Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

Are sales incentives encouraging discounts you cannot afford?

Investigate discount pressure by following the rewards attached to an actual deal. Compare what the salesperson earns, what the company retains, and what delivery must provide. A compensation plan that rewards signatures may create different choices from a plan intended to reward profitable business.

Extrinsic motivation is doing an activity for a separable outcome, such as a reward, rather than for enjoyment of the activity itself. Ryan and Deci explain the distinction in their 2000 paper, Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. They also distinguish different forms of extrinsic motivation.

Their theory does not establish that commissions always damage performance or that this company’s compensation caused a particular discount. Use the concept to examine the reward structure. Test the commercial explanation against deal records and the terms people actually work under.

A pricing problem may begin before procurement calls

The customer asks for a reduction. Sales says the discount is necessary to close. Finance questions the margin. Delivery receives the same service obligation with less revenue available to support it.

Before blaming the seller’s discipline, inspect the incentives surrounding the decision. Does quota credit depend on signed revenue, collected revenue, margin, or another measure? Does a period-end deadline change the seller’s reward? Does the approval system account for concessions outside the price field?

A salesperson can follow the published rules and still make choices leadership dislikes. That possibility deserves investigation before the company adds another reminder to protect margin.

The negotiation and pricing guide addresses the customer-facing exchange. This review examines the internal exchange that shapes which offer reaches the customer.

The quarter-end result that follows you home

Consider a composite CEO who opens the quarter’s sales summary after dinner. The revenue target appears within reach. A second spreadsheet shows discounted contracts and delivery commitments that leave less contribution than expected.

The next morning, sales explains that those deals were the available route to quota. Finance explains why the resulting work strains capacity. Both accounts may describe the same system accurately.

The CEO needs to reconcile the rules and deal economics before turning the evening’s frustration into a compensation announcement. An improvised change can create uncertainty about earnings and expose the company to disputes.

Compensation terms, earned pay, employment rules, and contract changes require review by qualified HR, finance, and employment counsel. Do not withhold, recover, or retroactively change compensation because this article suggests an audit.

Conduct an incentive-to-discount trace

An incentive-to-discount trace follows a selected transaction from the published plan through the seller’s decision and the company’s delivery economics. This is a proposed diagnostic method, not a validated causal test.

Start with a small, relevant sample rather than a company-wide accusation. Include discounted wins, comparable full-price wins when available, and losses. Preserve the context that made the deals different.

1. Reconstruct the reward rules in force

Collect the version of the compensation plan that applied when each deal was negotiated. Identify quota credit, commission basis, accelerators, payment timing, eligibility conditions, and approval rules.

Ask payroll or the plan owner to confirm the calculation. A slide deck describing the intended plan may differ from the formula used in practice. Record any discrepancy before interpreting behavior.

Check how people learned the rules. A formally margin-sensitive plan may be experienced as revenue-only if managers repeatedly emphasize signatures and treat other conditions as exceptions. Document the communications rather than assuming the written plan tells the whole story.

2. Calculate the seller’s available choices

For one deal, compare plausible offers using the actual compensation formula. Show how price, timing, scope, and payment conditions affect the seller’s reward and quota position.

Use realistic alternatives the seller could have offered at that point. Comparing an actual discounted agreement with an imaginary effortless full-price sale does not reveal the decision they faced.

Ask the seller to explain what they believed would happen under each option. Treat the explanation as useful context and compare it with records. A mistaken understanding of the plan calls for a different remedy from a formula that deliberately rewards the observed choice.

3. Trace the company’s full concession

Combine the price reduction with extra implementation, support, financing, custom work, and contractual exposure. Involve delivery and finance in defining the relevant cost assumptions.

Avoid presenting uncertain cost estimates as audited profit. Label estimates, identify their owner, and show which assumptions could change the conclusion. Some concessions may be commercially justified by a documented benefit elsewhere in the package.

Then compare the seller’s reward with the company’s result. A large commission on a thin-contribution deal is a design question. It does not, by itself, establish misconduct or prove the seller could have closed better terms.

4. Compare the incentive explanation with competing causes

Review buyer requirements, competition, product fit, market conditions, approval delays, and delivery constraints. A discount can have several causes, and the compensation plan may be only one.

Look for records that challenge the preferred explanation. Did sellers with the same reward rules maintain price on similar deals? Did discounts rise when a product limitation appeared? Were managers approving exceptions that the plan did not require?

Review competitive losses alongside wins. A discount policy can look successful if the company counts signatures while ignoring the economics of won work or the reasons other buyers declined.

5. Design a reviewed change and monitor its effects

If the evidence warrants a compensation change, have the authorized specialists develop and review it. Explain the intended behavior, effective date, calculation, exceptions, and transition treatment before implementation.

Use a limited, approved evaluation where feasible. Monitor whether a margin measure leads sellers to avoid suitable customers, hide service concessions, or shift timing. A rule can solve one visible problem while moving the behavior elsewhere.

Keep an escalation route for mistakes in calculation or interpretation. An employee should be able to ask how a deal was credited without that question becoming an accusation of poor commitment.

A hypothetical deal makes the mismatch visible

Suppose a seller receives credit for signed recurring revenue, while custom implementation effort does not reduce that credit. A buyer asks for a lower subscription price and additional setup work near period-end.

The seller can meet a target by offering both, subject to approval. Finance later sees reduced revenue; delivery sees the extra setup. The seller sees a qualifying signature. These are proposed circumstances for analysis, not a claim about your company.

The trace might show that approval records omitted the setup estimate. In that case, changing commission alone may miss the immediate process failure. The company could first require delivery review for specified custom commitments, using an authorized policy.

A useful internal question is:

“Under the plan currently in force, what does this package reward the seller for doing, and what work does it commit us to deliver? Let us calculate both before deciding whether the rule or the approval process needs to change.”

That wording makes the calculation inspectable. It does not ask the salesperson to accept a new pay rule in the meeting.

Do not confuse fair-pay arguments with causal evidence

Thompson and Loewenstein’s 1992 bargaining experiments address self-serving fairness interpretations. They provide a reason to examine competing accounts carefully. They do not determine a fair commission rate or decide an employment dispute.

Sales may emphasize the difficulty of winning. Finance may emphasize the cost of serving. Managers may emphasize targets they set themselves. Ask each group to provide the records behind its account.

The audit should distinguish three questions: what the company promised to pay, what choices the plan encouraged, and what future design would better serve the business. Combining them can turn a useful investigation into an argument over whether already-earned compensation was deserved.

Alternatives matter inside the company too

Harvard’s BATNA guidance emphasizes realistic alternatives and comparison of terms. Before approving a discount, identify what the company could do if the buyer declines the current package. The alternative may involve a later start, a smaller scope, or another available use of capacity.

A quota deadline does not make those options disappear. It can, however, change which option the salesperson experiences as personally viable. Understanding that difference is part of the trace.

Supplier-change barriers also matter when the buyer faces real switching costs. Do not assume those costs justify any price or guarantee that a buyer will accept. Use verified requirements and feasible alternatives to evaluate the proposed package.

The unintended-behavior audit extends this reasoning beyond discounts. Inspect what a new rule encourages people to omit, defer, or relabel as well as what it explicitly rewards.

Check the next reporting cycle for displacement

After an approved change, inspect the same kinds of records used in the initial trace. Compare concessions, delivery requirements, calculated compensation, and the reasons attached to exceptions.

A lower headline discount may conceal free services. A stronger margin figure may reflect delayed costs or unsuitable assumptions. Ask delivery whether the resulting contracts are easier to fulfill under their actual staffing and scope.

Also ask sellers whether the revised rules are understandable and whether they can calculate a likely outcome before making an offer. Ambiguity about pay can defeat the stated purpose of the change.

Record unresolved effects rather than announcing victory after one improved metric. You need enough context to see whether the intended behavior changed and whether the company merely moved the concession into another field.

Make the commercial trade-off explicit

The CEO’s role is to reconcile the reward, approval, and delivery systems. Sales should understand the offer it can make. Finance should see the concession’s economic basis. Delivery should approve the work it will inherit.

A trace is useful when it produces a specific correction: a clearer calculation, a reviewed incentive design, an earlier capacity check, or a better account of why a discount was justified.

Keep the existing compensation commitments separate from proposals for the future. The company can investigate a harmful incentive while honoring its obligations and following the proper process for any change.

Sources

Steady at the Top