Money is complicated.

If you just take a moment to consider what it means to people, you'll find it's potentially a zillion things. Obviously, it pays for performance, or so we hope.

A salesperson earns a commission because he persuaded a customer to buy. Money also pays people to show up. Countless assistants have been salaried to sit in a front office and wait for a phone to ring or someone to walk in.

Money is also a source of status. The more you earn, generally speaking, the more status points you get, at least from others who know they earn less.

We know that money isn't everything; it's just part of an overall compensation package that can include health and retirement benefits, paid vacations, and more.

I was consulting to a company that had a top salesperson, who kept her nose to the grindstone, and she outdistanced her peers by a wide margin. She wasn't necessarily more talented, but to her credit she worked harder.

Initially, I attributed her results to some internalized work ethic that told her it is good and proper to work your hardest, to give your all, and that this intangible motivation fueled her success.

I was wrong. Her manager confessed that she earned secret commissions. She got a percentage of the dollar value of each sale that followed from the appointments she set.

So, her pay was three times that of her peers, and from observing her, she had at least three times their motivation.

But why doesn't the company offer the same plan to everyone?

Not only would this be fair, but wouldn't it be motivating to them, too?

Moreover, the sales leader requires ZE

RO management attention; she is self-directed, 100%. That's what an effective compensation plan can do. It can cut the costs of supervision, dramatically, and the hassles, too.

But I sense that it will be hard to convince the company to alter its existing plan, because like most organizations, once there is a plan in effect, everyone is reluctant to change it.

Pity.

Tell Your Friend