Ironically, the managers responsible for sales incentive programs often find themselves a little demotivated. They look forward to putting together rule structures about as much as they look forward to stripping wallpaper. They are tired of spending time and energy to deliver the same results: their top 20% will likely do well and earn something, with only a few bright spots occurring below the top 20% level. And those people were probably working on some big deal that would have happened anyway…incentive or no incentive.
All in all it’s not a very happy picture, for either managers or participants. In the end, it’s tempting to measure the program’s success more on compliance to budget than on the sales lift or ROI. It’s tempting but not satisfactory. From what we see, companies are increasingly less willing to take the effectiveness of large incentive budgets on faith.
This widespread dissatisfaction argues for three major improvements in the area of program design: 1) an approach that consistently taps the “bottom 80%” for significant revenue increases, 2) a system that clearly measures incremental sales and margin gains, and 3) a “tune-able” design that can be improved with each future program so that every new program isn’t a laboratory experiment.