Great news:
We've been recognized as Best support & High Performer on G2 and we rebranded! Celebrate with us on LinkedIn!
The world of sales is fast-paced and demands not only smart strategy but also a clear look at how performance and rewards are linked. This challenge isn't new; for centuries, businesses have struggled to measure performance fairly and accurately, especially when it ties directly to compensation.
Let's consider the findings of a revealing survey that highlights a problem:
This dissatisfaction has profound implications. Employees disillusioned with appraisal processes are often less engaged, leading to increased turnover, less sales and diminished loyalty—a scenario no sales organization can afford. It's not just about fairness; it's about the bottom line.
The solution isn't to scrap performance reviews, but to admit they've been too subjective. Traditional methods cannot fully capture what a salesperson contributes. The complex nature of sales, which includes both hitting numbers and building relationships, calls for a more thoughtful approach.
Here's are three interesting changes that will help you design performance evaluations for better sales compensation:
1. See the Big Picture: Economist W. Edwards Deming believed that an employee's work environment plays a huge role in their performance. So, a good evaluation system needs to look at the broader context, not just individual wins.
2. Educate Appraisers: Effective evaluations come down to the evaluator's grasp of the sales role's complexities. Understanding the deeper story behind the metrics is key to fair assessments. Appraisers must be trained to see beyond the metrics, understanding the various factors that can skew performance data.
3. Use Balanced Scorecards: Instead of just looking at sales numbers, a balanced scorecard takes into account a wider set of factors, like customer happiness, internal operations, and employee development.
For sales compensation experts, the implications are clear. Performance appraisals are not just a HR concern but a strategic imperative. They must be tailored to truly capture the essence of sales performance, guiding compensation that not only rewards results but also encourages the behaviors that lead to sustained business success.
Performance appraisals are not just a HR concern but a strategic imperative. Those who design the sales compensation plans need to champion evaluation systems that go beyond just numbers, aiming for transparency, fairness, and inspiration, helping sales pros reach their full potential by clearly laying out what's expected and how it's rewarded.
As a conclusion, it is time for business leaders to rethink performance evaluations. They should be dynamic tools that help steer sales compensation. As we refine our approach to measuring sales performance, we lay the groundwork for more effective and equitable compensation strategies. The goal is not just to compensate based on outcomes but to foster an environment where the best performance is a natural byproduct of the system we create.
__________________________________________________________
Bibliography:
1. L. R. Cardy, C. L. Sutton, K. P. Carson, and G. H. Dobbins, "Degree of Responsibility: An Empirical Examination of Person and System Effects on Performance Ratings," paper presented at the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, 1990.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, The Inpatient Utilization and Payment Public Use File, www.cms.gov, accessed November 19, 2018; L. Landro, "Pay for Performance Reaches Out to Specialists," The Wall Street Journal, December 15, 2004, p. D3.
3. R. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1953).
4. K. Murphy and J. Cleveland, Understanding Performance Appraisal (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).
5. C. Viswesvaran, F. L. Schmidt, and D. P. Ones, "Is There a General Factor in Ratings of Job Performance?" A Meta-Analytic Frame Disentangling Substantive and Error Influences," Journal of Applied Psychology 90(1), 2005, pp. 108–131; John P. Campbell and W. Henriksen, "The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance," Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2, no. 1 (2015), pp. 47–74.
6. Joo Hun Han, Kathryn M. Bartol, and Kim Seongsu, "Tightening Up the Performance-Pay Linkage: Roles of Contingent Reward Leadership and Profit-Sharing in the Cross-Level Influence of Individual Pay-For-Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 2 (2015), pp. 417–430.
7. Mercer homepage, www.mercer.com, April 24, 2003.
8. M. J. Ducharme, P. Singh, and M. Podolsky, "Exploring the Links between Performance Appraisals and Pay Satisfaction," Compensation and Benefits Review, September–October 2005, pp. 46–52; K. Murphy and J. Cleveland, Understanding Performance Appraisal (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).
9. Rachel Emma Silverman, "Are You Happy in Your Job? Bosses Push Weekly Surveys," Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2014, p. B1; Theresa M. Welbourne, "The Potential of Pulse Surveys: Transforming Surveys into Leadership Tools," Employment Relations Today 43, no. 1 (2016), pp. 33–39.
10. Joo Hun Han, Kathryn M. Bartol, and Kim Seongsu, "Tightening Up the Performance-Pay Linkage: Roles of Contingent Reward Leadership and Profit-Sharing in the Cross-Level Influence of Individual Pay-For-Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 2 (2015), pp. 417–430.
11. B. Gerhart and S. L. Rynes, Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003).
12. Robert L. Cardy and Gregory H. Dobbins, Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives (Cincinnati: South-Western, 1994).
13. J. Wei, "HealthSouth Becomes Subject of a Congressional Probe," The Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2003, p. C1.
14. W. E. Deming, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986).
15. David Waldman, "The Contributions of Total Quality Management to a Theory of Work Performance," Academy of Management Review 19 (1994), pp. 510–536.
16. David Antonioni, "Improve the Performance Management Process Before Discontinuing Performance Appraisals," Compensation and Benefits Review, May–June 1994, pp. 29–37.
17. Barry Gerhart (2014), Compensation, 14th Edition (McGill Hill)
