I think when sales folks get large commissions and the other people involved in creating and marketing what gets sold do not, it can be very demotivating for an entire company -- especially if the sales people have an easy job of selling something, as opposed to having to work an account for a year or something like that.
It depends how much the commisions are though.
I think they should always be capped, or rather just track % of quota and use it as a way to compute how much of their quarterly 10% variable pay (or whatever) people get.
Higher base also implies you trust people.
I love the idea of helping the customer first versus pushing for a sale where something might not fit, and if you do that, people will buy things.
This is interesting. Is there anyone who has worked in companies like this willing to talk about how it ends up working out? I've never been in sales but I've never heard of companies not implementing commission.
I think the act of receiving a high bonus as a proxy of your bosses satisfaction is the most valuable part of the performance bonus for some people. For others, the money is the motivator. Works out well both ways.
FTFA: "The reality is that few organizations have figured out how to innovate, adapt, and create amazing things without burning their people out."
This may be an incredibly naive question, but why not implement a 2-3 day work-week and maintain the legacy full-time salaries? Bust serious hump Monday through Wednesday, but every week has a 4-day weekend.
Because most would find it an extreme hindrance to their work. It's really difficult to get something done with such long breaks in between. I'd find it more plausible to have a scheme like southern nations do, siesta in the middle of the day. But any break will slow you down significantly (imo).
I know some Spanish people who find the long "siesta" a hindrance as it means a relatively early start and a late finish due to the large lunchtime break.
I worked just 4 days a week for almost all of my career, for many companies. It is all what you can negotiate. Long term, I think that I did better work always having 3 day weekends, and opened up time for other activities like writing books and getting more exercise.
I can think up two reasons why it wouldn't work in most situations.
1. Management will demand the same amount of productive gains from the work regardless of how many hours work. So, if your workers work three 10 hour days for the week they'll still expect the equivalent they received from a regular 40 hour work week split up between five 8 hour days. This can cause more stress for everyone involved (management included which has to explain why the numbers don't match expectations). So, I can't see any work force universally signing off for such a deal let alone management buying into it themselves.
2. Such a work week would conflict with external clients/vendors which can/will not adopt the same work week, so there will be problems maintaining productivity for them as such. It may be as simple as staggering the work force's schedule but I can see this leading to hiring more workers for the same task which will increase the cost of doing business. So, it's going to be cost more until other firms adopt the same schedule.
While all of us could list hundreds of unique reasons
why we do virtually anything, our research shows most of
them can be neatly grouped into six fundamental motives:
Play
Purpose
Potential
Emotional pressure
Economic pressure
Inertia
The first three boost performance, the latter destroy it.
17 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 54.2 ms ] threadIn my opinion a passion for something is a better motivator than a big bonus. Although a big bonus does contribute!
It depends how much the commisions are though.
I think they should always be capped, or rather just track % of quota and use it as a way to compute how much of their quarterly 10% variable pay (or whatever) people get.
Higher base also implies you trust people.
I love the idea of helping the customer first versus pushing for a sale where something might not fit, and if you do that, people will buy things.
http://www.tintup.com/blog/why-our-startup-got-rid-of-sales-...
http://www.samihonkonen.com/a-sales-team-without-bonuses/
http://www.yesware.com/blog/moving-salespeople-off-a-bonus-h...
This may be an incredibly naive question, but why not implement a 2-3 day work-week and maintain the legacy full-time salaries? Bust serious hump Monday through Wednesday, but every week has a 4-day weekend.
I hate vacations, they screw up my output for weeks after. Even the weekend takes a day or two to recover from.
1. Management will demand the same amount of productive gains from the work regardless of how many hours work. So, if your workers work three 10 hour days for the week they'll still expect the equivalent they received from a regular 40 hour work week split up between five 8 hour days. This can cause more stress for everyone involved (management included which has to explain why the numbers don't match expectations). So, I can't see any work force universally signing off for such a deal let alone management buying into it themselves.
2. Such a work week would conflict with external clients/vendors which can/will not adopt the same work week, so there will be problems maintaining productivity for them as such. It may be as simple as staggering the work force's schedule but I can see this leading to hiring more workers for the same task which will increase the cost of doing business. So, it's going to be cost more until other firms adopt the same schedule.
I mean, it's one thing to say that your company should be aiming somewhere else. It's quite another to specify the steps that will get people there.