The Six Dimensions of Sales Roles

6 Dimensions of Sales Roles

Defining sales roles has a direct connection to the sales compensation plan. When identifying those roles, consider six dimensions. A sales role (channel or job) is comprised of multiple factors that make it effective, yet can stretch its capabilities to a point that either maximizes or limits its effectiveness.  The factors below must be considered when structuring and managing sales roles. You can use these to define sales roles pretty specifically down to what you will need for the organization and for the compensation plan.

  1. Sales Strategy Responsibility

This dimension defines the type of customers the organization is targeting. Is the company retaining current customers? Is it penetrating current customers through either product penetration (selling more of the same products) or buyer penetration (getting additional buyers)? Is it pursuing customer acquisition? This combination of possibilities provides overall direction for the job.

  1. Product Responsibility

This dimension describes the products, services, and offers the job will bring to market. Does the rep sell one product, multiple products, or the whole portfolio? The more products each rep is asked to represent, the more his bandwidth is stretched. A product specialist, for example, should be focused and narrow. A rep selling the whole portfolio may need some overlay specialists for support, especially if it’s a complex offering.

  1. Market Segment and Channel Responsibility

For reps working directly with customers, this dimension identifies the groups and characteristics of those customers. Market segments can be defined as simply major accounts, key accounts, middle market accounts, and core accounts; or they might be defined by customers, values, or needs. Market segments may also be described vertically, such as healthcare or transportation, or a combination of these variables.

Channel responsibility refers to coverage and management of third party channels. An organization might use distributors, resellers, referral partners, or other types of third party businesses to help get to customers. In that case, it will usually use a role that works with its channel partners. In fact, it may need two roles: a channel acquisition role (someone to go out and acquire those relationships) and a channel management role (somebody to manage, cultivate and develop those relationships).

  1. Sales Process Responsibility

This dimension refers to the breadth of the sales process the job will span. The sales process may be expansive covering lead generation, qualification, solution design, proposal development, deal closing, and even implementation.

If you ask a sales person to do all of those things – going from lead generation all the way through the close and the implementation – it stretches his bandwidth. That requires a broad set of skills, as compared to having some jobs that are lead generators or maybe – odd concept – marketing generating an abundance of leads. One role may pick up qualified leads, close them, and turn them over to an implementation specialist. Many organizations over-simplify what’s really required in the sales process.

  1. Marketing, Technical, and Operations Responsibilities

Some jobs will have dual responsibilities, performing disparate functions. Some jobs are contaminated with other operations roles and have been cobbled together over time. Moving non-selling roles to other functions out of sales can help clean up the sales job and increase its effectiveness.

  1. Management Responsibility

This dimension identifies roles the job may have in managing other people in addition to selling. The classic jobs affected by management responsibilities are the selling sales manager and the selling branch manager. These combination roles often appear in organizations with emerging management levels. Having a seller straddle both sales and management is sometimes a first step toward pure management jobs that allows the organization to still attach a unique quota to the job and align its cost with a revenue stream. The reality is sharing a dual selling and management role can create conflicting priorities. A pure management role, effectively defined and staffed, can provide a much greater revenue impact through leadership and development of multiple sellers.

The big concept concerning sales roles dimensions is that the more a job is asked to do, the more stretched it gets, the less effective the job becomes. This customer coverage discipline of job definition is important to understand to make the organization more effective and to have a solid foundation for the compensation program. Once you decide which breeds of dogs your organization needs and clarify their priorities, it’s time to begin compensation plan design.

 

Next week I’ll write about how to differentiate your top performers. Contact me at mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com with any questions.

Advertisements

What Your CEO Needs to Know About Sales Comp

Our new book is out! Read an excerpt below and let us know what you think!

Book Cover 3The office lights flicker on at 7:00 Monday morning. The early risers arrive and the staff trickles in. The CEO, vice president of sales, CMO, and vice president of human resources sip their first cups of coffee, bleary-eyed from Sunday evening’s conference calls. The office chatter starts. In an hour the phones will begin to ring. A few miles away, manufacturing has been busy at the line for a couple of hours by now.

Despite the bustling activity, it will all come to a halt if the next sale isn’t made. “Sales” is the top line on nearly every income statement. Without it, the funding runs out, the stock doesn’t trade, the lights no longer burn, and the office chatter falls silent.

At the root of sales is a team of tenacious souls squeezed in middle seats without upgrades, walking the hallways of major corporations, making outbound calls to semi-qualified prospects, pacing customer reception areas waiting for a chance to have that critical conversation about the customer’s needs, and generally wearing out the soles of their Cole Haans. Each year on average, they experience eight to ten times more rejection than acceptance from their prospective customers. Yet they persevere – most with continued optimism – in pursuit of the close, the add-on sale, the contract renewal. Most of them are driven by a quest for three things: personal accomplishment, recognition, and compensation … sales compensation … commission … bonus … the deal that makes their year and the company’s year.

The sales compensation plan is one of the most significant drivers of performance in the sales organization and represents one of the single largest expenses a company will incur, commonly tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s a thin but vital long distance line that keeps the daily connection between corporate growth and the rep on the street. It guides and motivates the actions of the sales organization more than any other single factor. It trumps leadership messages, sales strategies, sales management, and sales training. If there is a hard wire between the customer’s office and the corner office, sales compensation is it.

But if the plan’s message isn’t clear or to their liking, sales reps will interpret the plan in their own financial interest. As a corporate leader, you’ll get what you measure and what you pay for – and it may not always be what you expect.

While its impact can be direct, it’s a fine blend of art and science that has long been a point of conflict within companies. Everyone has an opinion about sales compensation and everyone is an expert, yet few agree on the best approach to drive performance toward the company’s objectives. Sales, sales operations, human resources, and finance regularly engage in battles over questions like:

  • Does the plan represent our business objectives?
  • Are our highest paid sales people actually our top performers?
  • Is the plan too expensive?
  • Can we better motivate our organization to pursue the sales strategy?
  • How can we promote more of a performance-oriented sales culture?
  • Can we make the plan simpler to understand?
  • Can we make the plan easier to administer?
  • Are sales quotas penalizing our best performers?
  • How can we set quotas that better represent the sales potential in our markets?

Too often these battles lead to sales compensation programs that are compromises between parties, ultimately leading to underperformance in the business. Above the fray, senior executives look on, often asking only the most general questions. Many of these senior executives, concerned about the next quarter and the remainder of the year, miss opportunities to use sales compensation as tool to drive growth.

What Your CEO Needs to Know About Sales Compensation is not a technical guide for designing a sales compensation plan. This is a book that tells the stories of how senior leaders in a company can understand the connection between their goals and sales performance to leverage sales compensation as a driver of real growth in their organizations. We’ll focus on the top challenges in companies today and offer logical leadership approaches for dealing with each of these issues.

What Your CEO Needs to Know About Sales Compensation, written by Mark Donnolo, managing partner of SalesGlobe, is available now on Amazon.com.

2013: Questions for a Lucky Year

Whether 2012 was a banner year for your sales organization or one preferably forgotten, it’s winding down. It’s time to start looking forward to 2013, that oh-so lucky sounding year.

But fear not. Even the most superstitious among us can make 2013 absolutely providential with a little planning. High performing sales organizations operate around four key areas: Sales Insight, Sales Strategy, Sales Coverage, and Sales Enablement. Together, this knowledge helps to create a clear strategy that will make sense on the front line, and drive productivity all year.

Sales Insight comes first, because it’s essential to really understand what’s happening in your market.  Without insight into your industry and competitors, it’s next to impossible to plan an effective strategy.

Take the time to consider these key Sales Insight questions before diving into sales strategy or coverage planning for 2013:

  1. First and foremost, what’s happening in our macro market? What’s happening in our economy overall?
  2. What about your market? Was 2012 really a banner year for your industry or a dismal one? Why?
  3. How did your competitors perform this year? Do you know what led to their successes or failures?
  4. What do your customers say about your sales organization? Did you meet, exceed, or fall short of their expectations this year? Do you truly understand the needs of your customers?
  5. Where did the revenue for your company come from this year? Did you retain current customers? Did you sell new products or services to those current customers? What percentage of revenue came from new customers?
  6. What were the major strengths and weaknesses of your sales organization in 2012?

What other ways can you gain insight that will help your planning, and make 2013 the “luckiest” year ever?

To learn more, visit us at SalesGlobe.

Sales Roles – Is Simplicity Possible?

It seems like a simple concept – the role of a sales rep – especially when we apply straightforward labels like “hunter” or “farmer;” or our favorites, “Dobermans,” “Retrievers,” and “Collies” (actually, we go on to include Service Dogs, Pointers, and my personal favorite, the Mutt. That’s a topic for another blog). These labels distinctly describe what the role will do.

But as we all know, humans are complex and tend to defy such pigeonholing. So we go beyond the label and design territories and customer segments. Which methods of clarifying the sales role will increase productivity?

We recently worked with a company who had to take five different sales organizations they had acquired over time and create one functional sales organization. Within that entire sales function there were 35 different job titles. They took several steps to simplify.

 

1. Clarifying the Role. Everybody sort of approaches this a little differently.  This company, a major retailer, began with a certain role, clear responsibilities, and a job title. They made everybody very clear on what their operating objectives were.

2. Matching Products and Customers. Then they made sure each role had the right products for the right customers. There are customers in their business that are very sophisticated, and ones who aren’t at all. At the time, this company was trying to move their organization from a transactional sale – “You can have this for a buck” – to somebody selling conceptually by saying, “This is an annual merchandising program where we are going to sell millions of those bottles of water.” Not just that item for that price.

3. Match Talent to Customers.  Another priority of this company was to increase the quality of their sales organization. You don’t want to put the wrong person with the wrong customer; for example, you certainly don’t want to take a person with a Harvard MBA and assign them to a Mom & Pop store that only wants to deal with item and price. Instead, you’d place that person – most likely a person that has tools, perspective, and strategy – with major retailers, because he or she would create business solutions.

Selling is coming down to solutions. Simplifying the role, where possible, to focus on matching the right customer with the right products and the right talented sales rep – the ones that understand the customer – will create points of difference for your organization.

To learn more, visit SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com.

Sales Roles and Productivity I: Follow Me

 

Let’s acknowledge that different sales roles have different definitions of productivity. For example; the transactional sales rep selling local advertising with a quota of two sales per week will have a very different schedule than a long-term consultative sales rep selling an expensive piece of technology.

Different types of sellers, different characteristics to their productivity. Demanding a rep with a sales cycle of two years to close deals more quickly probably won’t result in more sales. More likely, it will annoy the potential customers and send your rep looking for another job.

So how can you define productivity in your organization and differentiate it between sales roles?

We worked with a company that recently made a change to build more of an account management focused organization because so many of their people concentrated on just hunting.

But they were in a new market, and both management and the reps were a little disoriented. So, in order to help the reps, the managers temporarily took over the selling. They broke the market, did the major hunting, and passed it along to the reps for account management.

“We said, ‘We’ll go find the customers, we’ll develop the pattern, how they buy, what the customer looks like, persona, cycle,’ everything,” said the vice president of marketing for the company. “And we’ll train the salesman. We will get the first order, we’ll teach you how to do the second order, and then you’re on your own for the third order.”

“We built a war room down on the first floor and started going through this whole process of building this together. The reps wanted to know what we were doing in there, and we said, ‘You focus on the day job. Don’t try to create this new market. Because then, you’ll lose focus, you won’t make quota, and we will go broke as a company.’

“So, we said, ‘We’ll teach you how to do this and add it to your portfolio.’

“There were questions like, ‘Will I lose quota? Will you take business from me?’ So, we had to work through all of those territorial things that we as sales people like to hold on to.”

It was an interesting concept. This company, a major technology company, didn’t put the salesperson out and say, “Go develop the business in this particular area.” They prepared it for them. They went through the process with them, and then repeated it, and let them catch on that way.

“We knew that the first time we were going to get our nose bloodied. We had to understand how the deal happened,” he said. “There were things we didn’t understand when we got started. Our sales guys got chewed up. We figured out what the pattern was, and learned that we had to develop it, and then hand it off to that organization.”

How well would a practice like that work in your organization?

To learn more, visit SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com. 

Communicating Change to a Sales Team

Perhaps the hardest aspect of business communications is the timing. You’re always behind the 8-ball. So much of communication is formally announcing what people already know thanks to the rumor mill and the water cooler.

 So there’s a natural pause. “Do I really need to announce to my sales team that we’re redesigning territories? They already know it.” But avoiding that formal announcement is a mistake: it’s a missed opportunity to frame the change in positive language and directly address the natural fears associated with change.

 Before you talk yourself out directly communicating to your sales team what to expect with their new sales comp plan or job roles, consider making time for an “assessment phase” to do the following:

1. Send a clear message from leadership making a compelling case for why change is necessary now.

2. Gather input from the people who will be most affected by the new sales comp plan or territory redesign (or other change) through formal or informal interviews and/or mini-surveys.

Whether rumors have begun flying about an expected change, or you’ve just noticed a few fearful glances around the office, beginning effective communication early will usually garner a greater percentage of buy-in from people who feel they’ve been heard.

 

To learn more, visit SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com.

Part III: Aligning Comp with Sales Roles

This is the third installment of a blog series on Rapid Sales Comp Design. Read Part I here and Part II here.

MARK DONNOLO: I’d like to spend a few minutes on the aligning of the sales roles and some practical thoughts on that. We do a lot of work with companies that have multiple sales roles and multiple groups for the sales compensation plan. We recently worked with a company that had 57 sales roles. I’d say they probably represented the 50th or 60th percentile in terms of complexity – certainly I’ve seen them with more than this. But this company is a good example of an organization with unnecessary complexity and too many mechanics to measure the plan.

This company had 57 unique roles and unique definitions and alarmingly unique compensation plans. You look at a situation like this and you think, “Wow. How do we make some sense out of this? Are there really 57 roles? Do we really need 57 different compensation plans?”

Sales roles and compensation plans are like tree roots. Uncontrolled they’ll branch out and organically multiply. So we took these 57 roles and sorted them by looking at their strategies and the responsibilities around the sales process and markets. That group of 57 actually sorts out into about eight different job families.

For an organization trying to manage compensation plans in this range, they become unwieldy. Each of those 57 plans had multiple measures, more than three – in some cases five or six measures. It can become really a nightmare in terms of communication and administration. It also raises questions about whether it’s really supporting the business as best as it can. Simplifying to eight job families makes a big difference.

How do you get a handle on something like this from a comp design standpoint?

PANELIST 2: I really try to keep it simple when I’m dealing with the sales leadership and even the operations leadership. I ask, “What of this is core critical?” So if we agree on
the account manager structure, in principle we try to keep it straightforward and consistent across the globe. Of course, I can see here how this actually translates into the plans that we have to operate on. We’ve got multiple variations for different reasons and nuances that each person gets approved for the exception.

I think what I try to do is to keep it as close to the core that’s been approved.  Identify why we have a nuance. We’ve done some interesting things in the matrix that we use to line up the systems we need. I try to make it as straightforward and simple for our operations teams and sales leadership as possible. “Here is what we’re using; this is the core.” We try to keep it to a select group that can manage through that and understand how that translates when you’re talking about 300+ plans.

MARK DONNOLO: Wow, so 300. That’s quite a number to manage. Do you manage that to a smaller number?

PANELIST 2: We usually start off the year with 35 different core plans, from your top management plan down to your inside sales specialist or your technical role. The reasons we’ve got so many permeations – and I’m sure a lot of other people struggle with this same thing – how the information flows determines how we design our compensation system to make that core plan work.

It doesn’t originally start off as 300. I would say we have 35 really core plans that we have designed with our leadership and have rolled out globally, and then there are variations that happen over the year. This year we’re probably closer to 200. But that’s how it happens.

MARK DONNOLO: How do you sort those out? We tend to sort it into different sales strategies: new customer selling or current account management, for example. Or, are they covering a range of products or single products? Are they specialized? Are they focused on certain segments? Do they cover a certain piece of the sales process or the whole sales process? Do they have certain technical knowledge or even management responsibility? Are they selling sales managers?

We tend to group by dimensions like that. Do you use a process to sort down to the true core roles?

PANELIST 2: Yes. It’s pretty easy once you become familiar with it. It’s sorted by management role. Usually we define it as the general management of the field, channel management, and technical management.

We’ve really got this definition of a front line vs. non-front line role. Then you’ll see which ones are more of your generalist that will receive credit for all variations. Then you’ll get into your specialists roles. So I’d say over the last couple of years we’ve gotten to the point where it’s very intuitive as to what that role will receive and what their responsibilities are. The
number of variations is voluminous, and that’s where we get lots of questions. “Why do you have to have lots of nuances?” I won’t bore you with all of the reasons why. It’s pretty intuitive. We separate it out by responsibility and then all of the unique specialty type roles we try to keep clustered as a group so we can identify the product specialty or service specialty.

Read Part I here and Part II here.

To learn more visit SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com. 

Top Comp Challenges — What’s Yours?

Every year, SalesGlobe conducts a survey to find the top sales compensation challenges. And as varied as businesses are, as unique as some industries are, so often sales compensation problems unite them all. Below are a few of the top challenges that plague sales organizations large and small.

1. Setting effective quotas. Almost every year the top sales compensation challenge is actually setting effective quotas. And arguably, quotas aren’t even part of the compensation plan. Quotas are typically set after the compensation plan is designed. But quotas are the linchpin between the compensation plan and performance. You could have a very effective compensation plan, but ineffective quotas can derail the compensation plan. Quota setting, obviously, is critical.

2. Differentiating top performers. Too often in companies, it’s easy to make a good living with a mediocre performance and very difficult to make a great living, even if you knock your quota out of the park. How we do we take the top people and differentiate them significantly from the mid range or the lower performers? We call the solution the Reverse Robin Hood Principle: take the performance pay from the lower performers and provide that to the higher performers with the objective of being able to recruit and retain the best talent.

3. Supporting the sales strategy and sales roles. One of the first steps in designing a sales compensation plan is to make sure we understand the direction of the business. How do you connect the corner office to the front line? The vision of that C-level whether it’s the CEO, CSO or COO, has to flow through in the compensation plan. It’s amazing the number of times we see a disconnect between the priorities of the business and what’s actually being paid for.

4. Driving solution selling. How do we make sure that we’re enabling solution selling through the sales compensation plan and that solution selling is also being supported through other elements of the growth management system? Solution selling itself cannot be driven by paying people multipliers for different sets of products. Product mix is actually a surrogate for solutions. Effective solution selling starts with the strategy and understanding directionally where we’re going. Enable people to sell solutions and have the right offer. Then compensation can come into play and make sure we can motivate people in the right direction.

5. Keeping the organization engaged.  This was a bigger issue in the past couple of years than it is at the moment.  But over the last couple of years it’s been a big question: how do we keep the organization involved when they’re not hitting their quotas and they’re not in the money on their sales compensation? If we have people floating down around 80%-85% of quota, how do we keep them from riding out the storm and waiting for the year to pass? Are there other types of reward and recognition, or are there adjustments we can make to the plan?

6.  Plan complexity. Plan complexity tends to be an underlying issue and an underlying challenge in most organizations. We see this in particularly complex organizations or organizations that are oriented around multiple products or services. When we try to represent too many things in the sales comp plan we create complexity. Then two things happen. First, the message of what the sales comp plan is telling the organization to do starts to break down. And second, we increase the complexity and the difficulty of administering the plan.

Of these six challenges, what is the biggest problem for your organization? Or is there another challenge not on this list?

 

To learn more, visit SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com. 

The Quagmire: Where Performance Measures Get Messy — A Roundtable Discussion

Mark Donnolo is managing partner of SalesGlobe.

 

Companies that have long sales cycles often use leading indicators to pay those sales reps – after all, they’re working long hard hours but the revenue might not come in for a year or more. Leading indicators can work very effectively when the standards are clear – a design win, for example – but what if your industry lacks clear indicators?

Members of the SalesGlobe Forum met recently to discuss this performance measure potential quagmire.

SGF Member: Can you consider the pipeline a leading indicator?

MARK DONNOLO: I know a couple firms in particular in professional services – very large professional services firms – that will actually pay their business developers on the pipeline, which is actually kind of hard to believe. It’s very, very unusual. Now, I’ll say it’s a combination of partners and sellers and these people are highly trusted. If there’s a violation of that trust that person’s probably not going to be around for another year. So there’s a code of conduct. In a lot of sales organizations you can’t do that. I wouldn’t recommend that at home. But potentially, with leading indicators, you could go that far.

SGF Member: If you use a leading indicator – like a contract signed, for example – we’ll do something like that for a long sales cycle. We’ll pay an upfront bonus based on the potential value of that. But that merchant has to be boarded already so we have a chance to make some revenue.

But we also have a policy that says, if we don’t earn the revenue the rep says we’re going to earn according to the sales contract we have the right to take it back from a person. That can get a little risky, I think, because it’s sort of like a de-motivator, right?  That’s tricky, when you get a year down the road and you say, “Oh well, we didn’t earn this revenue so we’re now in a
position to take money back from you.” That’s tough. But I don’t know of any better way.

SGF Member 2: But it’s better than waiting until the money came in.

SGF Member 3: We do the same thing, paying people on bookings rather than billings.

SGF Member 4: Sometimes it’s how you position it. We position it as advance.

SGF Member 5: We did it as a recoverable draw.

SGF Member: Do they have to earn it back?

SGF Member 5: Yes. We paid them at the beginning of the month. They had a draw, based on two measures: revenue and margin. And it was typically between six and eight weeks, and quarterly we measured up. If you were on plan, here’s your bonus. Your paycheck could vary, but the rep always knew if the customer didn’t pay his bill.

SGF Member 2: Do you keep out a portion of that, when you pay up front? Do you pay only a portion of what the commission was and then pay the rest on actuals?

SGF Member 5: It’s not a draw like that. This is sort of in addition to what they’re going to earn over time. It’s like a signing bonus. We have a recurring revenue stream and we pay them for a certain period of time on that, but that period of time may not start for 9-12 months from the time in which they make the sale. So we can’t wait until 9-12 months later, we’ve got to give them something now. But we don’t take it as a draw against anything in the future. They’ll still earn what the comp plan says they’re going to earn.

 

MARK DONNOLO: I have a couple of thoughts, because we run into this a lot.

The first is, when you have a long sales cycle, you still want to have a ‘pop’ – some payment to the rep – to recognize the event when it happens. That’s important because it creates excitement. One thing I like to do is understand what the actual risk of take-back is. A lot of that is going to be a question of policy – whether you want to forgive those advances or whether you want to actually take the money back.

If you look historically at the pull-through on those kinds of deals, you can get a sense of if and when that will work in your organization. You can also get a feel for the amount you’re paying. Sometimes when we do an upfront bookings bonus, we’ll discount. For example, if we’re going to pay on the value of the first year’s bookings we may discount that back a certain percentage. We may say, “We’re going to pay 60% of the first year’s bookings because we know on average 60% of that revenue actually comes through, so we’re fairly safe. So we discount it back.” The idea is they’re definitely getting something up front for that ‘pop.’

Upfront payments also drive certain behaviors. A lot of times if you pay a lot up front, when the deal closes the rep is off to the next deal. So if you want them off to the next deal, pay them in full because they’ll be gone. If you want them to stay involved, pay them very little, because they’ll stay involved and pull the rest of the deal through. The bad news is they’ll be hanging around the hoop – they’ll probably turn into more of an account manager role as they try to bring in the rest of the deal. You may say, “Well just get out of here and go sell the new thing.”

You have to find the right balance between the amount of money and the role of the rep.

 

To learn more, visit  SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com

The People and Politics of Sales Compensation

This is the first in a two-part series. Read Part II here.

The people and the politics of sales compensation is about the softer side of sales compensation – who’s behind the scenes collaborating (or not); the steps in the process; how well the process works; how people work together; commonalities between the various functions involved; and solutions for challenges.

The human element touches sales compensation throughout the entire process. It happens during the year – asking sales managers to participate in the plan and convey how the plan is working; asking sales operations and HR to communicate and evaluate the plan. The human element assembles the compensation design team and establishes the principles for how the team will make decisions – who will crunch the numbers; who will evaluate the finished product and finalize the compensation plan. The human element determines the variety of perspectives included to make sure there is a well-rounded representation from the company. How they interact keeps it interesting.

Here are a few of the usual suspects:

1. The C-Suite. The C-level is almost always involved to some degree. Very often we see the C-level person – perhaps the CEO – pop his head in the room to ask, “Is this going to cost me the same or less than it did last year?” Other times we’ll have CEOs actually at the table and involved in the process. CEOs have very different levels of involvement in the compensation process, ultimately because CEOS, based on their personal preferences, have different degrees of comfort with sales compensation.

2.  Sales. Sales, obviously, is at the table, and they’re always asking for something (more money) often in the form of a bigger accelerator. They may grumble that HR doesn’t understand sales or what sales needs.

3. Sales Operations. Sales operations sometimes drives the process and other times responds to the process by trying to keep meetings organized and trying to devise a system that makes sense. Depending on where sales operations resides in the organization, these people can have different points of view. Sales ops most typically will be within the sales organization, but sometimes will be within finance or even HR. Where they sit, very often, determines their point of view.

4. Finance. Finance is typically at the table, either at the C-level or someone on the project team. They have an Interesting negotiating position. This perspective often brings some old cliché’s about sales: sales is overpaid; they have no value. Finance wants to negotiate: “If we have an accelerator on the plan, what are we going to take away on the downside so we can pay for the accelerator?”

5. Human Resources. Very often HR drives the process; and if they’re not driving the process they are certainly a partner. Their role is to looking at what’s happening in the market and make sure everybody is aligned with the market; try to bring some discipline to the process; and offer some expertise if that doesn’t reside on the team already.

6. Marketing. Marketing is not always involved in sales compensation, but sometimes they have an agenda, like sales. In a multiproduct or multiservice organization sometimes marketing tries to get a lever in the plan for each of the different products they represent, which can add complexity to the plan.

While all these interactions take place designing the compensation plan, the field sits and waits, knowing they will most likely get a bigger quota – often for a lower percentage increase in compensation. The sales compensation design process brings together many competing points of view and potentially competing priorities. It quickly, as we say, puts the “fun” in “dysfunction” in organizations.

Who are the people involved in your sales compensation design?

To learn more, visit  SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com. 

 

Strategy and Sales Comp Part II: Putting it in Action

With all the power sales compensation can wield, it pays to invest the time to connect sales comp with the strategy of the business. Below is the second installment of nine important factors to consider when designing a sales comp plan that will drive more revenue. Read the first five in Strategy and Sales Comp Part 1: Making the Connection.

4. Reduce the complexity of the sales compensation plan. Often, the more technical an organization is – or the more engineering-oriented an organization is – the more complex the sales compensation plans will be. There’s a temptation to include everything even remotely important in the compensation plan. The key, however, is to include the two or three things that are most important to maintain clarity of message.

5. Manage the crediting and compensation costsMake sure you’re crediting the appropriate amount to people involved in the sales process without over-crediting. It’s a balance. We don’t want a single credit in a team sale or a complex sales process, nor do we want to over-credit. If you have too few credits people run to the opportunity and then run away very quickly once they realize somebody else has grabbed the credit. If you give too many credits, too many people belly up to the chuck wagon, and it motivates the wrong behaviors.

6. Increase sales productivity. The right daily actions of a sales person increase the overall activity of the organization. Sales compensation can be a powerful tool to motivate the right actions. Use sales compensation as a lever to drive productivity and to create the right motivations in the organization.

7. Control channel conflict.
In a multichannel environment with a direct sales organization and indirect channels, getting those resources to align to the customer is essential for success. Get these parties to work together without competing with each other or degrading your value proposition in front of the customer.

8.  Build a sales culture. The sales culture is an unspoken but powerful force in the organization. But assessing it is fairly subjective. A lot of organizations will say, “We’re over the top in sales culture.” Others will say, “We need to move in the direction of being sales-oriented but we don’t want to destroy the culture that we have. That’s very important to us.” As you make changes in sales programs and sales compensation programs, ask how those changes are going to support the culture. Also question the degree of change the organization can handle to make sure that we don’t push it in the wrong direction.

To learn more, visit SalesGlobe or email mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com. 

Sales Compensation Culture

SalesGlobe Managing Partner Mark Donnolo discusses how sales compensation culture affects an organization at a 2010 SalesGlobe Forum event.

 

DONNOLO:

Many companies today want to become more sales-oriented as a business. So, they spend time trying to understand their sales culture: Is it more focused on operations or service to customers than it is on new sales? Does the sales culture center around finance?

Sales culture is important because it determines how the sales organization is spending its time, and whether or not they are driving growth for the company. If the sales culture does not match the objectives of the company, it may be time for a cultural overhaul.

Consider a technology company we worked with recently. Over time this company had lost a grip on its sales culture. In the mean time, their market became increasingly competitive and — to stay in the game — the company realized it needed to differentiate its products. They wanted to sell solutions, become more proactive in battling competitors, steal some of their competitors’ share and win new customers.

At the time, they had a sales force that was basically a customer service organization — a highly-tenured, service-oriented organization. They wouldn’t take people out. Low performers were permitted to live in the organization for long periods of time. But eventually, this company reached a point where it had to re-orient its sales culture to survive. They had to ask hard questions about their own tolerance for change and their ability to move aggressively.

They asked, “How do we re-orient the sales organization around sales performance?” The answer is not to simply make a change to one lever — like the sales compensation plan — with the hopes that will change the whole culture.

To create a more sales-oriented culture, we led the company through an examination of the following disciplines:

  1. Sales roles. Consider the sales roles in the company. Do we have positions that are true selling positions, or are they designed to be selling and operations, or selling and service? Do we have clean roles?
  2. Execution of those sales roles. We may have well-defined sales roles, but are they contaminated with other types of operations or services? Are we implementing the role correctly? Remove the non-selling activities to allow the sales people to have a true sales focus.
  3. Talent. Once we define the sales job and remove the non-selling activities and decontaminate the job, sometimes we find the inventory of talent isn’t right. We don’t have true sellers; we have service or operations people. Is our talent trainable to be re-oriented into sales roles? When they stop performing all the service areas on their account and we raise their quota and we ask them to go out and book more business, can they do that? Do they have the talent, or do we have to reconsider our talent inventory and go out in the market and acquire new talent that is really sales?
  4. Compensation. The compensation plan can drive a more sales-oriented culture. Do we have the right value proposition? Is our pay plan competitive enough in the market to attract the people we want to attract? Is it competitive enough to retain people in true sales roles? Where once we could have kept a more service-oriented seller in a lower performing sales comp plan, now we have to redesign the comp plan to attract the talent we want.

There are also several questions within sales compensation to ask:

  1. Employee value propositions.  The sales role, career path, work content and affiliation with the company are all components that can make the job attractive to someone. With compensation, also consider the types of performance measures we’re using in the plan, whether they are measures that align with sales results or measures that promote service activities. For example, is the comp plan individually oriented around performance, or is it oriented at the company level or “big team level” that doesn’t drive sales as much?
  2. Pay-out curve. Do we have a philosophy that significantly rewards top performers and doesn’t over-pay bottom performers? We want to have a plan that won’t allow underperformers to survive in the company for a long period and a plan that is attractive for those at quota or above.

The result of this process was the technology company was able to pull out of its declining revenue trends and move into a double digit growth trend. But considerable change was required in the organization to do that. They developed hunter and farmer roles and changed the payout plan to reward high performers and drop low performers. They had turnover, and they acknowledged they needed to, even though they had been operating in the opposite way for years.

Moving to a sales-oriented culture means asking, “What are you prepared to change? What are you prepared to do? What is the management’s appetite for change? What is the organization’s appetite for change?” Changing the sales culture can mean you are going to literally turn over certain parts of the organization that don’t align with the culture and bring in new talent.

It’s kind of like a high fat diet. You can live on a high fat diet — or a non sales-oriented culture — for many years. But in the end that high fat diet could end up killing you. It builds over time. Lack of a sales culture will make you less competitive and hinder your ability to attract top talent. You will end up with a B and C-level sales organization, with B and C-level players versus A-level players. Eventually, that can spell the demise of your organization.

Cultures, left unchecked, change within organizations over time. Do you want to be in control of the change or a victim of the change?

————————————————————

For more information from Mark Donnolo on sales compensation culture, contact SalesGlobe at 770 337 9897 or email Mark at mark.donnolo@salesglobe.com.

%d bloggers like this: