Isla Hoffmann· HR Business Partner, Copperfield Mining
Posted in Sales Compensation ·
We changed the sales incentive plan this year for 210 sellers in Germany and France at a laboratory equipment company. The design work took two months. Consultation took seven. I underestimated it badly, so here is what I learned.
First, I brought a finished design. Both bodies would have been far more receptive to principles and options in the early stage. Second, I had cost models for the company but no individual impact analysis. The first question in both countries was how many people would earn less at the same performance, and I did not have the answer to hand.
Third, I assumed one timetable. In practice each country ran on its own. Next time I will start nine months ahead and bring the per-person modelling to the first meeting.
9 helpful · 5 insightful · 1 agree · 3 replies · 256 views · 5 following
Wren ZhangCRP, CEP
Job Architecture Lead, Silverline Media
The per-person modelling is everything. We present a table showing each seller's pay under old and new plans at last year's actual performance, anonymised but complete. In our last change 12% of people would have earned less, and we offered a one-year guarantee at the old level for them. Agreement came in six weeks.
Benefits Analyst, Lumen Biosciences
I would add: separate what needs agreement from what needs information. In our German entity the plan mechanics needed agreement, but individual quota levels did not, according to the advice we had. Once we stopped presenting quotas as part of the package, the discussion got shorter. Others should take their own advice on that, as arrangements differ by company.
Director of Benefits, Bellwether Consulting
Seven months sounds about right to me, and I am not sure it should be seen as a failure. The plans we have taken through consultation in the Nordics came out better. Representatives spotted a crediting rule that would have penalised part-time sellers, which none of us in the design group had noticed.
