SalesCompInsights

By Scott Barton and Matthew Zink

As we have written numerous times on these pages, quota attainment distribution is a critical diagnostic for a goal-based incentive plan.  The shape of the distribution and its position relative to target attainment impact both the plan’s motivational capabilities and its ROI.

Consider an example:

• Company A sets a goal for its sales organization to produce $100 million in revenue.  It models a normally-distributed, salesperson-attainment scenario to test the impact of pay mix (ratio of base to incentive target pay) and pay rate accelerators on total comp expense.
  • Under the “model” scenario the company pays 113% of its incentive budget at 100% attainment, due to its use of accelerated payment rates for salesperson attainment above 100%, and the model scenario placing approximately half of the sales population into accelerators;
  • Its compensation cost of sale, or CCOS, is 4.26% — i.e., Company A is spending 4.26% of each dollar of revenue on sales comp under this scenario.

•  In a wide distribution scenario, the company experiences an increase to the deviation of salesperson quota attainment – i.e., the left and right edges of the distribution curve grow outward.
  • While the company generates no more revenue in this scenario, it spends more of its incentive budget, due to more salespeople earning at accelerated payment rates;
  • The scenario also produces a less efficient CCOS, given the increased number of salespeople performing at low attainment levels, yet continuing to earn base salary.

• In a third scenario the company experiences an upward shift in average performance, such that all salespeople produce 5% more than what the company modeled under the normal scenario.
  •  Due to its accelerators, the company spends more as a percent of incentive budget than under the normal scenario;
  • The higher cost is at a lower effective rate (CCOS) than under the wide scenario, because revenue increased at a higher rate than comp expense.

• Finally, a forth scenario, and an unfortunate one, is where the average attainment is 100% of revenue target but the shape is bi-modal.  I.e., instead of one, normally-distributed curve there are two – one centered at the lower end of the performance continuum and the other at the upper end.  Think of a two-humped camel, or the tale of two cities:
  • The lower-performing camp produces relatively-high fixed cost as a percent of revenue due to base salary;
  • The higher-performing group produces relatively high variable cost as a percent of revenue due to accelerated payment rates;
  • There is no middle group to offset each, extreme group.

From a purely budgetary perspective, Company A prefers the normal distribution scenario, which provides the lowest spend rate as a percent of incentive budget and revenue.  However, the company’s sales management has a different view.  The wide scenario provides more extreme examples of performance, and pay:

• High performers pull down big pay checks and serve as a source of inspiration to average performers;
• Poor-performing reps opt out of the program (or company), saving sales leadership pain and hassle associated with administrative, “performance-management.”

Obviously, for the sales management, the right-shift scenario is preferred – beat the goal and increase the number of salespeople over quota.  But beyond some point of goal attainment the sales organization’s success carries both short- and long-term consequences.

Short-term Company A – and this is a real example – is dealing with the fact that its overall corporate growth and profitability in its last fiscal year fell below analysts’ expectations, even though a large portion of its sales organization exceeded 110% of their quota. 

How is this possible?  Goals defining company success and sales team success are not aligned.  Misalignment usually stems from: 

• Under-allocation of goal, which is the practice of assigning to the sales team a level of quota that falls short of the corporate goal;
• Excessive use of measures and goals that enable the sales team to earn what they view is sufficient pay, even when their performance on the primary goal of revenue or margin falls short.

Longer term, companies that celebrate sales team success but fail to meet Wall Street’s expectations must take radical steps to get salesperson pay and performance in line with corporate results.  Ultimately the sales team must perform more, or earn less.

The prospect of earning less doesn’t sit well – with salespeople in particular.  Therefore, sales leaders need to ensure the sales compensation program uses measures and goals that align with corporate requirements, and that the resulting performance of the sales team and the company is aligned as well.  Other components of the comp plan, including target pay mix levels and payment rate accelerators, help fine tune the pay-and-performance relationship at difference levels of average attainment. 

The cost of poor quota setting and alignment can be substantial.  In our Company A example, the firm spent about 10% more than the modeled result at 100% average attainment, enough to employ at least four salespeople.  Another scenario could have been an average attainment below 100%.  This outcome better aligns pay and performance as fewer, highly-leveraged salespeople exceed goal.  The cost here, while difficult to measure, can be high as well, as salespeople perceive they can’t meet their income expectations because the company sets its goals too high.

Ah . . . . sales comp, quotas and territories.  Three important legs of the productivity stool.  While sales compensation and quotas share time in the design process spotlight, many salespeople will tell you that their territory assignment has as much, if not more, impact on their success.  We recently had the opportunity to catch up with Ken Kramer, Director of Business Development at TerrAlign, a software and services company focused on sales resource optimization.  

Mike:  From your perspective, how important is territory management for increasing or maximizing sales productivity?

Ken:   While I might be a bit biased, territory management is critical for maximizing sales productivity and revenues.  But it might be helpful to first clarify the differences between Territory Management and Territory Alignment or Optimization.  I think of Territory Management as the broad umbrella term for all things related to territories – assignment, tracking, definition.  Or alternatively Territory Management can specifically relate to the tracking of who owns what and storage of the information in the system of record while integrating to CRM, ERP, ICM and similar systems.   Territory Alignment or Optimization is more focused on the design aspect; creating territories to optimize the utilization of the entire sales force.  TerrAlign focuses on territory optimization and is the reason for my first statement.  To maximize overall sales productivity, each sales rep needs to be leveraged to their fullest capacity.  Companies need to provide roughly the same amount of ‘work’ in each territory, while minimizing drive time and maximizing the number of accounts or prospects a rep can service.

Mike: Are there any examples you can share where companies have been able to quantify the impact?

Ken:  Our research, as well as that from other organizations, typically shows companies increasing revenues 5-15% without increasing headcount.  At the same time, they are able to reduce travel related sales costs up to 15%.  The results are incredibly strategic, typically producing ROI’s that are so big, they verge on unbelievable.  But, for companies doing millions of dollars in revenue, even a small increase in productivity can have a very significant impact.

Mike: Are there some guiding principles for organizations that want to evaluate the effectiveness of their current alignment approach?

Ken:  From an evaluation perspective, I’d recommend companies focus on a few things.  They might vary based on company and industry, but should include metrics related to work, opportunity, and revenue.  Ideally, you want to understand if each rep is making the same number of calls or producing a proportional amount of revenue for the number of accounts they are servicing.

As an example, one guideline we see in life sciences or consumer goods is to target 32-35 hours of work per week.  This allows for vacation or sick time, training, or other non-selling time.  When we talk about work or workload, we consider this to include the number of calls, duration of those calls and drive time to get to each call.  In high tech, companies typically look for a relatively similar number of prospect companies across territories that meet a particular profile.  We also recommend that variables used for balancing territories reflect those measures in sales comp plans; that is, design the territories around what you’re also paying for.

Mike: What are the characteristics of the most effective approaches versus ones that didn’t work so well?

Ken:  Where possible, build the territories based on a workload factor.  It will lead to better territories where customers will be better served for a longer period of time.  Don’t build territories around reps, they often don’t last as long your customers.  Also, build territories from the ground up, if you start at top and go down, the ability to create balanced territories is greatly reduced.

Mike: How has technology impacted the process?

Ken: While we have been applying technology to this issue for over 20 years, technology solutions for territory design are nowhere near as well-known, as say CRM or ERP.  However, technology has had a major impact on territory optimization.  Previously, and in many organizations today, alignment decisions are largely based one or two factors – neither of which is particularly desirable; 1) gut feel or  2) that’s way the it’s always been done.  The truth of the matter is that sales managers have largely driven the process based on what they think makes sense, an effort to not upset the over performers and their memory from when they were in the field.

Not too long ago, sales managers would generate complex spreadsheets and attempt to create some degree equity across the territories.  Then generic mapping tools arrived so they could plot accounts and visualize things.  Both tools helped, but didn’t reflect the combination of variables and algorithms that could balance each territory, allowing for a consistent workload across the team while minimizing drive time.

As an aside, our organization provides consulting in this area.  I remember one field session  in particular.  As we worked to  adjust and finalize the alignments I observed the field managers taking on a new perspective and focusing on alignments that would benefit both their teams and the company as a whole.  The managers realized they could communicate the changes to their teams and recognized the potential benefits of a more systematic approach.  Prior to that, I had mostly experienced sales managers in a land grab because they knew quotas wouldn’t keep up with
opportunity, so the more the better.  Also, by involving field managers and providing them an integrated tool to make changes, Sales Ops doesn’t become a bottleneck.  So, the technology helps to change thinking, validates (or negates) gut feel and provides better results in a shorter time
period.

Mike:  What lessons learned can you share around the connection between territory alignment and compensation planning and goal setting?

Ken:  Compensation can be a touchy subject.  While reps wait for their Territory, Quota and Comp Plan to be distributed at the sales kick off meetings it is easy to complain about their territory assignments – what accounts they’re going to lose or how little opportunity exists.  Most reps expect their quota to be similar to their colleagues, so they can commiserate about that.  And, they dissect their Comp Plan, figuring out how to ‘beat’ it.  What they often miss is that regardless of the comp plan design, the tie between their quota and territory is what will have the greatest impact on if and how much they will exceed their target.  A territory in the rural Midwest could have the same amount of workload as one in New Jersey, but significantly less opportunity, so the quota better reflect that.

As I mentioned earlier, comp plans and territories need to share common measures and these should also drive the quota setting process.  Quotas should reflect the opportunity per territory.  The impact of unbalanced territories on quota attainment distribution and the cost of incentive comp can be disastrous for a company.  Most comp plans have accelerators that far outweigh any decelerators associated with below quota performance.  When reps outperform their goal, the related expense is significantly higher than what a company ‘saves’ when a rep misses.

Mike:  Have you observed any trends or shifts in how companies approach this topic given the recent economic environment (e.g., entering the downturn, dealing the trough and now what appears to be a period of higher growth expectations)?

Ken:  Change is a trigger for products and services like ours.   The recent downturn forced many companies to figure out how to do more with less.  We recently worked with several companies charged with reducing headcount, but determined to maintain revenues and  effectively service their customers.  Aligning territories to allow each rep to visit the most number of accounts is critical to this effort.  Growth, which we prefer to see our clients enjoy, also forces the issue of how to realign territories – and how to do it in a way that the sales team doesn’t feel penalized.  Regardless of the change, companies want to minimize the level of disruption – the number accounts being reassigned from one rep to another.  Our technology can do that while also balancing the new territories and making them geographically compact.  One other point worth mentioning;  when things are good companies are less conscious about ”optimization” than when headcount is being cut.  We encourage our customers and prospects to continually focus on how to get the most from their sales headcount.

Mike:  Any final thoughts on what companies should be thinking about as they go into the 2012 planning process?

Ken:  Customer segmentation, sales force sizing, territory alignment, compensation plans and quota setting all part of the sales planning process – a new year represents an opportunity to revisit each piece of your sales coverage model and support programs.  Typically, the companies that come out of a downturn in the best shape are those that used their resources more effectively and invested while others pulled back.  Much like any other year, it’s critical to do the analysis, set the company strategy and then put your sales team in place to execute.  There are a lot of pieces to consider, but also an awful lot of upside when done well.

Ken can be reached at kramer@terralign.com

Would You Like a Battery with that Jump?

Living in the San Francisco Bay Area and relatively close to a market, we seldom stock many groceries in our tiny, overpriced (or is it half-overpriced now?) home.  The grocery store is our pantry, and daily visits are routine.  So too is my older daughter’s claim of weakness from extreme hunger.   So in grabbing stuff for dinner with starving daughter in tow, I’m quick and efficient, except when something goes amiss.  

Such was the case recently when my car, having worked fine only minutes before, would not start.  This thing’s got enough electronic gear to power an Apollo mission.  It clicks and hums when sitting in the garage.  Now it was dead.  No time for a 1,300-point diagnostic, we’ve got to get home.  The car stays, food and kids go.  I packed up my two-year-old daughter and a bunch of heavy bags; the other, starving daughter, could only manage to carry a small bag of French bread.

AAA Northern California has, over the years, built up significant brand equity in my book.  The annual dues more than cover what would be the cost of jumping, towing, unlocking and refilling our cars.  AAA’s Roadside Assistance is cheap insurance for absent-minded owners of unreliable cars.

So I wasn’t surprised when the AAA roadside assistance driver (RAD) arrived at my car precisely when I did, according to plan.  About 60 seconds later my car is idling as if nothing happened and I’m signing a form reminding me something had.  The RAD suggested I let the car idle for awhile before shutting it off and then if it’s slow to start, consider buying a new battery.  Then came the pitch for AAA’s battery replacement service: for $135 another RAD will come to my home and replace the battery with a dealer-spec, three-year-warranty model.  Interesting, I thought.

Indeed a few days later my car was slow to crank.  Being proactive and resourceful I called the dealer from where I bought my car to compare its battery replacement charge to AAA’s quote; the dealer wanted $60 more.  And I would have to go to them – something I do too frequently.  I’ll save the $60 and go without a free cappuccino.

Get on with the punch line, you say?   Here it is:  I spend a good chunk of my career thinking through what enables a successful up-sell and service experience to co-exist.   A former boss of mine avoided making the distinction.  “Sales is service,” he would preach.  In the case of my recent AAA encounter, he’s right.  But in retail, the tag line often falls on deft ears.  Employees in designated customer-service roles often balk at sales goals.  “I didn’t sign up for this,” they’ll say.  From a management perspective, you’re kind of stuck.  Push the goals too hard and you lose valuable service employees.  Not hard enough and the sales goals go unmet.  In our experience, getting the inbound-sales/service role right is a tall order.

So what makes AAA and other firms successful here?  The first hurdle is cultural.  If your employees believe that to serve the customer means informing them of products and services they can genuine use and value, then this knowledge transfer is just an extension of their service routine.  The product/service must fit with the service encounter for the customer to recognize its value.  “I’m glad you told me, ‘cause I just might need a battery.”  Quite a different thought process from the belief a rep is taking advantage of your needy state to sell you something you don’t want or need, or suggesting a quid pro quo.  “Hmm…. if I don’t sign up for the credit protection service, will she not waive my late charge next time?”  Feels sort of slimy.

The second hurdle, if it’s not yet completely obvious why I selected this week’s topic, is compensation and performance-management “alignment.”  I can’t say with certainly how this AAA RAD gets paid, but know enough on this particular issue to believe his cash comp is base salary with a very modest variable piece tied to customer service scores (I received a survey about three days following my service call) and battery sales volume.

What needs to be aligned, exactly?  If we have the sales/service connection set – i.e., there’s an obvious connection between the service request and the proposed sales opportunity – our performance measures and variable comp must fit the context of the job role.  Take the “Fries-with-that-Coke” example.  A natural connection, simple, unthreatening message (what Coke drinker wouldn’t want a delicious pouch of golden fries?) and for a national chain lots of data and surveillance opportunity to appropriately measure service quality and sales volume.  Dial up the incentive opportunity for hitting the fry goal.  Have it part of their target pay.  There’s little that can go wrong.

Our battery example has some similarities but the role context is far different.  It’s not a transitional job.  I would expect some toughness and pride on the part of the employee.  To say these guys are set in their ways is probably not too offensive.  And you want them to sell batteries?  Better dangle some incentive out there.  But how much?  What’s the goal?  What can go wrong if these things aren’t aligned?

Take into account the customer’s perspective.  I try not to generalize or stereotype based on appearances, but a tattooed, heavy-equipment operator with an aggressive sales goal and vulnerable customer in a dimly-lit parking lot sets an intimidating scene.  “Would you like a broken neck with that refusal to buy a battery, sir?”  Good thing I left the kids at home.    Me and my car, never seen or heard from again.

Yet the thought never crossed my mind.  This guy knew what he was doing, and I’m $60 richer because of it.  Call it random in a world of information overload and crummy service experiences.  Something tells me a lot of work went into getting this right.

By Elliot Scott

A soccer teammate of mine from high school (let’s call him Ronaldo) now works as a finance manager in a company that manufactures equipment for the construction industry.  With the decline in the real estate market, times have been tough for the company and its sales force.   Inside the company the pressure to change the sales incentive plan is builidng.    

Several years ago, when times were good, Ronaldo’s company changed the sales incentive plan.  They moved from a commission plan (sales people paid a % of revenue on each sale with the commission rate tied to level of discounting) to a plan based on % attainment of an annual revenue quota, measured on a quarterly year-to-date basis.  Since that time there has been a gradual crescendo from the sales force of, “The old plan was better.”  But are the salespeople complaining simply because payouts are down?  Or are they right that for their situation the old plan really is better?  Since I am a student of the game (sales comp, not soccer) Ronaldo asked me if I agreed. 

Being a consultant, my answer was simple and direct:  “Well, that depends….”

The choice of whether to use a commission or a quota-bonus mechanic is one of the cornerstone decisions in any sales comp plan design.  Fortunately, there are a number of rules of thumb to help you evaluate the options, if not come to consensus.  The ones most relevant to Ronaldo’s company are:

1.  Is their sales force a “hunting,” new business acquisition sales force, or is there more “farming,” or account management?  Commission is much more common and appropriate in hunting sales forces where the immediacy of commission is a key lever to attract and retain the appropriate type of sales person.
   • Well it turns out that yes, this is a hunting sales force, and management would like them to be even more aggressive.  Score 1 goal for commission.
2.  Is territory opportunity balanced?  If territory opportunity is even, and it is difficult to argue that any group or region has a far greater likelihood of selling much more than another, then commission works very well.  If not, the use of quotas can level the playing field by managing the inequity in territory opportunity.
   • In Ronaldo’s company, territory opportunity is not well balanced.  Quotas range from $800,000 to $2.5 million.  That’s not enormous variation, but score 1 goal for quota-bonus.
3.  Even if territories are not perfectly balanced, is there an objective and accurate way to measure territory opportunity?  If not, then it will be difficult to set quotas based on anything other than past performance, which increases the perception of the “success penalty”:  If sales people believe that doing well this year will cause their quotas to rise significantly next year, the motivational impact of the plan is diminished and the case for a quota-bonus mechanic is weakened.
   • Ronaldo’s company lacks good data on the market potential in each territory, and quotas are based primarily on the prior year’s performance.  The sales force has a high level of distrust of quotas, not only because the overall number cannot be allocated objectively and fairly to each territory, but also because the overall number has been unrealistic for a few years.  Score 1 for commission.
4. How “lumpy” are the sales?  Quota-bonus plans work best in environments with low variability of sales performance.  If a $2 million quota is expected to be attained with 1,000 sales averaging $2,000 each, a quota-bonus plan is more applicable than in an environment where a $2 million quota is expected to be attained with 2 sales of $1 million each and quota attainment might easily range from 0% to 300%.
   • In Ronaldo’s company, sales range from $5,000 to $500,000, with a few outliers up to $20 million.  If you can manage the outliers, a quota-bonus plan should be workable. However, sales are sufficiently variable during the year to require a quarterly year-to-date quota-bonus mechanic.  This is a common mechanic but adds complexity, further diminishing motivational impact.  Nevertheless, quotas are workable.  So score 1 for quota-bonus.
5.  How important is the sales person’s role in discounting?  Commissions offer a simple and effective way of focusing the sales person on discounting.  A rate table based in whole or in part on level of discount allows a sales person to immediately understand the impact to his/her pocket book from each level of discounting.  With a quota-bonus mechanic, the “line of sight” to discounting is seldom so clear, and often involves the calculation of an overall weighted average discount, that changes with each sale
   • The sales force at Ronaldo’s company has significant influence on discounting in most sales.  Score 1 for commission.
6.  Is it important to balance sales across product lines?  Is it critical for the sales people to sell a certain specified amount or mix of products in order to meet strategic objectives, or manage production or inventory?  Or is achieving maximum revenue at minimum discount the only thing that matters?  Quota-bonus plans do a better job of managing the former.  With a commission plan, the sales person will want to maximize commission on each sale, with little regard for the mix of sales over the course of the year, and will sell to his or her comfort level.
   • In Ronaldo’s company the answer to how important overall sales are relative to the sales of each component part depends on who you talk to.  No score on that one.

Based on my conversation with Ronaldo, and the final score of 3-2, I’d say the sales force has a good case for moving back to commission.  A commission plan is workable in his sales environment and will be more effective at driving the results most important to the company:  new business acquisition and lower discounting.

And while it is true that sales people, like the rest of us, prefer compensation plans that pay them more money, I doubt that is the only reason they prefer the old plan.  In my experience, most sales people prefer commission.  The motivational impact of knowing what you will make for each sale not only drives performance, it also adds interest to the job and a sense of ownership, particularly if you are money motivated and independent…as good sales people tend to be.

The company should also not overlook the following:  (a) Listening and responding to the concerns of the sales force will build credibility, loyalty, and motivation.  And (b) it has been several years since the plan has changed.  The novelty of change and the ability to use the new plan to help communicate and reinforce key sales strategies should both have a positive impact.

As a final note, while a move towards a commission based plan appears to make sense in this case, there are also reasons to retain the influence of quota attainment in the plan.  For this company, the main argument against moving to commission is territory imbalance.  So the influence of quotas should be retained but made secondary.   We’ll address techniques for this in a later post, but feel free to contact me at escott@newsigma.com  if you have a specific question I can help you answer.

Play Audio Version

Sales Productivity Takes a Big Leap Forward

One of the most challenging decisions facing sales leadership is whether to move from a commission to a goal-based plan.  By commission, we mean the relatively simple approach of sales x payment rate = payment.  In a commission plan, payment rate gets the focus – bigger the better for a salesperson.  In a goal-based plan, it’s all about the goal or quota: goal achievement = payment.  There are derivations of these approaches: variable-rate commission schemes where the payment rate changes based on a goal-achievement threshold.  But fundamentally, the commission plan provides a target share of each sale to the rep, where the goal-based plan provides a target payment when the rep has met the required goal.

Two years ago we worked with the sales force of an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC).  In 2009 the sales organization adopted a quota-based plan after having used a commission plan.  The firm’s head of HR said moving to a goal based sales compensation program was relatively simple, and one of the better things they’ve done.

In 2008 the company was struggling.  Yet most salespeople earned variable pay based on recurring revenue from previously-done deals.  Many in management thought reps viewed their variable pay as an entitlement, and were not sufficiently motivated to grow new business. 

The program changes for 2009 included a minimum performance threshold for incentive eligibility, and use of both cumulative and discrete goals for monthly payments, depending on the job role.  The new program simplified the calculation methodology by using a standard approach across various performance measures, whereas the previous plan used a variety of calculation rules.  In exchange for the threshold, the plan offered higher payouts for over-goal performance.

During 2009 the company operated under bankruptcy protection in one of history’s worst recessions.  Yet the sales organization performed admirably, coming in for the year just below the goal.  In 2010, management kept the same basic plan structure but increased the goals and minimum performance threshold.   The company emerged from bankruptcy in October and finished the year at 107% of plan.

The company’s mood for 2011 is bullish.  Management has refined the sales comp plans to place more focus on strategic product sales.  A benefit to goal-based plans is management can shift strategic emphasis by changing the quotas and payment rates, without structural changes to the program.  This consistency is a welcome change for reps that grew accustomed to constant changes to the plan, and given all organizational changes. 

Goal setting and allocation is never easy.  “We did a lot of work behind the scenes,” says the head of HR.  “But this paid off in making the program appear simple and sensible to the field.” Management restructured the way in which marketing and sales worked together in goal setting by setting up a core team and calendar, with shared accountability for revenue goals across functional groups.  This helped the entire process become more transparent – a criterion for effective goal management in the sales organization. 

 “Managers often fear they’ll lose their best salespeople by making incentive pay contingent on goal achievement.  You have to take risks, and work through the fear.  If you have solid relationships – salespeople with customers and management with salespeople – fear of losing sales talent is probably overblown.” 

The company lost some salespeople during the transition, but most are back. They’re excited about the culture and being a part of what the company now stands for: a high-performing organization.  Setting goals at the sales rep level enabled the company to take a big leap forward.

By Howard Woolf

Sales has to be one of the most difficult professions of all white collar jobs within a company.   You have all the responsibility, nothing that you can control and you are directly measured on the results. 

Think of the many influences on the sales outcome ranging from tough customers that always want more (and sometimes have very difficult and varied personalities), to the competition that is constantly pressing on your offering, to product issues or internal execution.  Arguably sales controls none of which, but is given responsibility to conquer and succeed.

When good companies recognize they have a ‘sales problem’ it may be that multiple issues within the business are resulting in poor performance. Unfortunately, the salesforce is often viewed as both the victim and the cause.  Given the myth that any good salesperson can sell anything to anybody, at times it becomes personal for management towards the sales leadership and the salespeople.  Often the salespeople criticize themselves.  After all, a good salesperson never makes excuses.

The cure requires focus on two elements.  First, understand the fundamentals that are causing the company sales to suffer.  This requires an honest assessment of all the factors from the quality and functionality of the offering to the competitive environment and the market conditions.   Given the results of the assessment, determine what it would take to maximize the success of the salesforce, short and longer term, and take those actions quickly.

The second area, maximizing sales performance, often draws much attention and many opinions. Many people believe they are experts at sales (even if they never ‘carried a bag’) and I have my opinion as well.  However, I carried a bag and successfully led salesforces in both direct and channel sales for products and professional services over decades. 

At the core of sales success, I believe, is consistently building the confidence of the sales professional.  It sounds simple but it is a rather complex set of issues.  Starting with the psychology of sales people who are in one the most cocky and confident while being also the most insecure people on earth.  Without Sales confidence, there can be no success in sales.  

Increasing the confidence of the sales force requires that the company first understand the attitude of the company’s functional leadership and down through their organizations.  They must look at their salesforce and respect them for the impossible job that they take on and the inability to make any excuses for lack of performance – despite the cause within or outside the company.  There is a key role for the CEO to play in making sure the organizational attitude is focused properly.

I once marveled at a Finance professional who tried to put in place ‘punishment’ for the salesforce by cutting their compensation as a cost containment tool after the salespeople had accomplished the goal they were asked to achieve.  I asked the person at the time, why aren’t we also cutting ‘your’ pay given the company had cost problems even though you did your job.

The lesson here is each job is valuable and should be treated as such – if the company is going to reduce compensation or any other reduction, the salesforce should participate equally (not more equally) than all functions of the organization – so if you cut everyone, it is ok to cut them too.  If you don’t cut everyone, sales should not be singled out   – they only get paid if the company is successful, even if the particular success was not part of their compensation plan.  Salespeople need to feel valued and supported – if you want them to face the odds and maximize the performance of the company. 

A high performance salesforce must have confidence and trust that their management will treat them fairly and with appreciation.   In fact, everything that the company does has to be for the Customer.  How a company treats their salesforce is the clearest indication of how they are treating their Customers.  If the salesforce is well supported, has the respect of the organization, are rewarded properly for performance (both upside and down) and have the backing of the company management – they will have the confidence that they can achieve great things and overcome many obstacles.

The most tangible way a company shows its support for its salesforce is in the sales plan and the related measurement and compensation.  It’s worth pointing out that it isn’t the absolute amount of the compensation that delivers the message but rather the fairness and accuracy of it. This provides a key management tool that enables sales success or if done poorly, destroys the fundamentals necessary for sales confidence and related success.

Sales compensation plans are easy to do – they are just not easy to do ‘right’.  One of the key ingredients to any good compensation plan is to limit the number of people who can ‘tune’ the plan.  Keep the plan simple and make sure it can be implemented well.  It always amazes me how many people think they are ‘experts’ in sales compensation but have never had to live on a sales plan.  The best way to keep it simple and straight is to avoid having too many cooks in the kitchen.

Company management may mistake sales compensation plans by themselves as the ultimate vehicle for making sales successful.  I would argue that the bigger problem is making sure the sales compensation system doesn’t get in the way and that it reinforces the confidence of the salespeople.  The mission for the Sales Plan is to provide the proper ‘aid to the sales manager’ who has the challenge of leading the salesforce to success.  As they say, the magic is in the magician, not in the wand.

A good sales plan includes:

• Appropriate Goals (based on details of each assignment)
• Clear and accurate Measurements
• Related compensation rules
• Performance analysis
• Clear communication and reporting – timely and accurate
• Feedback on an ongoing basis
• Corrective action that is timely and visibly taken

Well intended plans fail when they are too complex or can’t be explained simply and the performance easily demonstrated.  A good way to tell if your plan is too ‘sophisticated’ is to weigh it – if it takes more than a few pages to document, it is probably too complex. 

Another area of concern is when management confuses ‘sophistication’ with the overall company performance needs.  This usually leads to ‘throwing’ all kinds of measurements and targets into the mix to the point where the key objectives are lost.   While appropriate Human Relations and Financial and Operational aspects should be embedded in the plan, the point of the plan is to support the ‘sales manager’ in leading the salesforce.

Successful plans are where the goal and desired behavior for the salesforce is clear, the communication and measurements reinforce it and the outcome rewards proper performance.  A successful plan protects the salesforce from being negatively impacted by forces beyond their control – given they were doing everything right for what the company asked them to do.

Having a simple plan is a risky thing for management, as it requires sales and company management declare specifically ‘what’ they really want the sales force to do.  Clear and explicitly stated priorities prevent future questions around, ‘why didn’t you measure (hold accountable) your salesforce on that?’  But, if you have management that is in touch with the market and knows the business and they can declare cleanly what they want sales to do, then the Sales Plan becomes a strong tool to get the core mission accomplished.

In the end, if you treat the salespeople the same way you would like to be treated on your compensation, you have the right solution at hand.  The weapon of choice is to do as much as possible to build the confidence of the salespeople.  From that flows competence and commitment that will maximize short and long term performance for the business.

Howard Woolf is the founder and managing partner of Howard Woolf & Associates, a professional services firm focused on helping companies improve business performance and sales effectiveness.  He can be reached at hwoolf@comcast.net.  

Top Questions Answered

This season’s brutal weather hasn’t slowed the number of questions from incentive planners and sales leaders.  Team- and goal-based plans are common themes.  We’ve handpicked a number of related questions from our mailbag, and hope at least a few are on your list of open questions.

Q: What is the ideal mix of individual and team measurement?

A: The ideal mix is consistent with the mix or relative share of the job’s responsibilities that are individual versus team-based.  In our experience team-based measures often take the place of what should be individual measures because either the company cannot measure individual contribution or it wants to avoid internal competition.  Good use of team measures is when the job carries responsibility for a goal that cannot be executed exclusive of other team members.

Q: Can one plan do all?  If a company has both Key Account Reps and Territory Reps, how common is it to have different plans?

A: Not effectively if the company has dissimilar requirements across the jobs considered, and the market requires different cash targets.  It’s for this reason that most companies have different plans to serve a diverse set of sales jobs.

For example, the requirements for a Key Account Rep and Territory Rep could be the same.  That is, base salary and target incentive, performance measures and pay frequency could be identical.  While in our experience we find the performance measurement similar – sales volume in either absolute or relative to goal, the pay targets are not.  Key Account Reps typically have a more-defined pool from which to fish versus the Territory Reps where the variability across territories is higher.  This means the Territory Rep carries a higher risk/reward proposition (higher incentive target as a percent of target total cash, higher upside potential).

There is an age-old debate around what constitutes a different plan.  This is a communication and administrative issue.  We say, if a sales manager can explain the plan to both audiences simultaneously, your one plan for different jobs passes the test.   Or if you can use an identical set of requirements in your system for paying both jobs, with only differences on your rate tables, your one plan passes the test.

Q: Given sales reps often have “unequal” opportunity with respect to their existing customer base, number of customers, type of customers, markets, etc., how do you effectively “level” the playing field among various reps?  

A:  This scenario is one of the strongest arguments for a goal-based incentive program.   With a goal-based approach you set a target incentive commensurate with the role and skill level.  Let’s say Scott and I both have a target incentive of $25,000.  Our goals might be very different, taking into consideration the factors your reference in your question.   If we both meet our goals we earn our $25,000, regardless of what our goals are.   The transition from a commission program to a goal-based incentive approach is one of the more challenging that we observe given the financial and cultural implications, but long-term it can be one of the most productive.

Q: What is the preferred approach for allocating quotas?   Is this typically a process of mutual agreement between the sales rep and management, or is it something that management enforces unilaterally? 

A: Goal setting approaches vary by industry based on the availability of data, go-to-market model and selling roles.  That said, we find that the most effective approaches use a combination of bottom-up and top-down input.   It is common for there to be a gap between what the salesperson says she can do and what the company requires in terms of performance.  While not a negotiation, there should be a clear and equitable set of logic used to close the gap.   Perhaps the most important characteristic is that the salesperson understands their quota, how the gap was closed and how it ties to the overall success of the organization.  Regardless of which approach is used, if the sales manager can’t explain it to their team, the goals will be viewed as arbitrary and unrealistic. 

Q: For goal based incentive plans, would you expect a normal distribution of performance, or a bi-modal distribution?

A:  When the goals are set correctly we would expect to see a normal distribution of performance.  The range of performance varies somewhat by industry, business model and selling role.  The company’s approach to goal setting – promote a culture of winners, 100% is stretch — also play a role.  The rule of thumb we use is to strive for a bell-shaped curve with approximately 60% – 70% of the plan participants achieving their objective.   With this type of distribution, the field force typically views the goals challenging, but realistic – a key characteristic from our perspective.    What varies then is the spread of the curve.   Consider a consumer product goods (CPG) manufacturer and software company.  We expect a narrower range of performance outcomes for salespeople in the CPG organization..  Most software firms have greater variability in the business, and software salespeople experience a broader range of quota-achievement outcomes versus those in CPG.    A final point, we recommend accelerators and thresholds, if included, be set with a goal of 90% percent of the population earning “some” incentive dollars and 10% earning a significant payout, in line with your industry’s pay benchmarks. 

Q: With goal based incentives, do you advocate setting annual performance goals, or goals with shorter time-frames?

A: In general we observe shorter performance cycles (e.g., monthly) as more effective for promoting line of sight and urgency.  However, in businesses with complex, long sales cycles and infrequent but huge deal values, each month in isolation says little about performance success.  In such circumstances annual goals are typical.  To gain the benefit of more frequent performance periods, management will often tie quarterly milestones and cumulative performance to annual goals.  Rarely do we see performance cycles beyond one year due to fiscal reporting norms.

On February 24th, Scott and I conducted a web presentation with Steve DeMarco, VP Worldwide Sales with Xactly.   540 people registered for the session and the week prior we distributed a flash survey on 2011 sales productivity trends.   83% of the respondents expect slight or significant growth in 2011.  Whether this reflects increased optimism or simply the “plan” they were given (assuming the two aren’t one in the same) may be cause for some debate.   Similarly, we may not know where the economy as a whole is heading, but at an individual level these companies expect improved results in the coming year.    We observe the same expectations with sales leaders we have spoken with recently.   Whether it is do or die, improved optimism or simply a requirement of the Board, fewer and fewer Sales VPs are talking about retrenching or holding their own.  They’re focused on taking advantage of an improving environment, investing in their sales force and growing the top line. 

We see this reflected in the allocation of quotas as well.  68% of the respondents raised or are raising quotas for their sales reps.  Another 12% indicated that while they may not be raising quotas, they’re increasing headcount in support of the growth objective.  

Unrealistic quotas are a common complaint regarding the incentive program.  Goal setting approaches do vary by industry and specific company based on the availability of data, go-to-market model and selling roles.  Having said that, we find the most effective approaches use a combination of bottom up and top down input.   For there to be a gap between what the salesperson says she can do and what the company requires in terms of performance shouldn’t be a surprise.  While not a negotiation, there should be a clear approach and explainable logic for how the gap is closed.   Perhaps the most important requirement is that the sales person understands their quota, how the gap was closed and how it ties to the overall success of the organization.  Regardless of which approach is used, if the sales manager can’t explain it to their team, the goals will be viewed as arbitrary and unfair.

Leveraging the Power of Sales Compensation

After a global economic meltdown we’re not surprised to hear increased questions about the utility of sales compensation.  Let’s face it.  Planning and managing sales compensation plans can be pretty painful, particularly when the business cycle is in decline.

Think of sales comp plan design and management like playing in the stock market.  Over time, sales compensation typically provides a strong return on investment.  Occasionally you can get burned, but sit on the sidelines when the market is gaining speed, and you’ll fall behind.

A good industry for this does-it-matter topic is semiconductors, where many firms do not use traditional sales compensation programs.   Instead they rely on company stock, profit sharing or discretionary mechanisms to compensate the sales force.  The semiconductor environment presents a challenge for sales compensation. Sales cycles can be over a year, and each deal represents the epitome of a solution sale – very custom and specific to a particular customer situation.  Measuring sales influence is another industry challenge.  Reps in multiple regions can influence a single design win.   Management typically measures sales contribution at the team rather than individual-rep level.

Several years ago we worked with such a company; variable cash pay for salespeople wasn’t a factor.  Generous option grants and the company’s high-performing stock fueled the compensation program, and cash incentives came in the form of management-by-objectives (MBOs).

The company reached a point in its growth where equity was neither reliable nor sustainable as a primary driver of variable comp.   To attract and retain sales talent, management needed the cash program to stand on its own, and link more closely to how the company made money: design wins.

The MBO approach paid consistently to the point where most reps expected to earn 100% of target – no more, no less.  In the view of the company’s VP of sales, the MBO approach coddled poor performers and short-changed the high performers.   The VP wanted more variability in cash pay to align with what he knew were different levels of contribution across the sales organization.

By moving to an approach that tied incentive opportunity to annual design-win quotas, management could justify higher pay for high-performers than was prudent under the activity-based, discretionary MBO approach.  This transition happened in stages.  As the company acquired more historical performance data, its confidence in setting reasonable rep-level quotas increased.  Gradually, it moved to a more pay-for-individual-rep-performance approach.

The transition was tough for many of company’s sales managers, who had enjoyed the relative simplicity of team-based, discretionary incentive approach.  Individual quotas required that sales managers analyze sales data for purposes of allocating quota and assigning sales splits.

The upshot in acquiring and analyzing sales data is management has become more educated on the business.  Sales reps and various levels of management can discuss progress in objective terms, using revenue and pipeline progress as common measures of performance.  As more data come into the system, the company has increased its investments in technology to automate functions like quota allocation.  Managers can focus more on outcomes and implications, and less on number crunching.

The results speak for themselves.  In the first year of the quota-based approach, the total number of design wins increased, as did the size of each win.  Performance has increased each year since.  While the company had always prided itself on attracting and retaining top-tier sales talent, its maturation from a pay system characteristic of an early-stage startup to one more common in a $6 billion, Fortune 500 firm happened with very little sales turnover. 

The company’s head of sales operations offers this advice for managers preferring use of a low-risk, MBO approach.  “Our best salespeople are risk takers that need stretch goals to perform.  Using a goal-based incentive compensation program is the most reliable approach for attracting these types of salespeople, identifying areas of sales weakness and growing year over year revenue.”

Flexible With the Course While Staying True to Plan

Joe Glenn has been managing field-based and inbound-phone salespeople for over five years.  During that time his company, specializing in communications and computer-services, measured sales performance on a product-unit basis.  The approach is common in retail and consumer-sales environments, and can be effective for driving transactional behavior from salespeople.  Where the unit-based approach falls short, though, is on goal alignment.  That is, the sales organization can exceed its unit goals while the company misses its revenue target.  In many such unit-based incentive plans, reps focus on those products they can most easily sell without appreciating the financial consequences to the company.

Changing a sales force’s incentive plan can be dicey stuff, particularly when the company adopts new measures of performance.  In Joe’s case, not only did he have to onboard a new measure, but each rep would carry a quota and minimum performance standard.

“We have a very flexible, adaptable sales force, which makes annual changes to the sales comp plans relatively straightforward,” said Joe, who about one year ago started sharing with his sales teams the revenue-plan concept.  “They were on board – it made complete sense to them.”  New goals and a goal-setting paradigm raise the stakes, however.  “Salespeople want to know the goals are reasonable and ultimately, do-able.”  Without the benefit of historical data, salespeople didn’t really know whether their revenue-based quotas were in line.  Adding to the anxiety the plan featured a 75%-of-quota threshold.

Creating quotas was another issue.  Joe’s colleagues in sales operations used the company’s billing system as the source for transactional revenue data, a formable task that didn’t come on line until December.   The new incentive plan was slated for rollout the following month.  Joe was forced to use a limited set of historical data for setting Q1 quotas.

The company launched its new plans during the final weeks of December 2010.  Early into January, salespeople, checking their progress against quota on a daily basis, were becoming concerned.  For most reps, their performance was trending well below where they needed to be to reach the threshold, and earn incentive pay.

Rather than waiting until quarter or even month end, Joe took action.  He and his operations colleagues dove back into the data in search of assumptions that, given the benefit of hindsight, might be off.  

The prospect of adjusting quotas mid-cycle is typically fraught with issues.  While in principle Joe believes an organization should stick to its goals, the revenue quotas were new, and he couldn’t risk the organization having a poor Q1 – a likely scenario should the salespeople disengage after perceiving they couldn’t hit the threshold.

“For the quotas to be effective, we had to be open to regular course corrections,” Joe says.  “This could not be a ‘set-it-and-forget-it’ approach.”  He used a transparent process with company leadership to keep them appraised on the evolving quota-setting methodology.  As more data became available, Joe revised his assumptions.  This included expectations for optimal business mix at the assignment level, and factoring customer churn into a four-year, revenue-per-unit (RPU) projection for acquisitions, where discounted monthly recurring revenue in the first year gives way to more typical RPU rates in Year 2 of the contract.

Joe also added a feature to the plan threshold by including a relative-ranking threshold by market.  Threshold would now be either the 75^th percentile performer in each market group, or the absolute approach (75% of individual quota), whichever was lower in the period.  This tactic provided a reality check to performance in the greater Kansas City market, where unusually harsh weather hammered field sales efforts.

While January revenue results came in below even the revised plan number, February’s pipeline is strong, and Joe projects a record Q1.  His sales teams viewed the revised goals challenging but reasonable, and after shaking off the initial anxiety, set out to beat them.  From leadership’s perspective, the additional analysis and revised goals provided a level of granularity that helps each salesperson focus on the right mix of business.  Reps are selling smarter, and thinking more long term.

One can argue that if the company hits its revenue plan, which in Joe’s case appears very likely for Q1, the course taken to get there doesn’t really matter.  Joe will tell you his approach of staying flexible, transparent and course correcting as he goes has everything to do with a favorable outcome.

Joe Glenn is a director of sales for a communications and computer-services company serving California, Kansas and Missouri.