Mark B. Templeton has served as our President since January 1998 and as our Chief Executive Officer from June 2001 to the present. He was elected to our Board of Directors in May 1998. Mr. Templeton is a member of the Board of Directors of Equifax, Inc., a publicly-traded credit reporting company. The Board of Directors believes Mr. Templeton’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his decades of experience in the software industry, including 13 years as our President and/or Chief Executive Officer, and his deep understanding of our historical

and current business strategies, objectives and products.

Brett M. Caine has served as Senior Vice President and General Manager, Online Services Division, since October 2007. From July 2005 to October 2007, Mr. Caine served as Group Vice President of the Online Group. From August 2004 to July 2005, Mr. Caine served as President, Citrix Online. From March 2004 to August 2004, Mr. Caine served as Vice President, Worldwide Sales, Citrix Online.

David R. Friedman has served as our General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Human Resources, since April 2006 and also served as our Secretary from October 2002 to February 2008. From October 2002 to April 2006, Mr. Friedman served as our General Counsel, Corporate Vice President and Secretary.

David J. Henshall has served as our Executive Vice President, Operations, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer beginning in September 2011. From January 2006 to September 2011, Mr. Henshall served as our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and from April 2003 to January 2006, he served as our Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

Alvaro J. Monserrat has served as our Senior Vice President, Sales and Services, since July 2008. From July 2007 to July 2008, Mr. Monserrat served as our Vice President of Channels and Emerging Products. Mr. Monserrat also served as our Vice President of North America Sales from October 2003 to July 2007, as our Vice President of Worldwide Field Services from March 2002 to October 2003, as our Vice President of Consulting Services from December 2001 to March 2002, and as Director of Consulting Services from February 2000 to December 2001.

J. Gordon Payne has served as our Senior Vice President and General Manager, Desktop and Cloud Division, since March 2011 and had served as our Senior Vice President and General Manager, Desktop Division, from August 2007 to March 2011. From January 2007 to August 2007, Mr. Payne served as Group Vice President and General Manager of our Advanced Solutions Group. Mr. Payne also served as Product Line Executive, Emerging Products of our Virtual Systems Group from April 2006 to December 2006, and as Vice President of Marketing for our Advanced Solutions Group from December 2004 to December 2006. From January 2000 to December 2004, Mr. Payne served as the Chief Marketing Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Net6, Inc., a privately-held software company acquired by Citrix in 2004.

Wesley R. Wasson has served as our Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer since October 2007. From September 2006 to October 2007, he served as our Corporate Vice President, Worldwide

Marketing. From August 2005 to September 2006, Mr. Wasson served as the Vice President of our Application Networking Group. Prior to joining Citrix, Mr. Wasson served as Vice President of Worldwide Marketing at NetScaler, Inc., a privately-held software company acquired by Citrix in 2005. From August 2002 to December 2004, Mr. Wasson served as the Chief Strategy Officer of NetContinuum, an application security company based in Silicon Valley.

Thomas F. Bogan has served as a director of Citrix since January 2003 and as Chairperson of our Board of Directors since May 2005. Since August 2011, Mr. Bogan has also served as a member of the Board of Director of Parametric Technology Corporation, a publicly-traded company that develops, markets and supports product development software solutions. Since January 2010, Mr. Bogan has been a Venture Partner at Greylock Partners, a venture capital firm. From May 2004 to December 2009, Mr. Bogan was a Partner at Greylock Partners. Prior to serving at Greylock, Mr. Bogan was President of Rational Software, an S&P 500 enterprise software company, from 2000 until its sale to IBM in 2003. He previously had served Rational as its Chief Operating Officer and as General Manager of its testing business from 1996 to 2000. Prior to working at Rational, Mr. Bogan was President and Chief Executive Officer of two early stage technology companies that focused on networking and peripheral products. Mr. Bogan’s earlier background was in finance, and he served as a financial officer in public and private companies as well as positions in public accounting. The Board believes Mr. Bogan’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his decades of senior management experience in the software industry, both as a chief executive officer and a venture capital investor, during which time he has gained significant strategic, operational and corporate governance expertise.

Nanci E. Caldwell has served as a director of Citrix since July 2008. Since 2005, Ms. Caldwell has served as a member of a number of Boards of both public and private technology companies, including current memberships on the Boards of Directors of Deltek, Inc., a publicly-traded enterprise management software company, and Tibco Software Inc., a publicly-traded leading business integration and process management software company.

During 2005 and 2006, Ms. Caldwell worked as a project-based technology consultant. From April 2001 to December 2004, Ms. Caldwell was Executive Vice President and CMO for PeopleSoft, Inc., a publicly-held human resource management software company, until it was acquired by Oracle Corporation, or Oracle, a publicly-traded software company, in December 2004. Ms. Caldwell also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Network General, now NetScout Inc., a publicly-traded provider of integrated network performance management solutions, from 2005 to 2007 and Hyperion Solutions Corporation, a then publicly-traded provider of performance management software acquired by Oracle in 2007, from 2006 to 2007. The Board believes Ms. Caldwell’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include her extensive experience with technology and software companies, including in the areas of sales and marketing, as well as her executive leadership and management expertise.

Murray J. Demo has served as a director of Citrix since February 2005. Mr. Demo is currently Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Dolby Laboratories, a publicly-traded global leader in entertainment technologies. From September 2007 to June 2008, Mr. Demo served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of LiveOps, a privately-held virtual call center company. Mr. Demo served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Postini, Inc., a security software company, from May 2007 until it was acquired by Google Inc. in September 2007. Mr. Demo served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from April 2005 to May 2006, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from June 2000 to April 2005, Vice President and Corporate Controller from October 1999 to June 2000, Corporate Controller from July 1998 to October 1999, Senior Director of Finance, Product Divisions from February 1998 to July 1998 and Director of Operations Finance from August 1996 to February 1998 for Adobe Systems Incorporated, a computer software company. The Board believes Mr. Demo’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his extensive experience with finance and accounting matters for global organizations in the technology industry, including the experience that he has gained in his roles as Chief Financial Officer of publicly-traded companies.

Stephen M. Dow has served as a director of Citrix since July 1989 and served as our Board’s Chairperson from May 2002 to May 2005. Since 1983, Mr. Dow has served as a general partner of Sevin Rosen Funds, a venture capital investment firm. Mr. Dow serves on the Board of Directors of Cytokinetics, Inc., a publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company. The Board believes Mr. Dow’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his experience in leading a venture capital investment firm, during which time he has gained significant expertise in evaluating investment opportunities and overseeing management development and operations of portfolio companies, as well as the deep understanding of Citrix’s organization and products that he has acquired during his more than 20 years of service on our Board of Directors.

Asiff S. Hirji has served as a director of Citrix since May 2006. Since September 2011, Mr. Hirji has also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Advent Software, Inc., a publicly-traded provider of software and services for the global investment management industry. Since April 2007, Mr. Hirji has served as a Partner of TPG Capital, L.P., a global private investment firm. From October 2006 to April 2007, Mr. Hirji served as the President, Client Group, of TD Ameritrade Holding Company, a publicly-traded provider of securities brokerage services. Mr. Hirji served as Chief Operating Officer of TD Ameritrade from July 2005 until October 2006 and as Chief Information Officer of Ameritrade from April 2003 until July 2005. The Board believes Mr. Hirji’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his extensive experience with global companies, his financial and investment expertise, and his years of experience providing strategic advice to complex organizations.

Gary E. Morin has served as a director of Citrix since January 2003. From September 2005 until March 2006, Mr. Morin served as Executive Vice President of Lexmark International, Inc., a publicly-traded laser and inkjet printer and supplies company. From 2000 until September 2005, Mr. Morin served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Lexmark. Mr. Morin has served as a director of Sealy Corp., a publicly-traded bedding manufacturer, since 2006 and as a director of Infogroup Inc., a publicly-traded compiler of proprietary databases, from October 2008 until July 2010 when it was

acquired by CCMP Capital Advisors. The Board believes Mr. Morin’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his years of executive experience at publicly-traded companies, as well as his financial expertise.

Godfrey R. Sullivan has served as a director of Citrix since February 2005. Mr. Sullivan is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Splunk, Inc., a privately-held information technology search software company. Prior to Splunk, Mr. Sullivan worked for Hyperion Solutions Corporation, a then publicly-traded software company, where he served as President and Chief Operating Officer from 2001

through 2004 and as President and Chief Executive Officer from July 2004 until its acquisition by Oracle in April 2007. Mr. Sullivan serves on the Board of Directors of Informatica Corporation, a publicly-traded data integration company. The Board believes Mr. Sullivan’s qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his decades of executive and operational experience, including as a CEO, with technology and software companies.

Our executive officers are elected by the Board of Directors on an annual basis and serve until their successors have been duly elected and qualified.

Independence of Members of the Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors has determined that each of our non-employee directors (Messrs. Bogan, Demo, Dow, Hirji, Morin and Sullivan, and Ms. Caldwell) is independent within the meaning of the director independence standards of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, or Nasdaq, and the SEC, including Rule 10A-3(b)(1) under the Exchange Act. Furthermore, our Board of Directors has determined that each member of each of the committees of the Board is independent within the meaning of Nasdaq’s and the SEC’s director independence standards. In making this determination, our Board of Directors solicited information from each of our directors regarding whether such director, or any member of his or her immediate family, had a direct or indirect material interest in any transactions involving Citrix, was involved in a debt relationship with Citrix or received personal benefits outside the scope of such person’s normal compensation. Our Board of Directors considered the responses of our directors, and independently considered the commercial agreements, acquisitions, and other material transactions entered into by Citrix during 2011.

Board Leadership Structure

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide our Board of Directors with flexibility to select the appropriate leadership structure at a particular time based on the specific needs of our business and what is in the best interests of our stockholders. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth our general policy that the positions of Chairperson of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, or CEO, will be held by different persons. In certain circumstances, however, our Board may determine that it is in our best interests for the same person to hold the positions of Chairperson and CEO. In such event, the Board will appoint an independent member of our Board as the Lead Independent Director. Our general policy is that the position of Chairperson or Lead Independent Director, as the case may be, will be held by an independent member of our Board of Directors. The Chairperson (or Lead Independent Director) will preside at executive sessions of the

independent directors and will bear such further responsibilities as the full Board of Directors may designate from time to time.

Since 2002, we have separated the roles of Chairperson and CEO. Our Board of Directors believes that this leadership structure is appropriate for Citrix at the current time, as it provides an appropriate balance between the two roles. Our CEO is responsible for setting the strategic direction for Citrix and day-to-day leadership, while the Chairperson of our Board of Directors provides guidance to our CEO and presides over meetings of the full Board of Directors. Thus, our Board of Directors believes that the current structure balances the need for our CEO to run Citrix on a day-to-day basis, with the benefit provided to us by significant involvement of an independent member of our Board of Directors.

Executive Sessions of Independent Directors

Executive sessions of the independent directors are held at least four times a year following regularly scheduled in-person meetings of our Board of Directors. Executive sessions do not include Mr. Templeton, and the Chairperson of our Board of Directors is responsible for chairing the executive sessions.

Considerations Governing Director Nominations

Director Qualifications

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing with the Board from time to time the appropriate qualities, skills and characteristics desired of members of the Board of Directors in the context of the needs of the business and current make-up of our Board of Directors. This assessment includes consideration of the following minimum qualifications that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee believes must be met by all directors:

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also may consider numerous other qualities, skills and characteristics when evaluating director nominees, such as:

Neither the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee nor the Board of Directors has a specific policy with regard to the consideration of diversity in identifying director nominees. However, both may consider the diversity of background and experience of a director nominee in the context of the overall composition of the Board of Directors at that time, such as diversity of knowledge, skills and experience. In general, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee seeks director nominees with

the talents and backgrounds that provide the Board of Directors with an appropriate mix of knowledge, skills and experience for the needs of our business. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board of Directors discuss the composition of directors on our Board, including diversity of background and experience, as part of the annual Board evaluation process.

Process for Identifying and Evaluating Director Nominees

Our Board of Directors delegates the selection and nomination process to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, with the expectation that other members of the Board of Directors, and of management, will be requested to take part in the process as appropriate. Generally, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee identifies candidates for director nominees in consultation with management, through the use of search firms or other advisors, through the recommendations submitted by stockholders or through such other methods as the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee deems to be helpful to identify candidates. Once candidates have been identified, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee confirms that the candidates meet all of the minimum qualifications for director nominees established by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may gather information about the candidates through interviews, detailed questionnaires, comprehensive background checks or any other means that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee deems to be helpful in the evaluation process. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee then meets as a group to discuss and evaluate the qualities and skills of each candidate, both on an individual basis and taking into account the overall composition and needs of our Board of Directors. Based on the results of the evaluation process, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommends candidates for the Board of Directors’ approval as director nominees for election to our Board of Directors. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also recommends candidates to the Board of Directors for appointment to the committees of the Board of Directors.

Procedures for Recommendation of Director Nominees by Stockholders

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director nominee candidates who are recommended by our stockholders. Stockholders, in submitting recommendations to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for director nominee candidates, shall follow the procedures described below.

Generally, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee must receive any such recommendation for nomination not later than the close of business on the 120th day nor earlier than the close of business on the 150th day prior to the first anniversary of the date the proxy statement was delivered to stockholders in connection with our preceding year’s annual meeting.

All recommendations for nomination must be in writing and include the following:

Nominations must be sent to the attention of our Secretary by one of the two methods listed below:

By U.S. mail (including courier or expedited delivery service) to:

Citrix Systems, Inc.

851 West Cypress Creek Road

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Attn: Secretary of Citrix Systems, Inc.

By facsimile to: (954) 267-2862

Attn: Secretary of Citrix Systems, Inc.

Our Secretary will promptly forward any such nominations to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. As a requirement to being considered for nomination to our Board of Directors, a candidate will need to comply with the following minimum procedural requirements:

Once the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives the nomination of a candidate and the candidate has complied with the minimum procedural requirements above, such candidacy will be evaluated and a recommendation with respect to such candidate will be delivered to our Board of Directors.

Policy Governing Security Holder Communications with our Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors provides to every security holder the ability to communicate with the Board of Directors as a whole and with individual directors on the Board of Directors through an established process for security holder communication as follows:

By U.S. mail (including courier or expedited delivery service) to:

Citrix Systems, Inc.

851 West Cypress Creek Road

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Attn: Chairperson of the Board of Directors,

c/o Secretary

By facsimile to: (954) 267-2862

Attn: Chairperson of the Board of Directors, c/o Secretary

By U.S. mail (including courier or expedited delivery service) to:

Citrix Systems, Inc.

851 West Cypress Creek Road

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Attn: [Name of the director], c/o Secretary

By facsimile to: (954) 267-2862

Attn: [Name of the director], c/o Secretary

We will forward any such security holder communication to the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, as a representative of the Board of Directors, or to the director to whom the communication is addressed, on a periodic basis. We will forward such communications by certified U.S. mail to an address specified by each director and the

Chairperson of the Board of Directors for such purposes or by secure electronic transmission.

Policy Governing Director Attendance at Annual Meetings of Stockholders

We conduct an Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and all directors are offered the opportunity to attend at our expense. No members of the Board of Directors attended our Annual Meeting of Stockholders held in 2011.

Board of Directors Evaluation Program and Succession Planning

Our Board of Directors annually undertakes a formal evaluation process consisting of an overall Board of Directors evaluation, committee evaluations, and peer evaluations by each member. As part of the evaluation process, our Board of Directors assesses its structure, processes, culture and effectiveness. The evaluation process also includes consideration of the appropriate Board size, committee composition and the technical, business and organizational skills required of future Board members.

Code of Ethics

We have adopted a “code of ethics,” as defined by regulations promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Exchange Act, which we refer to as our Code of Business Conduct and which applies to all of our directors and employees worldwide, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. A current copy of our Code of Business Conduct is available in the Corporate Governance section of our website at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/. A copy of our Code of Business Conduct may also be obtained, free of charge, upon a request directed to: Citrix Systems, Inc., 851 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309, Attention: Investor Relations. We intend to disclose any amendment to or waiver of a provision of our Code of Business Conduct that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, by posting such information on our website, available at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/. For more corporate governance information, you are invited to access the Corporate Governance section of our website available at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/.

Risk Oversight

Assessing and managing risk is the responsibility of Citrix’s management. Our Board of Directors oversees and reviews certain aspects of our risk management efforts. Our Board of Directors is involved in risk oversight through direct decision-making authority with respect to significant matters and the oversight of management by the Board of Directors and its committees. Among other areas, the Board is directly involved in overseeing risks related to our overall corporate strategy, including product, go-to-market and sales strategy, executive officer succession, business continuity, crisis preparedness and competitive and reputational risks.

The committees of the Board execute their oversight responsibility for risk management as follows:

Currently, the roles of Chairperson of the Citrix Board of Directors and CEO are held by separate individuals. We believe that this leadership structure helps facilitate the Board’s risk oversight function. For example, our CEO, in his dual role as the member of management responsible for setting the overall strategic direction of Citrix and as a member of the Board, can provide valuable insight to the Board concerning the strategic risks facing Citrix while our independent Chairperson provides independent leadership of the Board’s risk oversight responsibilities.

We maintain an Enterprise Risk Management, or ERM, program to more formally identify, scope, communicate and manage risks across Citrix. Our Senior Director of Internal Audit facilitates the ERM program through a cross-functional committee acting with executive sponsorship. The ERM committee’s key functions are to assess and prioritize risks that we face and to monitor certain of our risk management programs as part of our strategic planning process. The Audit Committee receives a report concerning our ERM efforts on an annual basis.

Compensation Related Risk Assessment

We believe that our executive and employee compensation plans are appropriately structured so as not to incent excessive risk taking and are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business. In particular, the Compensation Committee considered the following aspects of our compensation plans and policies when evaluating whether our plans and policies encourage our executives and employees to take unreasonable risks:

Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors met eleven times during the year ended December 31, 2011. Each of the directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate of the total number of meetings of our Board of Directors and the total number of meetings of all committees of our Board of Directors on which he or she served during fiscal 2011. Our Board of Directors has standing Audit, Compensation, Finance, Nominating and Corporate Governance and Strategy committees. Each committee has a written charter that has been approved by the Board of Directors. Each committee reviews the appropriateness of its charter at least annually.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors currently consists of Messrs. Demo (Chair), Dow, Hirji and Sullivan, each of whom served on the Audit Committee throughout 2011. Our Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets the independence requirements promulgated by Nasdaq and the SEC, including Rule 10A-3(b)(1) under the Exchange Act. In addition, our Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate and that Mr. Demo qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under the rules of the SEC. Stockholders should understand that this designation is a disclosure requirement of the SEC related to Mr. Demo’s experience and understanding with respect to certain accounting and auditing matters. The designation does not impose upon Mr. Demo any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than are generally imposed on him as a member of the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors, and his designation as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to this SEC requirement does not affect the duties, obligations or liability of any other member of the Audit Committee or the Board of Directors.

The Audit Committee met eight times during the year ended December 31, 2011. The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by our Board of Directors, a current copy of which is available in the Corporate Governance section of our website at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/.

As described more fully in its charter, the Audit Committee oversees our accounting and financial reporting processes, internal controls and audit functions. In fulfilling its role, the Audit Committee:

Finance Committee

The Finance Committee of the Board of Directors currently consists of Messrs. Demo (Chair), Dow, Hirji and Sullivan, each of whom served on both the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee throughout 2011. The Finance Committee advises the Board of Directors and, in certain instances, acts on behalf of our Board of Directors, on matters relating to our investment policies, financing activities and world-wide insurance programs.

Our Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Finance Committee meets the independence requirements promulgated by Nasdaq. Because the members of the Finance Committee serve on the Audit Committee, the Finance Committee met jointly with the Audit Committee three times during the year ended December 31, 2011 to, among other items, review our investment policy. The Finance Committee operates under a written charter adopted by our Board of Directors, a current copy of which is available at the Corporate Governance section of our website at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee currently consists of Messrs. Bogan and Morin (Chair), and Ms. Caldwell, each of whom served on the Compensation Committee throughout 2011. The Compensation Committee is responsible for determining and making recommendations with respect to all forms of compensation to be granted to our executive officers and producing an annual report on executive compensation for inclusion in the proxy statement for our annual meeting of stockholders in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

In fulfilling its role, the Compensation Committee also:

The Compensation Committee has the authority to engage its own outside advisors, including experts in particular areas of compensation, as it determines appropriate, apart from counsel or advisors hired by management. In 2011, the Compensation Committee retained Radford Consulting, an independent compensation consultant, which we refer to as Radford, to assist the committee in evaluating the compensation of our executive officers and directors. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that any independent compensation consultant, such as Radford, engaged by the Compensation Committee works for the Compensation Committee, not our management, with respect to executive and director compensation matters. Please read the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this Proxy Statement for additional information on the role of Radford in the compensation review process.

Our Board of Directors has determined that each of the members of the Compensation Committee is independent as defined by the Nasdaq rules. In addition, each member of the Compensation Committee is an “outside director” as defined in Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, and is a “non-employee” director as defined under Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

The Compensation Committee met five times during the year ended December 31, 2011. The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter adopted by our Board of Directors, a current copy of which is available in the Corporate Governance section of our website at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

During 2011, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors consisted of all of our independent directors, Messrs. Bogan (Chair), Demo, Dow, Hirji, Morin, Sullivan and Ms. Caldwell.

In February 2012, the Board reconstituted the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee to consist of three directors, Messrs. Bogan (Chair), Dow and Sullivan.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee:

Our Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee during 2011 met, and each current member meets, the independence requirements promulgated by Nasdaq. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee met three times during the year ended December 31, 2011. The Nominating and Corporate

Governance Committee operates under a written charter adopted by our Board of Directors, a current copy of which is available at the Corporate Governance section of our website at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/.

Strategy Committee

The Strategy Committee currently consists of Messrs. Bogan, Demo and Dow (Chair). The Strategy Committee is responsible for overseeing matters relating to potential mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and other key strategic transactions outside the ordinary course of our business.

In fulfilling its role, the Strategy Committee also:

Our Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Strategy Committee meets the independence requirements promulgated by Nasdaq. The Strategy Committee met five times during the year ended December 31, 2011. The Strategy Committee operates under a written charter adopted by our Board of Directors, a current copy of which is available at the Corporate Governance section of our website at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/.

For more corporate governance information, you are invited to access the Corporate Governance section of our website available at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/.

Report of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors

This report is submitted by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. The Audit Committee currently consists of Messrs. Demo (Chair), Dow, Hirji and Sullivan, each of whom served on the Audit Committee throughout 2011. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets the independence requirements promulgated by Nasdaq and the SEC, including Rule 10A-3(b)(1) under the Exchange Act. Mr. Demo qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under the rules of the SEC. In June 2011, the Audit Committee reviewed the adequacy of its charter. In accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Audit Committee has ultimate authority and responsibility to select, compensate, evaluate and, when appropriate, replace Citrix’s independent registered public accountants. The Audit Committee has the authority to engage its own outside advisors,

including experts in particular areas of accounting, as it determines appropriate, apart from counsel or advisors hired by management.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, Citrix’s independent registered public accounting firm was Ernst & Young LLP. Ernst & Young was responsible for performing an independent audit of Citrix’s annual consolidated financial statements and an independent audit of the effectiveness of Citrix’s internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB. Ernst & Young also performed audit-related services, tax services and other permissible non-audit services for Citrix during 2011, as described more fully below.

The Audit Committee oversees the accounting and financial reporting processes of Citrix and the audits of the consolidated financial statements of Citrix on behalf of the Board of Directors. Management has the primary responsibility for the consolidated financial statements and the reporting process, including Citrix’s systems of internal controls. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviewed with management the audited consolidated financial statements in Citrix’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and discussed with management the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant estimates and judgments, critical accounting policies and accounting estimates resulting from the application of these policies, and the substance and clarity of disclosures in the financial statements, and reviewed Citrix’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee reviewed with Ernst & Young, who is responsible for expressing an opinion on the fairness of Citrix’s consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally acceptable in the United States, Ernst & Young’s judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of Citrix’s accounting principles and such other matters as independent registered public accountants are required to discuss with the Audit Committee under auditing standards of the PCAOB. In addition, the Audit Committee has reviewed the services provided by Ernst & Young and discussed with Ernst & Young its independence from management and Citrix, including the matters in the written disclosures

required by PCAOB Rule 3526 and considered the compatibility of non-audit services with the registered public accountants’ independence.

The Audit Committee discussed with Ernst & Young the overall scope and plan for their annual audit for 2011. The Audit Committee met separately with Ernst & Young in its capacity as Citrix’s independent registered public accountants, with and without management present, to discuss the results of Ernst & Young’s procedures, its evaluations of Citrix’s internal control over financial reporting, and the overall quality of its financial reporting, as applicable.

The Audit Committee has reviewed Citrix’s audited consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011 and has discussed them with both management and Ernst & Young. In connection with Citrix’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, the Audit Committee discussed with management the results of our certification process relating to the certification of financial statements under Sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Audit Committee has also discussed with Ernst & Young the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended by AICPA, Professional Standards, Vol. 1. AU section 380 as adopted by PCAOB in Rule 3200T, as may be modified or supplemented. This discussion included, among other things, a review with management of the quality of its accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant estimates and judgments, and the clarity of disclosure in Citrix’s financial statements, including the disclosures related to its critical accounting policies and practices. Based on the Audit Committee’s review of the financial statements and these discussions, it concluded that it would be reasonable to recommend, and on that basis did recommend, to the Board of Directors that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in Citrix’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Audit Committee also reviewed Citrix’s quarterly financial statements during 2011 and discussed them with both Citrix’s management and Ernst & Young prior to including such interim financial statements in Citrix’s quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. In connection with Citrix’s quarterly

reports on Form 10-Q for Citrix’s first, second and third fiscal quarters of 2011, the Audit Committee discussed with management the results of Citrix’s certification process relating to the certification of financial statements under Sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

During the course of the year ended December 31, 2011, management completed the documentation, testing and evaluation of Citrix’s system of internal control over financial reporting in response to the requirements set forth in Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related regulations. The Audit Committee was kept apprised of the progress of the evaluation and provided oversight and advice to management during the process. In connection with this oversight, the Audit Committee received periodic updates provided by management and Ernst & Young at Audit Committee meetings held throughout the year. At the conclusion of the process, management provided the Audit Committee with, and the Audit Committee reviewed, a report on the effectiveness of Citrix’s internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee also reviewed the report of management on internal control over financial reporting contained in Citrix’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 filed with the SEC, as well as Ernst & Young’s Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm included in Citrix’s Annual Report on Form 10-K related to its audits of Citrix’s consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee continues to oversee Citrix’s efforts related to its internal control over financial reporting and management’s preparations for the evaluation in the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012.

The Audit Committee monitors the activity and performance of Ernst & Young. All services provided by Ernst & Young have been pre-approved by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee’s evaluation of the performance of Ernst & Young included, among other things, the amount of fees paid to Ernst & Young for audit and permissible non-audit services in 2011. Information about Ernst & Young’s fees for 2011 is discussed below in this Proxy Statement under Ratification and Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

No portion of this Audit Committee Report shall be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, through any general statement incorporating by reference in its entirety the Proxy Statement in which this report appears, except to the extent that Citrix specifically incorporates this report or a portion of it by reference. In addition, this report shall not be

deemed filed under either the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

Respectfully submitted by the Audit Committee,

Murray J. Demo (Chair)

Stephen M. Dow

Asiff S. Hirji

Godfrey R. Sullivan

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Purpose of Compensation Discussion and Analysis

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis provides comprehensive information about the 2011 compensation for the following executive officers (who we refer to as our Named Executive Officers):

Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Programs

The compensation that we offer our executives is designed to reflect principles of integrity, fairness and transparency – concepts that have continually underscored the design and delivery of the compensation opportunity at Citrix. We believe our compensation programs should emphasize sustainable corporate growth through a pay-for-performance orientation and a commitment to both operational and organizational execution. We also believe that lavish perquisites, excessive severance and bonuses unrelated to performance are inconsistent with our executive compensation principles. Furthermore, while the establishment of variable compensation targets for our executives necessarily involves judgment, the actual payouts against those targets are based on pre-determined, objective financial criteria reflective of our annual operating plan and indicative of positive business growth.

Over the last decade, the objectives of our executive compensation programs have been to:

These objectives still hold true today and are reflected in the compensation decisions we made in 2011. We believe that our executive compensation program played a meaningful role in helping us achieve our operating results in 2011.

Year in Review

We executed well in 2011, both in terms of our financial performance and the achievement of key strategic objectives for our company. Our financial performance for fiscal year 2011 resulted in our annual revenues increasing approximately 18% to $2.21 billion, as compared to $1.87 billion in the previous year. Also, net income for 2011 was $356 million, or $1.87 per diluted share, compared to $277 million, or $1.46 per diluted share in 2010, and in 2011 we had GAAP operating margin of 19% compared to 17% in 2010. Among the strategic objectives that we accomplished in 2011 were the following:

We believe that our solid operational performance and success in meeting these strategic objectives, as well as our continued focus on delivering innovative and high-value solutions, helped us to achieve our 2011 financial results. Further, our balance sheet remains strong, with a cash and marketable securities

balance at the end of 2011 of approximately $1.5 billion, which provided us with the flexibility to repurchase approximately 6.5 million, or about 3.5%, of our outstanding shares. All of this contributed to a total stockholder return of approximately 124% over the five-year period ended on December 31, 2011.

As in prior years, we followed our established annual process of compensation analysis and planning and full Board engagement in the evaluation and compensation review of our President and Chief Executive Officer. We made no discretionary adjustments in performance targets. In 2011, we looked to focus our executives on our strategy of profitable growth and to retain our high performing executive team. Because of our historical success and the unique skills of our executives in the new and meaningful virtualization and cloud markets, our executives are highly attractive candidates for roles at larger companies or more senior roles at smaller companies.

In 2010, we:

We continued to use these design principles in 2011; and as our business grew, we further raised performance targets for our 2011 performance-based compensation programs to maintain alignment between our growth objectives and the compensation opportunities we provide to our executives. Additionally, after a complete evaluation, in 2011 we modestly increased the total target cash compensation (the aggregate of base salary and variable cash compensation) of our Named Executive Officers by approximately 6.7% on average. We believe these measures ensured that our executive compensation program for 2011 remained competitive, consistent with our strategy of profitable growth and aligned the interests of our executives with the interests of our

stockholders. The total cash compensation actually paid to our executives in 2011, however, decreased as compared to 2010. This decrease was a result not only of our financial performance against the challenging targets we set in our 2011 variable cash compensation plan, but also because our executives over-achieved against the targets in our 2010 variable cash compensation plan, as discussed in more detail below under the heading “Discussion of Summary Compensation and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Tables.” In the case of our President and Chief Executive Officer, this decrease was approximately 12%.

Elements of Compensation

The elements of compensation that we use to accomplish our objectives include:

The Compensation Committee considered each of these items in determining the individual compensation package for our executive officers.

Compensation Evaluation Processes and Criteria

Evaluation Process

The compensation packages for our executive officers are reviewed by the Compensation Committee and include an analysis of all elements of compensation separately and in the aggregate. In establishing compensation levels for each executive officer, the Compensation Committee has the authority to engage the services of outside experts to assist it. In 2011, Radford Consultants, a global compensation services firm, was retained to provide advisory services to aid the Compensation Committee in its oversight of executive compensation. In addition, our legal, finance and human resources departments support the Compensation Committee in its work and act in accordance with the direction given to them to administer our compensation programs.

Throughout 2011, the Compensation Committee held meetings with management, our human resources department and representatives of Radford to:

Beginning in August 2010, and at several meetings throughout the first quarter of 2011, the Compensation Committee reviewed proposed compensation programs and packages for our executive officers for 2011, which were prepared by management and evaluated by our finance department for consistency with our operating plan. In March 2011, the Compensation Committee approved the proposed 2011 variable cash compensation plan, which we refer to as the Variable Cash Compensation Plan, and also approved individual compensation packages for our executive officers, and recommended to the Board of Directors a compensation package for our President and Chief Executive Officer. Thereafter, the package recommended by the Compensation Committee was approved by our Board of Directors.

In evaluating our 2011 executive compensation program, the Compensation Committee considered the stockholder advisory (“say-on-pay”) vote on our executive compensation for fiscal year 2010, which was approved by nearly 98% of the votes cast. The Compensation Committee believes that the stockholders, through this advisory vote, showed support for our compensation philosophies and practices; and, thus, the Compensation Committee

did not make any material changes to our executive compensation program as a result of the say-on-pay vote. We will hold a say-on-pay vote on an annual basis until the next vote on the frequency of such stockholder advisory votes, which will occur no later than our 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Evaluation Criteria

In determining the amount and mix of the target compensation elements, the Compensation Committee relies upon its judgment about the scope and strategic impact of each individual executive officer’s role. In setting final compensation targets for our executive officers in 2011, the Compensation Committee considered many factors, including:

Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant

During 2011, Radford reported directly to the Compensation Committee for purposes of advising it on executive compensation matters. The Compensation Committee provided Radford with preliminary instructions regarding the goals of our compensation program and the parameters of the competitive review of executive total direct compensation packages to be conducted by Radford. In particular and as in prior years, Radford was instructed to benchmark all components of compensation for all executive officer positions, including base salary, total target compensation (base salary plus variable cash compensation), total actual cash compensation and equity-based long-term incentive awards. The Compensation Committee also instructed Radford to review the public disclosure by our peer companies concerning their executive compensation practices and to review our internal compensation model and guidelines and compare them to our peer companies and actual compensation practices. Finally, Radford was instructed to test whether the compensation packages for each of our executive officers was competitive with the market and reasonable given our performance relative to our peers as measured by revenue growth, operating income growth, diluted earnings per share growth and total stockholder return, each on a one- and three-year basis.

Throughout the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, Radford attended meetings of the Compensation Committee, both with and without members of management present, and interacted with members of our human resources department with respect to its assessment of the compensation packages of our executive officers. Once Radford, working in conjunction with our human resources department, completed its preliminary analysis of our executive compensation, they presented a report to the Compensation Committee in February 2011, and the Compensation Committee reviewed the analysis and provided Radford with feedback and further direction for follow-up analysis.

Other Services Performed by Affiliates of Radford

During 2011, our accounting department engaged Aon Consulting, an affiliate of Aon, Radford’s parent company, as a resource to verify assumptions we use to determine the fair value of our equity-based awards. Additionally, our treasury department retained Aon to serve as our broker of record for our world-wide insurance lines. Finally, our human resources department engaged Radford for consulting services provided directly to our management. The Compensation Committee considered these fees paid to Radford and Aon and our policy on independence of the Compensation Committee’s consultant, which is contained in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, and concluded that Radford is independent. The services purchased from Aon in 2011 were overseen by the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and were not approved by the Compensation Committee. In total, fees paid to Aon during 2011 for services not related to Radford’s work with our Compensation Committee were approximately $229,000.

Our Use of Benchmarks and Peer Group Analysis

The Compensation Committee annually conducts a competitive analysis of the compensation paid to our executive officers and reviews the compensation practices of our peer group and of the software industry overall. As in prior years, the analysis for 2011 measured our compensation opportunities for executives and actual compensation paid against information from the following sources:

This peer group was limited to technology companies that are our competitors or those that are close comparisons in terms of revenue, general industry and/or market capitalization and who may compete with us for executive talent. Our Compensation Committee annually evaluates the composition of the

peer group and adjusts the composition of the peer group for factors such as recent acquisitions of peer companies, new markets that we have entered or changes in the technology market landscape. The companies in the 2011 peer group were:

We use the benchmarks as one of several factors that inform our judgement of appropriate compensation parameters for base salary, variable cash compensation and equity-based, long-term incentives. Our executive compensation decisions, however, are made on a case-by-case basis, and specific benchmark results do not, in and of themselves, determine individual target compensation opportunities. For 2011, the total target cash compensation for our Named Executive Officers fell at approximately the 60th percentile of similar compensation provided to executives in similar positions at companies in our peer group.

Components of Compensation

Base Salary

As noted above, salary levels for our executive officers are based on many factors, including individual performance and experience, as well as an analysis of compensation data reported for similar positions and roles at companies in our peer group.

In 2011, based on the objectives of our executive compensation programs, our evaluation criteria, Citrix’s overall performance and other factors

described above, the base salaries of our executive officers were increased, effective April 1, 2011, as follows:

Variable Cash Compensation

For 2011, our compensation evaluation processes resulted in target awards for our Named Executive Officers under our Variable Cash Compensation Plan that ranged from 60.0% to 112.5% of base salary, depending on the role of the executive and the other factors discussed above.

Our Compensation Committee oversees our Variable Cash Compensation Plan, with administrative tasks delegated to management. Consistent with the way we calculate and publicly report our financial results, the financial targets and attainment levels for variable cash compensation are adjusted to exclude certain GAAP measurements, including amortization of intangible assets primarily related to business combinations, non-cash charges associated with the expensing of equity-based compensation, charges recorded in connection with our 2009 restructuring program, the tax effects related to these items and any other items adjusted from our GAAP results in our reported earnings. In addition, the Compensation Committee and our Board of Directors retain the discretion to decrease or increase payouts to account for extraordinary circumstances and to balance the interests of the plan participants with the interests of our stockholders. In 2011, the Compensation Committee did not adjust the resulting payouts under the Variable Cash Compensation Plan or our 2011 performance-based restricted stock unit awards discussed below.

Participants in our Variable Cash Compensation Plan received variable cash compensation awards for 2011 based upon the achievement of objective financial goals, including targets based on reported revenue and non-GAAP corporate operating margin. We believe that, for an annual incentive program to be

effective, it should be simple. Thus, we use a limited number of financial targets that focus our executives on the key metrics underlying our strategic plan and align performance pay with strictly financial results.

To ensure the integrity of our operating plan, and to safeguard stockholder value, the payout levels under our Variable Cash Compensation Plan are designed to motivate performance that meets or exceeds our financial plan objectives while mitigating undue exposure for under-performance of these objectives. We rigorously test our plan design to ensure that the structure and possible outcomes do not create incentives for our executives to take unnecessary and excessive risks that would impact our long-term value.

Specifically, we model potential award payouts generated by various performance attainment levels against corporate goals for revenue, non-GAAP earnings per share and non-GAAP corporate operating margin. We also model the likely impact on stockholder value based on achieving all possible revenue, non-GAAP earnings per share and corporate operating margin targets. We summarize this analysis in a diagram (please see the graphic below) which shows plan payouts for any combination of revenue (the x axis in the graphic below) and non-GAAP corporate operating margin (the y axis in the graphic below) achievement. The dark gray area in the graphic below represents achievement which results in no payout under the Variable Cash Compensation Plan while the area of lightest gray represents the maximum payout under the plan of 200%. The medium gray rectangle in the middle of the graphic represents the area of actual plan payouts over the last five years. This modeling helps to inform threshold, target and maximum payout levels for the

plan and ensures that awards, when viewed relative to non-GAAP earnings per share and corporate operating margin goals, are consistent with our overall operating plan for the year and provide the

right balance of compensation to our executives for actual results versus returns to the business and our stockholders.

For 2011, each executive’s Variable Cash Compensation Plan award was based 100% on the achievement of financial targets established by the Compensation Committee, consistent with our annual operating plan. Our Variable Cash Compensation Plan weighted these financial components as follows:

This represents increases in both the revenue and profitability performance targets when compared to the targets of the 2010 Variable Cash Compensation Plan, and also emphasizes revenue achievement while maintaining our objective of profitable growth.

Our Variable Cash Compensation Plan provided for a premium in the event of overachievement of targets, capped at 200% of the target payout amount, and a reduction in the event of underachievement of targets, depending on actual results. The following maximum performance amounts would have resulted in a payout of 200% of the target amount:

Our Variable Cash Compensation Plan also contained minimum performance requirements that needed to be met before any award could be earned, including:

In addition, no payouts could occur under our Variable Cash Compensation Plan if we achieved less than $2.16 of non-GAAP earnings per share in 2011.

When actual performance falls between the threshold and the target performance level or between the target and maximum performance level, payouts are calculated using a graduated slope to provide for the fair distribution of operating profit for overachievement and appropriate compensation reductions for underachievement, as applicable. This payout structure recognizes that, in a business of this scale, overachievement merits a greater reward while underachievement should be more heavily penalized.

Target Cash Compensation Mix

The Compensation Committee’s decision to increase base salaries for 2011, and the targets set under our

Variable Cash Compensation Plan resulted in the following target mix of cash compensation for our executive officers, expressed both as a percentage of total targeted cash compensation and in dollars:

Determination of Awards

Early in the first quarter of 2012, our Executive Vice President, Operations, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reviewed and approved the calculations of financial target attainment levels, which were based on, and consistent with, our publicly reported financial results for 2011, and the 2011 award amounts payable to executive officers that were

generated by members of our human resources department in accordance with the terms of our Variable Cash Compensation Plan. At a meeting held in February 2012, our Compensation Committee approved (or, in the case of our CEO, recommended to the Board of Directors for approval) the payouts under our 2011 Variable Cash Compensation Plan, including approval of the following award calculations:

The table below summarizes the payments approved by our Compensation Committee (or, in the case of our CEO, approved by our Board of Directors) under our Variable Cash Compensation Plan compared to each executive’s target award for 2011. Each executive officer listed below received 97.7% of his target award for 2011. We paid each of these

executive officers his variable cash compensation award in the first quarter of 2012, except for Mr. Monserrat and Mr. Caine who received quarterly advances of their variable cash compensation, calculated on a quarterly basis, as part of their compensation arrangements during 2011.

Equity-Based Long-Term Incentives

The purpose of our equity-based long-term incentives is to attract and retain high performing employees, further align employee and stockholder interests, and continue to closely link employee compensation with company performance. Our equity-based long-term incentive program is an essential component of the total compensation package offered to employees, reflecting the importance that we place on motivating and rewarding superior results with long-term and performance-based incentives.

Approach to Equity-Based Awards

Since 2006, we have granted to executive officers a portfolio of equity-based awards consisting of a mix of both stock options and restricted stock units (both performance-based and service-based) pursuant to our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and/or restated from time to time, or the 2005 Plan. We believe that a mix of stock options and restricted stock units has provided a reasonable incentive for our high performers to remain with us and continue to perform at a high level. In addition, the use of restricted stock units furthers our goals of reducing dilution, burn rate and overhang by reducing the number of shares of our common stock subject to equity-based awards.

Annually, the Compensation Committee reviews our targeted mix of equity awards and in 2011 found that

our portfolio approach to equity-based compensation was reasonably designed to achieve our goals of retention, providing incentives for high performers, management of our shares outstanding and stockholder alignment. Thus, for 2011, the Compensation Committee decided to continue the equity mix of stock options and restricted stock unit awards so that 50% of the value of the total equity package was comprised of stock options and 50% was comprised of restricted stock units (30% of total value represented in performance-based restricted stock units and 20% of total value represented in service-based restricted stock units) to provide an appropriate balance among the elements of compensation awarded to our executive officers.

Because restricted stock units are full value awards, the number of restricted stock units that need to be granted to reach the 50% value threshold is less than the number of options that would be required to reach the same value level. The Compensation Committee, based on recommendations provided by Radford, has determined that each service-based share represented by a restricted stock unit is equivalent to three stock option shares, and each performance-vesting share represented by a restricted stock unit is equivalent to two and one-half stock option shares. Annually, Radford conducts an analysis and works with the Compensation Committee to review these ratios of option based instruments to full value awards to ensure an appropriately balanced portfolio of equity-based awards.

Equity-Based Award Grant Levels

When establishing equity grant levels for our executive officers, the Compensation Committee considers the existing number and value of vested and unvested stock, stock option and restricted stock unit ownership among the executive officers relative to each other and to our employees as a whole, previous grants of equity-based awards to our executive officers, our overhang of equity-based awards and targeted burn rates for equity-based awards and the vesting schedules of previously granted equity-based awards, as well as the various other factors described above. While our Compensation Committee is aware of the accounting costs of equity-based awards, that in itself is not a significant factor in determining individual equity-based awards. In addition, the Compensation Committee reviews the equity-based award grant levels of executive officers in our peer group. Individual awards are then determined generally using the same criteria used to set an executive’s variable cash compensation.

Stock Option Awards

In 2011, our executive officers received annual stock option awards in two grants, the timing of which was pre-determined to follow our quarterly earnings releases for our first and second fiscal quarters. See “Equity Award Grant Policy” below.

Restricted Stock Unit Awards

Pursuant to the 2005 Plan, we may grant executive officers both performance-based restricted stock units and service-based restricted stock units. Once vested, each restricted stock unit represents the right to receive one share of our common stock. The grants of restricted stock unit awards are based upon the same factors used to evaluate stock option grants.

In 2011, the performance criteria and attainment levels for grants of performance-based restricted stock units were based upon successful achievement of a non-GAAP corporate operating margin target of 26.5%. These performance-based restricted stock unit awards were awarded with a non-GAAP corporate operating margin target to closely link the executives’ performance-based equity compensation

with the overall financial performance of our company. The number of restricted stock units underlying a performance-based award is generally determined after the end of the fiscal year based on the achievement of the specific performance objective during the fiscal year. If the performance goal is less than 90% attained, then no performance-based restricted stock units will be issued pursuant to the authorized award. For performance at and above 90% attainment, the number of performance-based restricted stock units issued is based on a graduated slope, with the maximum number of performance-based restricted stock units issuable pursuant to the award capped, for 110% attainment, at 125% of the target number of restricted stock units set forth in the award agreement. Once the number of restricted stock units is determined, the units are subject to service-based vesting as described below.

In February 2012, our Compensation Committee determined that the non-GAAP corporate operating margin target of 26.5% under our 2011 performance-based restricted stock unit awards to our executive officers was 99.3% attained. Based on the graduated payout slope, this attainment translated to a payout of 95% of the 2011 target award for performance-based restricted stock units, which restricted stock units were subject to additional service-based vesting and other requirements of the restricted stock unit agreements.

The performance-based restricted stock units vest over three years, with one-third of the units vesting on the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of the award agreement. Under the terms of the restricted stock unit agreements, no shares of stock may be issued to settle restricted stock units until the performance criteria has been met and the number of restricted stock units underlying the award is determined.

Consistent with our past practice, in March 2011, we also entered into restricted stock unit agreements with our executive officers for service-based restricted stock unit awards that were not subject to performance criteria and that vest over three years, with one-third of the units vesting on the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of the award agreement.

Long-Term Incentive Plan

In 2009, we instituted a long-term incentive program, or LTIP, for our executive officers to provide further focus and alignment with our profitable growth strategy. Both the LTIP’s design and structure were intended to reinforce executive actions supportive of stockholder interests. Executives would be rewarded only if they generated both relative and absolute stockholder returns. In addition, because executives are required to hold any vested awards until termination, death or a change in control of our company, they would be further motivated to take actions that foster sustainable growth and avoid unnecessary and excessive risks that may threaten our long-term value.

Under the LTIP, our executives were given the opportunity to earn restricted stock units based on the performance of our common stock against a weighted average of specific market indices over a three-year period ended December 31, 2011. The number of restricted stock units issuable upon settlement of these LTIP awards was determined after the end of the three-year period, and these restricted stock units were issuable to the executive only if the executive remained employed by us throughout the three-year period. Further, although the restricted stock units are vested upon issuance, the units will not be settled in shares of our common stock until the earlier of (1) six months and one day following termination of the executive’s employment for any reason other than cause, (2) the executive’s death, and (3) the effective date of a change in control of our company.

The number of shares of common stock issuable upon settlement of the LTIP restricted stock units

was determined by comparing the performance of our common stock to the performance of the specified market indices over the same three-year period. We measured performance of our common stock and the market indices based on the difference between the closing price on December 31, 2008 and the average closing price for the last 30 business days of the three-year period. If our common stock outperformed the market indices by 33% or more, each executive officer would vest in a number of restricted stock units equal to his target award multiplied by the percentage by which the appreciation of our common stock exceeded the appreciation of the market indices, up to a maximum of 200% of the target award if our common stock outperformed the market indices by 200% or more. If our common stock did not outperform the market indices by at least 33%, then no restricted stock units would have vested. Furthermore, to ensure that restricted stock units would vest only if we increased stockholder value in absolute terms, no restricted stock units would have vested if our common stock did not appreciate by at least 10% during the three-year performance period.

In order to ensure that we were measuring our performance against both the market as a whole and companies within our industry, the Compensation Committee decided to measure our stock appreciation against the weighted average of the S&P 500 (GSPC) and the S&P North American Technology (S&P GSTI (IGM)) indices. The S&P 500 (GSPC) index provides a broad measure of market performance, and the S&P North American Technology index reflects the performance of technology companies, including members of our peer group. We placed relatively more weight on the S&P 500 (GSPC) index

(2/3) than on the S&P North American Technology index (1/3) because it provides a broader measure of overall market performance.

For the three-year period ended December 31, 2011, our stock price outperformed the weighted average growth of the benchmark indices by more than 265%. We believe that our LTIP achieved its intended purpose of aligning the interests of our

executive team with our strategy of profitable growth during the LTIP performance period. Our profitable growth, in turn, helped drive our stockholder returns. Accordingly, in February 2012, our Compensation Committee approved a payout of 200% of the target award under the LTIP in accordance with its terms. We did not grant any new LTIP awards in 2011.

Equity Award Grant Policy

In 2007, the Compensation Committee adopted the Citrix Systems, Inc. Equity Award Grant Policy, or the Awards Policy. The Awards Policy enhances our controls with respect to grants of equity awards by establishing procedures for approving and pre-determining the dates on which awards will be made. Pursuant to the Awards Policy, unless a different date is set by our Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee, annual grants of stock options are made in two installments, with 50% being granted on the last business day in April and 50% being granted on the last business day in July, and annual grants of full value awards (for example, restricted stock and restricted stock units) are made 100% on the last business day in March on or prior to March 30th. The Awards Policy also establishes fixed grant dates for new hire and performance grants. An employee’s eligibility to receive an award as of a particular, fixed grant date is subject to the time of the month in which the employee’s employment begins or promotion is effective or, if later, the date on which all documentation necessary for the approval of the grant is obtained. A copy of our Awards Policy is available at the Corporate Governance section of our website at

http://www.citrix.com/site/aboutCitrix/governance/ under Governance Documents.

Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines

In 2008, to further align the interests of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders, our Board of Directors adopted stock ownership guidelines for our executive officers. These guidelines were revised in March 2010 to increase our stock holding requirements. Pursuant to our current guidelines, our Chief Executive Officer is expected to own at least 100,000 shares of our common stock, our Chief Financial Officer is expected to own at least 25,000 shares and each other executive officer is expected to own at least 20,000 shares of our common stock. Each of our executive officers is expected to hold such shares for so long as he or she is one of our executive officers. Executive officers are expected to meet these guidelines within four years of the date of his or her appointment as an executive officer. Our current executive officers are permitted an additional two years from their original compliance deadline to comply with our increased stock holding requirements. Failure to satisfy the stock holding guidelines when

required to do so will result in suspension of an executive officer’s ability to sell shares of our common stock until the requisite ownership levels are reached. Our executive officers may accumulate shares of our common stock through stock option exercises, settlement of restricted stock units or other awards and open market purchases made in compliance with applicable securities laws, our policies or any other equity plans we may adopt from time to time. Shares of our common stock beneficially owned (unless the executive officer disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares) and vested restricted stock and LTIP units (including vested but deferred restricted stock units) count towards the satisfaction of the ownership guidelines.

Additionally, under our policies, our employees, including our executive officers, and directors are not permitted to engage in the following transactions with respect to our stock: sell short; buy or sell puts, calls or other derivatives of our common stock; buy our common stock on margin; hold an account containing our common stock that is, or is linked to, a margin account; or pledge our common stock as collateral for a loan.

Policy Regarding Severance Payments

In 2009, the Compensation Committee adopted a policy providing that we will not enter into any new agreements, or materially amend any existing agreements, with our executive officers that provide the executive officer with severance payments following a change in control, except in the case of a double-trigger termination event (that is, upon the termination of the executive’s employment without cause or for good reason following a change in control).

Benefits

Our executive officers participate in our broad-based employee benefit plans on the same terms as eligible,

non-executive employees, subject to any legal limits on the amounts that may be contributed or paid by executive officers under these plans. We offer a stock purchase plan, under which our employees may purchase shares of our common stock at a 15% discount from the fair market value of our common stock on the last business day of the purchase period (determined by reference to the closing price of our common stock on such date), and a 401(k) plan, which allows our employees to invest in a wide array of funds on a pre-tax basis and which provides a matching contribution from our company. We also maintain insurance and other benefit plans for our employees. Our executive officers receive higher life, accidental death and dismemberment and disability insurance benefits than other employees, which reflects industry standards and their relative base salary levels. Our executive officers also receive reimbursement for annual health physicals. During 2011, we did not offer any non-qualified deferred compensation plans (other than pursuant to the LTIP awards as summarized under the section Long-Term Incentive Plan above) or supplemental retirement plans to our executives. For more information, please refer to the Summary Compensation Table and the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table below.

We have always limited the perquisites that are made available to our executives. Our executives are entitled to few benefits that are not otherwise available to all employees and generally provided to ensure comparable coverage levels for insurance and health care relative to market practice in our industry sector. In this regard, it should be noted that we do not provide pension arrangements or similar benefits to our executives or employees, other than a 401(k) program, in which all of our employees, including our executive officers, may participate and defined contribution plans required by applicable law in certain jurisdictions outside the United States, in which none of our Named Executive Officers participate.