SalesCompInsights

Tales and Tribulations in Retail Shopping

One of my first jobs was a shoe salesman in a mall store.  What motivated me?  It wasn’t the money – horrible.  It wasn’t the job content.  I could have cared less about shoes.  Rather it was a way to make a little money while I socialized with friends staffing other retail shops in the mall.  This was long before Facebook.  What else was I to do?  I took the job because the chain’s district manager sold me on the idea that I could make a lot of money selling shoes.  Didn’t hurt that he arrived to our lunch meeting in a new BMW.  His proposition didn’t pan out.  I lasted about six months.

Don't Try This at Home

Why do I share this unfortunate chapter from my past?  We get that life is difficult for the retail store sales clerk.  It’s tough for their employers, too, with turnover at many stores ranging from 200 to 300 percent.  Is this a reasonable cost of doing business, or a decent tradeoff for low prices or convenience?  Maybe so for some environments, but not businesses that require motivated, knowledgeable and courteous sales staff.

Take this scenario.  Wednesday afternoon Mike and I are killing time at the Philadelphia airport and come across a Blackberry store.  Prominently displayed is a new Playbook, RIM’s answer to Apple’s iPad.  Mike is a dedicated Blackberry user and appears particularly interested.  We start fiddling with the thing, and can’t, after about two minutes of trying, get to a web page.   All we see on the screen are photos taken by other shoppers/travelers.  By the looks on their faces, they, too, struggled to get the Playbook “playing.”

We strolled to the other side of the store, where another Playbook sat perched on a stand.  This one had what looked like a browser on its screen.  We try in vain to locate a search or address window.   All we get is a “Windows Live” login screen.  There’s a seemingly useful menu bar that sporadically appears on the screen’s header but when pulled down disappears.  Ever get a contact lense stuck behind your eye ball?   “This sucks,” we say, and walk off.

Our experience with the Playbook was short lived.  The store clerk seemed unconcerned.  Maybe she thinks the device sells itself (it doesn’t), or that we already own iPads (we don’t).  Whatever the case, she may have been able to salvage the situation…and did not. I expect that in situations where the product could use a little help to capture hearts and minds that someone is there to sell it.  Playbook needs, in its current form, a few good salespeople.

I’m loathe to use “best practice” examples, because of the “yeah, but” responses these examples might elicit.  But here it goes.

I don’t mean to pick on airport vendors, but a little kindness goes a long way.  After all, most people in airports are grumpy, and they have plenty of options for food, drink and general time-killing.  Take this sandwich shop in DEN.  I use its name, Paradise Bakery, to promote its business.  Recently I walk up to the counter and am blown away by how friendly, efficient and seemingly grateful the guy on the other side is for my business.  “Yeah, but he’s probably the owner.”  Good call.  Though I observed he wasn’t the lone friendly guy in an otherwise surely operation.  If anything he was setting a good example for the others.

Take another example: the now defunct WaMu.   Management there, in the bank’s hay day, concluded that losing a newly-hired-and-trained teller after six or eight months wasn’t good business.  The bank had spent all this money to make their branches look like an employee breakout room at EBay (lots of open space with colorful, creatively shaped chairs and little tables).  So why have the cool branch experience ruined by a service representative who could give a flip?  “Yeah, but WaMu got seized by the Feds – its management is being prosecuted.”  True.  But let’s separate the unsavory lending practices from the solid execution on the retail floor.  WaMu determined it could increase engagement and reduce turnover by paying more and demonstrating to tellers that this tough, first occupational step could lead to a meaningful career.

When the news arrived hard and fast that WaMu would cease to exist, I’m sure many of the tellers felt like I did a few weeks into my shoe-salesman career – this isn’t turning out the way I expected.  But many of these folks did continue on a path toward a meaningful career in banking, with Chase or another institution admirable of WaMu’s practices in this area.

Takeaway?  In an increasingly electronic, mobile, Facebook-Google-Amazon-Groupon marketplace, face-to-face customer experiences matter more than ever.   As a business person, who do you want facing off with the customer?  We’ll take the knowledgeable, engaged salesperson every time.  Sure, they cost a little more, but it’s a cost of doing business.

RIM Playbook, R.I.P.

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.

Play Audio File

Extinction of the Sales Rep?

Like the internal combustion engine, direct selling persists despite technology and cultural shifts suggesting its demise.  Certainly, many of us in direct-selling roles consider much of today’s technology critical to our selling success.  But the fundamentals of sales success are as old as the wheel.

Notwithstanding there are bold pronouncements of how the internet will significantly marginalize the direct selling role.  Selling Power magazine publisher Gerhard Gschwandtner goes as far to predict that in nine short years only 3 million of the roughly 18 million salespeople employed in the U.S. need report for duty.  “In a digital age, every part of the sales and marketing process can be automated,” reports Selling Power.

The article goes on to say that increasingly, customers will make decisions based not on slick sales demos and well-timed follow up calls but on the advice of peers through social networking.

If you’re a salesperson reading this, you know there’s always been a social network, and you’re rather certain you’ll always be able to get a job as a sales professional.   Sure, customers get a lot of information that wasn’t available before.  You do also and use it to your advantage.

More at issue is how the sales compensation professional accounts for these multiple channels of influence relative to that of the salesperson.  One director of compensation for a consumer products company explained, “Customers used to rely exclusively on the sales rep for a lot of the information they now get over the web.  Our reps don’t have the same degree of individual influence (on customer buying decisions), but we pay them like nothing’s changed.”

Indeed, a recent study by Deloitte & Touche suggests that most companies have not found the right way to pay for sales performance, with significant implications for sales productivity. 

One would think we’re not prepared for this new age.  Like having bought an electric car and finding its plug incompatible with your garage electric socket.   But in the world of sales comp we’re convinced that all seemingly new trails have been previously trodden.  So we refer to our shelves and dust off the volume on “Alternative Channels.”  Not surprising the lessons in this volume seem particularly apt to the likes of Twitter and Facebook.

It goes something like this:  rep, having spent all available selling time with end users, must now shift some time to those “channel partners” influencing the customer through alternative channels.  Do we pay the rep differently for this shift in behavior?  Of course we do.  The solution could be as simple as measuring all sales volume in a particular, geographic territory, but paying at a reduced rate in recognition of the greater efficiency (and incremental cost) associated with the alternative channel.

This is a simple example.  Your reality may be a bit more complex – e.g., channel partner influence spans multiple, direct-sales territories.  At a minimum you may be looking at a less-aggressive pay mix to accommodate a job role with less direct influence and a higher skill level.  Or maybe performance measures not tied to transactional sales volume.

Case in point, GlaxoSmithKline reported changes to compensation for its direct sales reps, away from prescription sales volume and toward customer feedback, knowledge of the business and overall contribution to the business units they serve.  While at the time of this writing we can’t be certain GSK’s changes come in response to the massive number of tweets, posts and walls related to its product, we’re pretty sure the model of putting armies of direct sales reps on the ground of healthcare facilities, loading them with free samples, pens and bagels, is long in the tooth.

And while the industry overall has pared back considerably the number of direct selling jobs over the past three years, most firms are now hiring – GSK posted ten new sales representative jobs in the last 24 hours.

In fact, many companies across multiple industries appear to be on a sales-rep-hiring binge.   Far from being on its way out, the direct sales rep is in demand.   Three-quarters of the respondents in SalesGravy.com’s annual survey of sales hiring trends say they plan to hire salespeople in 2011.   A tech client having returned from her annual sales meeting last week said over 40% of the audience had less than 12 months’ time with the company.

Are we in a bubble-building mentality, soon to wake up and discover we have too many salespeople for the work required?  In all respect to Mr. Gschwandtner, we think not and hope his prediction is way off base.  The direct sales rep of the future will succeed in part by leveraging massive amounts of information that until recently didn’t really exist.  It’s a different, more complex job role though, and companies hoping to reap productivity from these jobs must adopt their sales compensation programs accordingly.

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.

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.”

A Conversation With Howard Woolf

As a front-line salesperson, sales leader, sales operations executive, company president and CEO, Howard Woolf has spent his career achieving sales success in the technology and communications industries.  We recently had the opportunity to catch up with Howard to discuss his thoughts on effective sales incentive programs.    

MM: Howard, from your perspective, how important is the incentive program in the toolkit of a sales leader? 

HW:  The incentive program, if done right, is the fundamental way a sales manager ‘communicates’ to the salespeople in a way that is sure to get their attention.  Over time it consistently reinforces the mission and method for the organization, along with each individual’s role within it.  Further, the sales plan sets the stage for both direction and behavior, but also builds organizational ’confidence’ which is the key building block for overall success within any sales force.  Unfortunately, when done incorrectly, it has the reverse effect – so it’s important to get the incentive plan right.

MM:  Are there any guiding principles you’ve used to help with your incentive plan decisions?

HW:  Yes, the first is simplicity.  I use the traffic light example.  If a salesperson leaves a customer after getting an order and while stopped at a traffic light, s/he can’t figure out what they earned on that sale, then the plan is too complicated.

Many companies think more is better and they load up the sales incentive plan with corporate ‘good to do’ things and complex measurements. Unfortunately all that does is diffuse the message, often making it hard for a salesperson to be successful even when they are doing the right thing and actually performing well.  In fact you might end up rewarding the wrong people for doing the wrong things, which further destroys morale and can negatively impact performance.  So less is more!

MM:  What are the characteristics of the best plans you’ve seen versus ones that didn’t work so well?

HW:  Beyond being simple, a good plan has to fit within a 360 degree mapping that deals with;  1) goal setting based on each individual assignment (I prefer bottom up with top down tuning);  2) measurements that can readily be made and reported; and  3)  communication that ensures understanding, buy-in and proper execution of the desired behaviors.  Often, automation is involved so that aspect needs to fit with the three key elements as well.  IT should be an ‘enabler’ of the plan and not get in the way of a good plan, which admittedly, can be difficult.

MM:  Having observed the design process from various vantage points, what insights on the do’s or don’ts can you share?   

HW:  Sales is a key function for the company and unfortunately there can be a lot of people within the company who think they are a sales measurement expert.  They’ll suggest all kinds of bells and whistles to the plan  – this is usually how complexity creeps in.  Finance, HR, IT and even Manufacturing and Marketing are looking for a link between the sales plan and their functional goals. 

It is important that the fundamentals of what Sales Management wants to prioritize, communicate and reinforce to the sales people be the pre-eminent definition of the plan.  Keeping it simple, measurable and communicable against the goals of the sales manager  should not get lost  into the many diverse elements of running the company. 

The role of all other functions (Finance, HR, Mfg, Product Management, etc.) is to line up behind the sales manager to help him/her execute to this target without trying to take over the plan for their own needs.  Or  load it down with elements that diffuse the message and limit the potential impact.  The Sales manager should be able to take a step back and say “if the sales people on this plan do well, then the company will have done well against its key goals and the sales force will have played their role in making that happen.”

MM:  Any do’s or don’ts regarding quota setting and management?   

HW:  Yes.  The key to good quota setting is knowledgeable sales management.  When sales management accurately translates the company goals into individual quotas and structures and understands the nature of the individual assignments the plan can be both credible and successful.  Arbitrary and disconnected quota, often top down, are formulas for failure.  The best processes include a bottom up forecast and analysis that is the underlying element of planning the quotas.  Since those forecasts are based on imprecise data, the test is whether the person setting the quota truly understands the business, the customers and the assignment that make up the basis for the quota.  Further, any quota set in advance has to also have a mechanism for fair adjustments (up and down) that connect the reality of the business as it plays out.  So quota management is key to the ongoing validity of the plan and underlies the measurement system as one of the three key elements of the incentive program.

MM:  What expectations should a company have relative to communicating the plan?

HW:  Typically, the new plan provides a great rationale to pull all of the sales team together and communicate the new goals for the year, the company plan to support those goals and how the plan will work.  Usually, this is a good opportunity for workshops with senior management, functional leaders such as product management and local sales management to interact with the salespeople and relate the company deliverables, as well as help line up the background for the plan execution.

However, for plan success, there needs to be a very specific and conscientious communication strategy that starts with the kickoff but gets reinforced throughout the year.  Ongoing communication and reporting on individual and group performance is key to using the plan to reinforce the best behaviour, build morale and enthusiasm, and make any mid-course corrections that might be necessary.  Communication deliverables need to be ‘tight and right’ – written in an easy to understand fashion with crisp detail and include a personal view with clear focus on the measurement and reporting process (along with examples) that will be followed.  The plan administration should have built into its process how it will launch, sustain and communicate the necessary information and ongoing reporting.

MM:  What guidance would you offer for how to deal with the recent economic situation and the growing expectations of a turnaround? 

HW:  It’s always difficult to handle sales compensation when circumstances beyond the control of the salespeople affect their pay.  But the sales role is no different from other critical skills in the company and a sharp management team deals with the situation in a flexible way in order to retain key personnel and also lead them to make the biggest impact that can be made for the company. 

The best companies  maintain their philosophy of ‘pay for performance’ and adjust assignments according to the changing reality.  Typically, what I have seen is targeting salespeople on key and measurable objectives that provide the company the highest impact, given the circumstance, by including those goals or targets within the sales plan quota.  When a salesperson achieves those objectives they can ‘earn’ their incentive pay based on the success. 

A good plan also has timely updates of the quota contemplated within it, as assignments will change, personnel will transfer in and out and organization structures will adjust according to the needs of the business.  The plan should allow for assignment changes accordingly.   Economic changes and/or changes in customer or territory situations should all be handled fairly and promptly.

The test should be that both the ‘individual and the company’ win when the salesperson is re-directed or has their assignment changed and hence, the basis for their quota and measurement.  A good salesperson wants to ‘earn’ their pay and not get a ‘freebie.’  The company gains when salespeople are successful in the performance of their job AND fairly compensated for it.   when both conditions are met sales people tend to stick around and more importantly, they are highly motivated to perform.  Keeping the integrity of the sales plan is vital and only happens if the plan reflects assignments and measurements that are stretch but achievable even when economic conditions change.

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.

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.

SCI Turns One, and Steven Levitt Sends Us a Gift

One year ago we started a blog.  Our purpose was and remains to this day: exposure.  That is, to expose the mystery and audacity that surrounds the subject of sales compensation and incentive management.  Not beyond audacity ourselves we launched our blog with the gratuitous headline, “Are Incentives Dead?”  Pure nonsense of course but you’d think by reading the real headlines of the day that incentives were on their way out, given what they did to the economy and all.

One year later the Dow is scratching at 12,000, and incentives are alive and well.   Yet the madness continues and we’re grateful for folks like Steven Levitt, author of “Freakonomics,” for providing us material we can poke holes in.  He, too is not beyond the flaunting of silly headlines, beginning the speech featured here by saying incentives don’t work and what does is tricking employees into thinking what they do matters.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdkQwQQWX9Q&feature=related

The weakness in Mr. Levitt’s argument is that he confuses incentives with entitlements via a turkey (no kidding) and offers patronage as an elixir for worthless workers.  The final straw is his case study: Google — as if anything Google does can be easily replicated.  He makes Google out to be a bastion for its users’ privacy.  Freaky indeed.

So let’s break this down.

• Incentives don’t work because payees, after receiving their first chit (e.g., a turkey), forever feel entitled, and even cheated if the subsequent award is not larger than the first. 
• There’s no meaningful application of a “stick” relative to a carrot because employees, when faced with a stick, will quit (“slavery is illegal,” he informs).
• Better to, rather than offer a carrot, “trick” employees into thinking what they do actually amounts to something.
• Google employees, motivated by the company’s values, believe it’s more important to keep customers’ data safe than to prevent the next pandemic.

Our rebuttal:

• Incentives are not entitlements.  Entitlements motivate loathing and bitterness.  Incentives motivate performance.  An employee can’t rightfully expect an incentive without having performed first.
• Sticks work.  Fear and risk of income loss can be as motivating as the opportunity for upside.  We don’t, however, promote beatings.
• Trickery in the workplace is counterproductive.  A spiteful coworker once put refried beans on my phone’s earpiece which cost at least 10 minutes of otherwise productive time not counting my scheming for revenge.  Really, can Levitt be serious on this point?  We believe it’s good practice to express appreciation for one’s hard work, and bad practice to make a deadbeat feel like they’re actually of value.  Levitt makes it sound as though you have to trick employees into thinking they contribute because they really don’t and then maybe they will (I was tricked into believing my earpiece was bean free when in fact it was not).  This stuff has no place in the workplace.  We say “stick” rather than “trick.”  If the unproductive non-contributors don’t quit, fire them.  Give tricksters twenty lashes.
• And seriously, Google employees taking a bullet before leaving the door ajar on your personal data?  Or using it against you.  I’m fearful just mentioning the mighty G in vain less I suffer broken kneecaps from their hired goons who are following my every keystroke.  Apparently Mr. Levitt, in all his work with Google, somehow missed the parade of perks ranging from morning mango-rub massages to afternoon hand-crafted beer bashes, with Jimmy Buffet working the tap.

Speaking of Google (I’m living dangerously here), a fellow consultant who had been doing a lot of work there, appeared in our office one day looking dejected.  “What’s wrong?” I said, obvious to her absence of perky demeanor.   “I went to get an Odwalla smoothie from a case at Google yesterday and saw in its place a coin-operated machine.  They’re making you pay for these things now.”

Why on earth they would do that, I wondered.  Terribly un-motivating.   Perhaps it was on Mr. Levitt’s advice, to fend off a groundswell of employee anger for eight ounce bottles not being replaced with half-gallon jugs, and so on.  Whatever the reason I was so certain this move was a bad one that I sold my Google stock. 

It closed at about $300 a share that day.  It’s above $620 now.  And Levitt probably sold 5 million copies of his book since then.

No matter.  We stand our ground on good incentive design principles and call out any cheap shot to grab attention, using blatantly-untruthful pronouncements like, “Incentives Don’t Work.”

Along with prior year calculations and current year plan launches, Q1 is also the time of year when many companies sweep the dust off of their dormant  incentive compensation management/sales performance management projects.   Rare is the sales compensation manager who wouldn’t love to replace the aging homegrown incentive system or do away with the calculation spreadsheet.    Historically the request for money might be met with a raised eyebrow from the CEO; “why would we buy a new system when the checks go out on time?”  Or from the CIO; “that’s a good project, number four on our list.  This year we have funding for three.”   Even with our bias for the subject matter, given all the money spent on incentives and all the pain incurred, the growth rate of the ICM/SPM market has surprised us over the years.     

But change is in the air.  A growing recognition of the difference between incentive compensation management and sales performance management.    Plenty of companies generate real returns from their ICM investments.  And you could argue that the ICM focused market (i.e., companies that really just want to upgrade their compensation system) continues to grow.   The noticeable change from our perspective is more companies considering true SPM projects.  More companies investing in SPM. 

What caused the change?  Improved economy? Maybe.   Increased awareness?  Again, maybe, but less likely from our perspective.   Increasingly dynamic selling environments?  Shift in sales management focus?  SPM product evolution? We think yes to all three.  A recent eBook from CSO Insights supports our hypothesis.  In it, Barry Trailer contrasts the difference between incentive compensation management – limited number of primarily tail light focused metrics – and sales performance management – increased number of forward-looking metrics.  CSO Insights analyzed the prevalence of behaviors motivated by the sales incentive program.  Across 8 of the 11 categories measured,  SPM focused companies reported a higher prevalence of motivated sales rep behaviors compared to companies that are strictly ICM focused.   Companies that invest in SPM report positive results.      

In our experience, companies tend to invest in both ICM and SPM for one of three primary reasons:

1. Pain resolution:    Low accuracy, delayed payments, compensation team turnover or other symptoms of  a broken process/system that is no longer tenable.    
2. Aspiration:   We can be more productive.  Through better reporting, program modeling, dashboards, workflow and the like we can increase the motivation of the field, target and implement more effective strategies and improve the overall performance of the organization.
3. Regulatory or risk avoidance:   Federal regulations, compliance or related issue requires that we change our processes and/or tools. 

Business cases for a new ICM process or technology solution tend to focus more on categories one and three:  fix what we have today and if the other areas can be improved, well that would be great.  Business cases for SPM tend to focus more on category two:  we can take the management of our sales team to another level and drive increased sales productivity.     For those companies considering a new ICM/SPM solution, it helps to inventory the change drivers into the three categories and then tailor the proposal accordingly.   For category one in particular, hard dollar costs may be easier to quantify and generate a “credible” (from the CFO’s perspective) ROI.   Category three often ends up “we just need to do it,” while aspiration focused efforts may require a broader base of support. 

And therein lies the rub; aspirational projects may be harder to quantify, but can arguably generate the biggest return.   Intergalactic revenue increases might look good, but they won’t be credible.  Successful SPM business cases  the hard dollar impacts that can be quantified along with a compelling argument for how the organization will change; practical examples and tangible goals.  One final thought; woe is the project champion who forgets the political dimensions of any ICM/SPM project.   Often times the unspoken considerations sway the decision one way or the other.   And in all cases, successful ICM/SPM transformations require more than just technology;  the associated  job roles, processes, and governance model impact  your ability to drive sales performance as much as the underlying software.

Like healthcare costs, state university tuitions keep rising in an otherwise non-inflationary period, and taxpayers want accountability.  The Wall Street Journal described in an editorial on Monday how Texas A&M is attempting to measure professor productivity and performance, and tie it incentive compensation. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703860104575508052117098986.html

Critics of the plan say it’s too simple and dangerous, and a threat to the university’s integrity.  Some believe if the university must tie pay to performance, that it spread the bonus pool across a larger population of professors.

Sound familiar?  Critics of pay for performance believe it’s best to toss the baby if the measurement system isn’t perfect.  Or, if a bonus must apply, give a little something to everyone, making the pay program more of a gesture than a mechanism for behavioral modification.

In the competitive marketplace, we hear this occasionally but for the most part it’s accepted that jobs with measurable contribution to the organization’s value have a portion of their pay tied to performance.  Customers and shareholders assess firsthand the cost-benefit tradeoff, and determine the organization’s value accordingly.

Intriguing in the case of state-sponsored education is the consumer isn’t necessarily the payer, making a first-hand benefits analysis difficult.  Regardless, the payer has limited elasticity.  Jack the costs high enough and something’s got to give.  Take employers’ reaction to ballooning healthcare costs.  Rather than increase their budgets proportionately, they passed a larger chunk onto the employees.  Similarly, states are passing a higher and higher share of their college subsidy to the consumer, or parents of the consumer.  But unlike insurance, colleges are not regulated.  If the consumer doesn’t recognize value for the spend he or she can take their business elsewhere.

That’s why the regents of Texas A&M, and we suspect those in other colleges, are taking a hard look at the tried-and-true system of pay for performance.