Vue Software

Tag Archive for 'Scott Barton'

Quality versus Quantity: Aligning Sales Incentives with Profitability (Part 2)

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Even if market practice for a job suggests metrics that are exclusively growth oriented (e.g., revenue), many industries and jobs are or will have to shift the focus away from growth and toward profitability because of the economy. So with a look-forward perspective, you need to address: how does each job influence profitability? In general, influencers or drivers of profitability for sales roles fall into one of the following four categories:

  • Revenue through product preference or price protection
  • Cost containment
  • Risk mitigation
  • Strategic influences; e.g., business growth, customer service, cross sell, efficiency (e.g., utilization of CIS)

Revenue drivers apply when sellers have autonomy over pricing or product positioning. To motivate performance in this area, management can include gross margin or product-specific quotas into the plan, keeping in mind that in transactional selling environments, sellers can increase today’s margins at the expense of longer terms growth. One way to achieve a balance between short- and longer-term measures in the incentive plan is to link the product or gross margin goal attainment score with that of overall revenue (through a matrix, for example).

Cost containment is not typically a function of transactional sellers, though selling supervisors and relationship managers of large, complex accounts might have impact over the use of company resources (e.g., support personnel), T&E, freight and other deal-specific variables that count as expense. Stay clear of operating or allocated costs over which the job has no influence. Inclusion of such “fixed” costs adds complexity to the incentive scheme.

Risk mitigation includes adjustments for factors that could influence longer-term profitability. Examples include customer viability, third-party partner involvement and cost of capital. More risky industries typically use risk departments to assess the degree of risk inherent in each deal, thus freeing the sales function to focus on bringing deals to the table (a balance of power, so to speak). While sales people are often in a unique position to assess certain risk factors, their inherent motivation is to find ways to make the deal happen, not prevent it. The wiser choice is to use other mechanisms, including senior leadership review, to mitigate risk.

Strategic drivers include indirect factors that contribute to efficiency, customer loyalty, price protection and other, likely contributors to profitability. Measures such as cross sell, customer penetration (percent of wallet) and customer satisfaction fall into this category. Remember these are indirect factors. More efficient sales people aren’t necessarily more productive; happy customers aren’t necessarily loyal customers, especially those with low price elasticity.

Some industries, such as retail, use customer satisfaction as a key competitive differentiator. In such industries, motivating employees to delight customers is mission critical. It’s not upside, not bonus. These are table stakes, and in the total rewards framework, compensated through base salary. Those employees going above and beyond should receive special recognition.

Putting pay at risk, through the incentive plan, for strategic items is probably not effective unless there are meaningful dollars at stake (>20% of base salary). Otherwise, sales people dismiss these goals as not important, and focus on what will make a difference to their pay. Getting sales people to focus on drivers of efficiency, penetration and customer loyalty requires drum banging from all levels of the organization, from the CEO down to the line supervisor. Everyone, leadership especially, must walk the talk. Only when you have such continuity and unwavering organizational commitment can you expect the sales force to focus and make progress here.

Strategic drivers can be more difficult to track and report. Cross-selling is often self-reported, customer satisfaction a subjective and cost-intensive exercise. Employees have to believe the data and be able to see the connection between their actions and the company’s objectives. Otherwise, they’re not motivated (at best) or, if there’s pay at risk, upset.

As the figure below suggests, you are more likely to get results by introducing measures over which the sales people believe they have meaningful light of sight. Your best chance at increasing sales person focus on drivers of profitability is to emphasize through goals and incentive opportunity factors they currently, or perceive they can, influence.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Sales Incentives and Profitability Key Points
Quality versus Quantity: Aligning Sales Incentives with Profitability (Part 3)

Quality versus Quantity: Aligning Sales Incentives with Profitability (Part 1)

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

My goal for LeapComp was to talk about the entire Sales Performance Management space. I was thinking that with such a ‘narrow’ topic, I’d have no problems doing that. However, it’s only when you start writing that you start to realize how vast a topic really is. So the blog slowly took an IT and solution review slant - something which was not quite planned. However, my goal is still to bring broad information about the SPM space. To start accomplishing this more, Scott Barton, a leading SPM management consultant will help me by sharing his thoughts on profitability in incentive compensation plans, and how profitability gains notoriety when a company’s growth starts to fall off.

There’s lots of talk today about incentive measures and risk management. Even if you’re not a TARP recipient, your company’s board and executive management could take greater care in deciding which performance measures get used to calculate incentives.

Sales incentives are another matter, but the issue still pertains. During a growth cycle, most sales people focus on quantity – basically sales volume. Now in cost-containment mode, many executives desire better alignment between company profitability and sales compensation. Advances in information technology and reporting enable a clearer picture of profitability at the account and transaction level. Yet the incentive professional needs to recognize and argue for the differences inherent in sales plans from those used for executives and other employees. Failure to thoughtfully plan and execute compensation changes to sales professions can undermine progress toward the company’s profitability goals.

Comp Philosophy and Market Practice
If you are in the position of having to create or redefine your company’s pay philosophy, take note. Reframing the compensation philosophy is especially important if the company plans a fundamental shift it how it measures and rewards success at the organizational, group and individual levels.

We are in a time where statements such as: “The objective of XYZ’s compensation program is to providing exciting and competitive rewards that attract and motivate high-performing individuals” are not particularly useful. This isn’t to say that simple statements are not appropriate. If your company is relatively small, something as basic as “if we make money, you make money” can be effective, so long as those you want to motivate understand how profits get allocated and distributed to individuals. What if the company is not small, or not profitable?

Not-so-scientific research suggests many employees are just happy to have a job at the moment. Why all the fuss? Well, again, sales people are different. Assuming your pay philosophy still needs to use the word “motivates,” then we argue against the wholesale, profit-funded bonus pool for this group.

Let your philosophy clarify which job roles are appropriate for incentives, which for a profit-funded bonus, and which for recognition. These categories are often used interchangeably. For purposes of incentive philosophy, and improved comp ROI, consider the continuum illustrated below:

Any of the three variable-pay categories can apply to any one of your job roles, but incentives are most effective (i.e., most likely to result in the desired behaviors) when the job role has clear goals, clear and meaningful payment opportunity, and a strong line-of-sight to the metrics defining success. Sales roles fit best in this category.

In fact, the market for most sales positions sets expectations for incentive structure. If your company plans to adopt or further reinforce a philosophy akin to a profit-sharing plan, as an employer you might be at a disadvantage for attracting and retaining critical sales talent. Not a concern in this current environment? Alienating your customer-contact employees, especially your high-performing sales people, is counter to profitability objectives.

The comp designer should understand both market (external) and internal expectations for incentives specific to: 1) variable pay opportunity and 2) performance metrics. Jobs with the majority of incumbents who are somewhat risk adverse, that is, have relatively low amounts of incentive pay opportunity relative to base salary, are more likely be measured on unit-level goals such as profitability. Those jobs and employees that are inherently risk taking, with a high proportion (>40%) of base salary that is incentive opportunity, require goals more closely aligned with their own, individual behaviors.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Sales Incentives and Profitability Key Points
Quality versus Quantity: Aligning Sales Incentives with Profitability (Part 3)