When to Redesign Your Sales Compensation Plan vs. When to Keep It
Learn when to redesign a sales compensation plan, when to keep it, and how to distinguish plan design problems from quota, territory, market, and execution issues.
By Compswell —
How to tell whether disappointing results come from the incentive plan, the sales environment, or the way the organisation is executing. With only a few weeks left in the first half, year to date results will soon be on the table. Average attainment is tracking at 74 percent. The Vice President of Sales will say the compensation plan is broken and should change before H2. The Chief Financial Officer will argue that the targets are sound and the team needs to execute more effectively. The HR Business Partner will see a capability problem, while someone else will point out that a competitor has increased OTE and suggest that the company may be losing strong performers because the plan is no longer competitive. By the time the Sales Compensation Manager is asked for a view, the room may already have divided into positions. This is where most redesign conversations begin. The discussion starts with an uncomfortable result, moves quickly towards competing explanations, and ends with pressure to change something visible. Here is the data that should stop that room before anyone reaches a conclusion. Research suggests that around 97 percent of companies made changes to their compensation plan in a given year, yet only around 21 percent rate their programme as highly effective. The organisations changing their plans most frequently are not the ones with the best outcomes. Frequent change without accurate diagnosis produces the same problem with a different formula. Year to date attainment of 74 percent does not, by itself, prove that the plan is defective. The result may reflect quotas that were poorly calibrated, unequal territories, weak pipeline creation, insufficient enablement, a large population of representatives still in ramp, or a market that changed after the plan was approved. It may also mean that the plan is rewarding the wrong outcomes, placing too much pay at risk, or using mechanics that no longer fit the company's commercial model. These problems can produce similar headline numbers while requiring completely different responses. That is why the first question should not be "How should we change the plan before H2?" It should be: "What evidence shows that the plan is helping create the outcome we are trying to correct?" A redesign is justified when the answer points to the plan itself. When it does not, changing the formula may simply give the organisation a new plan sitting on top of the same unresolved problem. There is also a practical timing consideration. With a few weeks left before H2 begins, a responsible redesign may not be possible unless the problem is urgent, clearly evidenced, and capable of being corrected without creating contractual, payroll, systems, or employee relations risk. A full redesign requires modelling, approval, documentation, system configuration, communication, and testing. When those steps cannot be completed properly, a targeted adjustment or formal review for the next plan period may be the more defensible response. Why the decision is commercially important in either direction Redesigning a compensation plan is not a neutral intervention. It consumes specialist time, requires financial modelling, creates new documentation and system requirements, and asks managers and representatives to relearn how performance translates into pay. During the transition, attention often moves away from customers and towards earnings calculations, comparisons, and questions about who benefits or loses. Frequent changes also affect credibility. Representatives begin to see the plan as provisional rather than dependable. When a difficult period regularly leads to new rules, some people may conclude that targets are negotiable, while others delay financial or career decisions because the earning opportunity feels unstable. Strong performers are especially sensitive to that uncertainty because they can compare the reliability of the current plan against opportunities elsewhere — and they are the most capable of acting on that comparison. Yet stability alone is not a reason to preserve a weak plan. Research on sales compensation consistently identifies unrealistic quotas as one of the leading reasons sales representatives leave. A structure that suppresses meaningful upside, rewards results outside the seller's influence, or produces persistent differences in earning opportunity may drive away exactly the people the organisation wants to retain. Keeping the wrong plan can also damage profitability. A poorly calibrated structure may pay accelerators for results that should have been expected at target. At the other extreme, it may place so much performance beyond realistic reach that the variable pay budget appears controlled only because much of the team no longer believes the upside is attainable. The real choice is not between change and stability. It is between evidence led intervention and reaction. Three different problems can produce the same result When attainment falls below expectation, the underlying cause normally sits in one of three areas. The distinction matters because compensation can influence behaviour, but it cannot repair every business problem. When the plan is the problem The plan is the problem when its design actively contributes to the unwanted outcome. Perhaps it rewards new revenue while the business now needs profitable expansion and retention. The company may have moved from a transactional selling model to long consultative cycles, yet the plan still pays as though every seller controls the final booking independently. The formula may also be creating unintended behaviour. A large threshold makes the current period feel economically irrelevant to representatives who believe they cannot reach it. A sharp step encourages people to manage transaction timing around a payout boundary. A cap reduces the financial incentive to continue producing once maximum payout has been reached. A design problem tends to appear broadly and repeatedly. It survives changes in manager, territory, and tenure because the same underlying mechanic operates across the population. When execution is the problem An execution problem occurs when the plan broadly supports the intended strategy, but the organisation is not performing the sales motion required to earn under it. Pipeline generation may be too low. Conversion may be weak. Managers may not be coaching effectively. Representatives may lack product knowledge, commercial skills, or confidence in the customer proposition. Execution problems are often concentrated rather than universal. One manager's team may perform materially below another's. New hires may struggle while established representatives succeed. Changing the incentive formula in this situation treats a capability or management issue as a structural compensation failure — and may make the plan more generous without improving the activity and conversion that revenue depends on. When the environment has changed The third possibility is that the plan was reasonably designed for the commercial assumptions available at launch, but those assumptions no longer hold. A major product may be delayed. A market may contract. A strategic account may be removed. Currency movement may change the recognised value of expected revenue. These events can reduce or expand earning opportunity without proving that the underlying plan architecture is defective. A targeted adjustment, documented exception, or quota review may be the appropriate response. A full redesign is justified only when the change is sufficiently significant and enduring that it has altered the sales model the plan is intended to support. A plan problem may require redesign. An execution problem requires stronger management and enablement. A material external change may require adjustment. Treating them as the same problem weakens every response. Start with the shape, not the average The first diagnostic step is to move beyond average attainment. An average tells l
All Compswell Insights articles