive metrics for ■—

alignment with modified business priorities and communicate any changes.

Review career development and ■—

performance management programs to ensure they align with the new business landscape.

Heighten the focus on differentiating ■—

bonus awards based on performance, in particular if funding remains below target.

Promise and deliver on the revised EVP.■■

Establish and track EVP-related metrics to ■■

ensure successful delivery and identify any additional actions required.

Realigning the EVP to re-engage employees and support future business performance is not a “quick fix.” It requires vision, action and sustained commitment over time.

About Watson Wyatt WorldwideWatson Wyatt is the trusted business partner to the world’s leading organizations on people and financial issues.

Our client relationships, many spanning decades, define who we are. They are shaped by a deep understanding of our clients’ needs, a collaborative working style and a firm-wide commitment to service excellence.

Our consultants bring fresh thinking to client issues, along with the experience and research to know what really works. They deliver practical, evidence-based solutions that are tailored to your organiza-tion’s culture and goals.

With 7,700 associates in 33 countries, our global services include:

Managing the cost and effectiveness of employee benefit programs■■

Developing attraction, retention and reward strategies that help ■■

create competitive advantage

Advising pension plan sponsors and other institutions on optimal ■■

investment strategies

Providing strategic and financial advice to insurance and financial ■■

services companies

Delivering related technology, outsourcing and data services■■

About WorldatWork®

WorldatWork (www.worldatwork.org) is a global human resources association focused on compensation, benefits, work-life and integrated total rewards to attract, motivate and retain a talented workforce. Founded in 1955, WorldatWork provides a network of more than 30,000 members and professionals in 75 countries with training, certification, research, conferences and community. It has offices in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.

For additional information please call your Watson Wyatt consultant or visit watsonwyatt.com.

Copyright © 2009 Watson Wyatt Worldwide . All rights reserved . NA-2009-13223

locations

watsonwyatt.com

AsiA-PAci fic ■ Bangkok ■ Beijing ■ Bengaluru ■ Delhi

Guangzhou ■ Hanoi ■ Ho Chi Minh City ■ Hong Kong ■ Jakarta

Kolkata ■ Kuala Lumpur ■ Manila ■ Melbourne ■ Mumbai ■ Seoul

Shanghai ■ Shenzhen ■ Singapore ■ Sydney ■ Taipei ■ Tokyo ■ Wuhan

E u roPE ■ Amsterdam ■ Apeldoorn ■ Birmingham ■ Bristol

Brussels ■ Dublin ■ Düsseldorf ■ Edinburgh ■ Eindhoven ■ Frankfurt

Lausanne ■ Leeds ■ Lisbon ■ London Madrid ■ Manchester ■ Milan

Moscow ■ Munich ■ Nieuwegein ■ Paris ■ Purmerend ■ Redhill

Reigate ■ Rome ■ Rotterdam ■ Stockholm ■ Vienna ■ Welwyn

Wiesbaden ■ Zürich

LAti n Am E r icA ■ Bogotá ■ Buenos Aires

Mexico City ■ Montevideo ■ Santiago ■ São Paulo

m i ddLE EAst ■ Dubai

north Am E r icA ■ Atlanta ■ Berwyn, Pa . ■ Boston

Calgary ■ Charlotte ■ Chicago ■ Cincinnati ■ Cleveland

Columbus ■ Dallas ■ Denver ■ Detroit ■ Grand Rapids ■ Hartford

Herndon, Va . ■ Honolulu ■ Houston ■ Irvine ■ Kitchener-Waterloo ■

Los Angeles ■ Madison ■ Memphis ■ Miami ■ Minneapolis

Montréal ■ New York ■ Paramus, N .J . ■ Philadelphia ■ Phoenix ■

Portland ■ Rochelle Park, N .J . ■ St . Louis ■ San Diego

San Francisco ■ Santa Clara ■ Seattle ■ Stamford ■ Tampa

Toronto ■ Vancouver ■ Washington, D .C .

for mor E i n for mAtion

Visit watsonwyatt.com or call 800.388.9868.