1. Revenue – total sales volume can increase with the right incentives. And it can increase with a sales force that isn’t distracted by a complex comp plan and shadow accounting. Revenue can also be increased by focusing sales people on strategically important sales (right customers, right products, long term revenue streams, etc.).
2. Margin – by focusing sales people on the most valuable sales and on correct pricing and deal structure, margin can be increased even if revenue is not.
3. Cost – While this is not typically the focus of sales compensation plan redesign, the cost of comp can be managed down either by paying less to sales people for the same productivity. More often costs are managed down by expecting sales productivity to increase faster than sales compensation. Other costs that can be managed include the cost of administering the plans, cost of delivering the company’s offering (reduced through better deal structure), and the cost of turnover in the sales organization due to un-motivating, unintelligible, or unfair comp plans.

The specific issues faced by the business will determine where the value creation can happen. Ask why you are considering changing their plans, what benefit you expect to gain. Ideally, substantial changes in sales focus that yield business results are the result of a full program that is supported by the compensation plans. It is rare that compensation plan changes alone will make a dramatic difference on the income statement. It is also rare that a change in the market strategy, a change in sales roles, a new coverage model, or other important changes in the sales job will be successful without support from the sales compensation plans. So the ROI is most likely on the overall change initiative of which sales compensation is a part.

A. Run the sales team under the direction of company leadership with a focus on keeping the sales team recruited, coached, and productive

B. Work as a member of the company’s leadership team to set the company strategy, determine how best to address the market for the company’s offerings, and deliver both the needed growth and company financial results.

If most of the time and effort are focused on A. then it’s a sales type plan. If both, then consider a 50/50 sales-type plan and company executive plan. And it’s rarely mostly B. unless there’s an EVP of Sales & Marketing with a VP Sales reporting in, but if this is the case, then a purely executive type plan could be appropriate.

For sales managers who are expected to keep their territories fully covered, maintaining a pipeline of candidates and connections, it makes sense to expect them to continue to produce sales out of an open territory, which would mean no quota adjustment, extra credit, etc. Their ability to meet their quota would almost certainly be impaired by an open territory, but then they haven’t maintained a full staff – so some penalty is appropriate.

For sales managers who are not expected (or allowed) to hire staff to support an open territory, and who expect to fill the open position within a few months (3-12 perhaps), they could either cover the open territory using others from their team, or cover the open territory themselves.

If they cover the open territory using others from their team, then their team members should receive credit and compensation for the sales to the assigned opportunities (or zip codes) outside their territory, and the manager may or may not need to have a quota adjustment (depends on how long the condition is expected to persist).

If they cover the open territory themselves, then the manager could receive individual contributor type compensation for sales into that territory, but probably at a reduced rate (50% of that generally paid to individual contributors?), and perhaps a somewhat reduced total team quota (again depending on how long the no-hire situation is expected to continue).

For sales managers who are expected to downsize their staff until market conditions change (a year or more), reassigning territories among their team members to “absorb” the open territory is probably the right approach. The quota should be adjusted as needed to reflect the market conditions that led to this change and reasonable productivity expectations for the newly reduced team size.

Overrides can be problematic as a way to pay a sales manager, although they are very common because they are easy and economically straightforward (just take the % you can pay in total for a sale and split it up between reps and managers – your CFO will love the economic simplicity and direct alignment to profits). The problems arise because the manager ends up with a little “empire” of people that, if they are good, the manager will not want to have transfer to any other division even if that is best for the employee and the company. Also, managers can get “fat and happy” on an override plan without too much accountability. It is better to set a goal for the team’s performance and hold the manager to attainment of that goal rather than give them a % of the total team’s sales. Also, your managers likely have higher base salaries (less variable pay mix) than the reps, so you may not need to pay them as much (or as soon) from an incentive standpoint. It’s not uncommon to pay managers quarterly when their reps are paid incentives monthly. However, this varies from industry to industry and some industries are “locked in” to paying managers monthly on a plan that looks and feels much like a sales rep plan but is based on overrides.

The other thing to consider is a “Coaching Effectiveness” bonus whereby the manager is paid for the % of reps on his/her team who achieve target performance in their key financial metric. This encourages the manager to work with all members of the team to manage everyone to a higher standard (or get rid of the ones quickly who can’t get there). A plan based purely on an override formula can make a manager a lot of money based on the performance of one superstar on his/her team without pushing the manager to work with everyone on the team. I almost always recommend the inclusion of a 20% element for Coaching Effectiveness for my clients and universally they report that this is a great measure and fills in a missing link in the sales manager’s incentive plan.

If you do want to calculate a comission rate for an override plan (in spite of my warnings above) then you do that much the same way you do for the sale rep plan. You need to approach it from 2 directions. First, how much can the company afford to pay as a % of revenue or profit and how should that be allocated among reps and managers and second, how much do you need to deliver in pay at target performance to attract and retain top sales managers. Often we start with the second question, which gives you the numerator (“our managers need to make $50K in incentive pay at target performance”), then ask productivity questions to determine the denominator (“and we expect a good manager to generate $10M”), and the result is a starting point for a commission rate (in this case 0.5% or 1/2 a percent). Then you check this against the answer to the first question and see if it lines up with what is feasible to pay and still generate the requisite profit for the company. If it doesn’t, then you may need to adjust the assumptions you used to generate the numerator and the denominator. However, this is often the point in a design discussion where some compromise is needed (or a change in the staffing model – maybe for $50K the manager needs to manage 15 reps each generating $1M rather than just 10 – which which case his rate would now be 0.33%; or maybe the reps need to generate $2M each instead of $1M). Just be sure you model out the results, factoring in the reps’ commission payments as well as the managers’ to make sure your plan is affordable and will help you continue to attract and retain top talent.

Over time, most businesses benefit from moving their sales leaders to a goal-based plan with payout thresholds (e.g., no variable pay earned under 75% of the year-to-date goal), and acceleration for over-goal performance.

1. Be sure the Director of Sales “wins” when his/her people win. So starting with their compensation plan and aggregating is a good approach for at least one measure.
2. Even if the individual contributors have a commission-type mechanic (payout is a percent of what is sold), consider a bonus-type mechanic for the Director job (payout is a target amount for hitting goal, less for less and more for over-goal achievement).
3. If your reporting systems support it, you might consider a measure of “contribution margin” for the Director. That would be [sales] – [cost of sales] – [directly controllable sales operating costs]. That measure rewards the Director for making the right tradeoffs in sales resources to get the maximum contribution from the overall sales force.
4. Another great idea for sales managers is a bonus based on the number of direct reports who meet or exceed their sales goals for the year. This type measure doesn’t allow riding on the coattails of the over-performers, and encourages good coaching, hiring, and “pruning” of the organization over time.
5. The pay mix for the Director of Sales is generally less incentive-rich than that for the individual contributors. So if your individual sales people have 60% of their target total compensation in their base (at midpoint) and 40% in their incentive (at target), that’s a 60/40 mix. In that sort of situation, a Director of Sales might have a 70/30, or even a 75/25 mix.

However, if you want to motivate and reward for results they themselves are capable of generating, giving them meaningful at-risk pay to “penalize” those who don’t deliver and exciting upside to reward those who really ring the bell, then you might want to consider tying their variable pay more directly to results they can personally control.

A more typical sales management variable pay plan would tie a fixed value incentive opportunity to achieving a sales or gross margin goal, with:

• No payout for performance before some threshold value (50% – 90% of goal depending on goal setting accuracy and company/market maturity),
• Increasing (but linear) payout between the threshold and the goal,
• Accelerated payout (more $/percentage point of goal achieved) for over-goal performance, and
• Deceleration or a cap at a very high level of performance (110% – 150% of goal, again depending on goal setting accuracy and company/market maturity).