Differentiating Employee Value Proposition for the Sales Force Scott Sands Global Practice Leader, Sales Force Effectiveness Hewitt Associates
Presentation Overview Elements of the Employee Value Proposition Hypothesis 1: Sales people, as long suspected, will be highly motivated by short-term cash compensation Hypothesis 2: Senior sales reps criteria evolve to be different from junior reps, specifically increasing value on noncompensation elements Hypothesis 3: Both top performing and highly engaged reps will be more focused on Selling Environment factors than pure compensation, independent of geography Findings and Conclusions 2
The WorldatWork s EVP Model 3
Surveyed EVP Elements Specific to Sales Direct Financial Compensation Base Salary Target Incentive Upside Availability Equity Indirect Financial Compensation Healthcare Retirement PTO Company Car 4
Surveyed EVP Elements Specific to Sales Company Affiliation Company Strength Company Culture Career Development Advancement Opportunities Training Selling Environment Quota Size Leadflow 5
Survey Methodology Gathered responses from over 1200 sales representatives and first line managers Used online survey tool Combined rate-and-rank questions with a conjoint lite approach to determining trade-offs and preferences Survey was open for two months during the Winter of 2009 a unique economic period There is a relatively even mix of industries, seniority, geographies and hierarchy, but we are keeping the survey open to encourage more submissions and monitor change over time 6
Why did we feel this research was critical? The sales role is significantly different than other corporate roles: Independent Remote Direct Line of Sight to Financial Results Customer Contact Pay Premium Risk Intense We did not see previous research addressing unique aspects of the sales role Companies need high ROI tools for this economic period 7
We see sales teams leaning heavily on compensation, instead of other levers Understand Business Drivers Customer Insight Business Strategies Value Proposition Competitive Dynamics Align the Sales Force Organization Design Talent Management Performance and Rewards Selling and Service Model Job Roles and Structure Deployment Planning Recruiting and Selection Career Paths Training and Development Compensation and Recognition Quotas and Measurement Performance Management Realize Business Impact Creating a sales structure that is effective in meeting customer needs in an efficient manner Ensuring the availability of the right talent for the right role at the right time Maximizing the productivity of an engaged sales force to exceed business goals We help our clients improve sales performance by getting the most out of their investments in sales people, creating a rewarding environment for sales people and company shareholders 8
Even the sub-components of sales compensation have unique appeal 1. Business Objectives, Sales Strategy, & Roles 2. Eligibility 5. Upside Opportunity 8. Quotas/Crediting 3. Target Pay Levels 6. Measures/Weights 9. Payout Timing 4. Pay Mix 7. Mechanics 10. Administration Competitive Aligned Effective 9
Hypothesis 1: Sales people are highly motivated by short-term cash compensation Importance of Each Factor in Deciding Whether to Stay in Role or Take Another Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Health Benefits Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Retirement Benefits Company Strength Company Culture Paid Time Off Quota Size Sales Training Provided Value of Sales Leads Provided Equity/Stock Grants Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 10
Hypothesis 1: Sales people are highly motivated by short-term cash compensation Importance of Each Factor in Motivating You to Perform Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Quota Size Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Health Benefits Company Culture Paid Time Off Retirement Benefits Company Strength Equity/Stock Grants Value of Sales Leads Provided Sales Training Provided Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 11
Evaluating Base, Variable and Quota (total population) Package Description # of Respondents % of Respondents Package Base Variable Quota n Top Bottom Top Bottom Rank A $50,000 $50,000 $1.1 M 957 29 63 3% 7% 2.9 B $40,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 954 6 618 1% 65% 4.2 C $40,000 $60,000 $1.0 M 950 63 93 7% 10% 3.3 D $60,000 $40,000 $1.2 M 952 78 117 8% 12% 2.6 E $60,000 $40,000 $1.0 M 962 467 22 49% 2% 1.7 F $50,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 957 320 38 33% 4% 2.0 12
Evaluating Base, Variable and Quota (total population) Package Description # of Respondents % of Respondents Package Base Variable Quota n Top Bottom Top Bottom Rank A $50,000 $50,000 $1.1 M 957 29 63 3% 7% 2.9 B $40,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 954 6 618 1% 65% 4.2 C $40,000 $60,000 $1.0 M 950 63 93 7% 10% 3.3 D $60,000 $40,000 $1.2 M 952 78 117 8% 12% 2.6 E $60,000 $40,000 $1.0 M 962 467 22 49% 2% 1.7 F $50,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 957 320 38 33% 4% 2.0 13
Evaluating Base, Variable and Quota (total population) Package Description # of Respondents % of Respondents Package Base Variable Quota n Top Bottom Top Bottom Rank A $50,000 $50,000 $1.1 M 957 29 63 3% 7% 2.9 B $40,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 954 6 618 1% 65% 4.2 C $40,000 $60,000 $1.0 M 950 63 93 7% 10% 3.3 D $60,000 $40,000 $1.2 M 952 78 117 8% 12% 2.6 E $60,000 $40,000 $1.0 M 962 467 22 49% 2% 1.7 F $50,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 957 320 38 33% 4% 2.0 14
Evaluating Base, Variable and Quota (total population) Package Description # of Respondents % of Respondents Package Base Variable Quota n Top Bottom Top Bottom Rank A $50,000 $50,000 $1.1 M 957 29 63 3% 7% 2.9 B $40,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 954 6 618 1% 65% 4.2 C $40,000 $60,000 $1.0 M 950 63 93 7% 10% 3.3 D $60,000 $40,000 $1.2 M 952 78 117 8% 12% 2.6 E $60,000 $40,000 $1.0 M 962 467 22 49% 2% 1.7 F $50,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 957 320 38 33% 4% 2.0 15
Evaluating Base, Variable and Quota (total population) Package Description # of Respondents % of Respondents Package Base Variable Quota n Top Bottom Top Bottom Rank A $50,000 $50,000 $1.1 M 957 29 63 3% 7% 2.9 B $40,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 954 6 618 1% 65% 4.2 C $40,000 $60,000 $1.0 M 950 63 93 7% 10% 3.3 D $60,000 $40,000 $1.2 M 952 78 117 8% 12% 2.6 E $60,000 $40,000 $1.0 M 962 467 22 49% 2% 1.7 F $50,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 957 320 38 33% 4% 2.0 16
Evaluating Base, Variable and Quota (total population) Package Description # of Respondents % of Respondents Package Base Variable Quota n Top Bottom Top Bottom Rank A $50,000 $50,000 $1.1 M 957 29 63 3% 7% 2.9 B $40,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 954 6 618 1% 65% 4.2 C $40,000 $60,000 $1.0 M 950 63 93 7% 10% 3.3 D $60,000 $40,000 $1.2 M 952 78 117 8% 12% 2.6 E $60,000 $40,000 $1.0 M 962 467 22 49% 2% 1.7 F $50,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 957 320 38 33% 4% 2.0 17
Evaluating Base, Variable and Quota (total population) Package Description # of Respondents % of Respondents Package Base Variable Quota n Top Bottom Top Bottom Rank A $50,000 $50,000 $1.1 M 957 29 63 3% 7% 2.9 B $40,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 954 6 618 1% 65% 4.2 C $40,000 $60,000 $1.0 M 950 63 93 7% 10% 3.3 D $60,000 $40,000 $1.2 M 952 78 117 8% 12% 2.6 E $60,000 $40,000 $1.0 M 962 467 22 49% 2% 1.7 F $50,000 $60,000 $1.2 M 957 320 38 33% 4% 2.0 18
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Acceleration (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Above Quota Acceleration n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank A $1.1 M 50/50 2x 929 13 87 1% 9% 3.3 B $1.2 M 40/60 2x 925 3 612 0% 66% 4.1 C $1.0 M 40/60 3x 928 215 45 23% 5% 2.6 D $1.2 M 60/40 3x 936 448 21 48% 2% 1.6 E $1.0 M 60/40 2x 929 155 125 17% 13% 2.5 F $1.2 M 50/50 3x 934 102 37 11% 4% 2.1 19
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Acceleration (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Above Quota Acceleration n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank A $1.1 M 50/50 2x 929 13 87 1% 9% 3.3 B $1.2 M 40/60 2x 925 3 612 0% 66% 4.1 C $1.0 M 40/60 3x 928 215 45 23% 5% 2.6 D $1.2 M 60/40 3x 936 448 21 48% 2% 1.6 E $1.0 M 60/40 2x 929 155 125 17% 13% 2.5 F $1.2 M 50/50 3x 934 102 37 11% 4% 2.1 20
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Acceleration (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Above Quota Acceleration n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank A $1.1 M 50/50 2x 929 13 87 1% 9% 3.3 B $1.2 M 40/60 2x 925 3 612 0% 66% 4.1 C $1.0 M 40/60 3x 928 215 45 23% 5% 2.6 D $1.2 M 60/40 3x 936 448 21 48% 2% 1.6 E $1.0 M 60/40 2x 929 155 125 17% 13% 2.5 F $1.2 M 50/50 3x 934 102 37 11% 4% 2.1 21
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Acceleration (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Above Quota Acceleration n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank A $1.1 M 50/50 2x 929 13 87 1% 9% 3.3 B $1.2 M 40/60 2x 925 3 612 0% 66% 4.1 C $1.0 M 40/60 3x 928 215 45 23% 5% 2.6 D $1.2 M 60/40 3x 936 448 21 48% 2% 1.6 E $1.0 M 60/40 2x 929 155 125 17% 13% 2.5 F $1.2 M 50/50 3x 934 102 37 11% 4% 2.1 22
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Acceleration (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Above Quota Acceleration n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank A $1.1 M 50/50 2x 929 13 87 1% 9% 3.3 B $1.2 M 40/60 2x 925 3 612 0% 66% 4.1 C $1.0 M 40/60 3x 928 215 45 23% 5% 2.6 D $1.2 M 60/40 3x 936 448 21 48% 2% 1.6 E $1.0 M 60/40 2x 929 155 125 17% 13% 2.5 F $1.2 M 50/50 3x 934 102 37 11% 4% 2.1 23
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Acceleration (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Above Quota Acceleration n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank A $1.1 M 50/50 2x 929 13 87 1% 9% 3.3 B $1.2 M 40/60 2x 925 3 612 0% 66% 4.1 C $1.0 M 40/60 3x 928 215 45 23% 5% 2.6 D $1.2 M 60/40 3x 936 448 21 48% 2% 1.6 E $1.0 M 60/40 2x 929 155 125 17% 13% 2.5 F $1.2 M 50/50 3x 934 102 37 11% 4% 2.1 24
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Acceleration (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Above Quota Acceleration n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank A $1.1 M 50/50 2x 929 13 87 1% 9% 3.3 B $1.2 M 40/60 2x 925 3 612 0% 66% 4.1 C $1.0 M 40/60 3x 928 215 45 23% 5% 2.6 D $1.2 M 60/40 3x 936 448 21 48% 2% 1.6 E $1.0 M 60/40 2x 929 155 125 17% 13% 2.5 F $1.2 M 50/50 3x 934 102 37 11% 4% 2.1 25
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Leadflow (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Qualified Leads n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank* A $1.1 M 60/40 500 884 357 68 40% 8% 1.8 B $1.2 M 60/40 600 885 227 97 26% 11% 2.0 C $1.0 M 40/60 500 882 102 214 12% 24% 3.2 D $1.2 M 40/60 600 882 54 358 6% 41% 3.4 E $1.0 M 50/50 600 888 129 21 15% 2% 2.1 F $1.2 M 50/50 500 885 22 124 2% 14% 3.0 26
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Leadflow (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Qualified Leads n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank* A $1.1 M 60/40 500 884 357 68 40% 8% 1.8 B $1.2 M 60/40 600 885 227 97 26% 11% 2.0 C $1.0 M 40/60 500 882 102 214 12% 24% 3.2 D $1.2 M 40/60 600 882 54 358 6% 41% 3.4 E $1.0 M 50/50 600 888 129 21 15% 2% 2.1 F $1.2 M 50/50 500 885 22 124 2% 14% 3.0 27
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Leadflow (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Qualified Leads n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank* A $1.1 M 60/40 500 884 357 68 40% 8% 1.8 B $1.2 M 60/40 600 885 227 97 26% 11% 2.0 C $1.0 M 40/60 500 882 102 214 12% 24% 3.2 D $1.2 M 40/60 600 882 54 358 6% 41% 3.4 E $1.0 M 50/50 600 888 129 21 15% 2% 2.1 F $1.2 M 50/50 500 885 22 124 2% 14% 3.0 28
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Leadflow (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Qualified Leads n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank* A $1.1 M 60/40 500 884 357 68 40% 8% 1.8 B $1.2 M 60/40 600 885 227 97 26% 11% 2.0 C $1.0 M 40/60 500 882 102 214 12% 24% 3.2 D $1.2 M 40/60 600 882 54 358 6% 41% 3.4 E $1.0 M 50/50 600 888 129 21 15% 2% 2.1 F $1.2 M 50/50 500 885 22 124 2% 14% 3.0 29
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Leadflow (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Qualified Leads n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank* A $1.1 M 60/40 500 884 357 68 40% 8% 1.8 B $1.2 M 60/40 600 885 227 97 26% 11% 2.0 C $1.0 M 40/60 500 882 102 214 12% 24% 3.2 D $1.2 M 40/60 600 882 54 358 6% 41% 3.4 E $1.0 M 50/50 600 888 129 21 15% 2% 2.1 F $1.2 M 50/50 500 885 22 124 2% 14% 3.0 30
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Leadflow (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Qualified Leads n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank* A $1.1 M 60/40 500 884 357 68 40% 8% 1.8 B $1.2 M 60/40 600 885 227 97 26% 11% 2.0 C $1.0 M 40/60 500 882 102 214 12% 24% 3.2 D $1.2 M 40/60 600 882 54 358 6% 41% 3.4 E $1.0 M 50/50 600 888 129 21 15% 2% 2.1 F $1.2 M 50/50 500 885 22 124 2% 14% 3.0 31
Evaluating Quota, Mix and Leadflow (total population) Package Description Package Quota Pay Mix # of Respondents % of Respondents Qualified Leads n Top Bottom Top Bottom Average Rank* A $1.1 M 60/40 500 884 357 68 40% 8% 1.8 B $1.2 M 60/40 600 885 227 97 26% 11% 2.0 C $1.0 M 40/60 500 882 102 214 12% 24% 3.2 D $1.2 M 40/60 600 882 54 358 6% 41% 3.4 E $1.0 M 50/50 600 888 129 21 15% 2% 2.1 F $1.2 M 50/50 500 885 22 124 2% 14% 3.0 32
Each package has a different payout rep confidence is critical to assessing value Six Packages - Payout Payout $200,000.00 $180,000.00 $160,000.00 $140,000.00 $120,000.00 $100,000.00 $80,000.00 $60,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 Avg. Lead Value A B C D E F 33
Hypothesis 2: Senior sales reps are driven by different elements than junior reps Importance of Each Factor in Deciding Whether to Stay in Role or Take Another (<10 Years in Sales) Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Health Benefits Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Retirement Benefits Company Strength Company Culture Paid Time Off Quota Size Sales Training Provided Value of Sales Leads Provided Equity/Stock Grants Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 34
Hypothesis 2: Senior sales reps are driven by different elements than junior reps Importance of Each Factor in Motivating You to Perform (<10 Years in Sales) Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Quota Size Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Health Benefits Company Culture Paid Time Off Retirement Benefits Company Strength Equity/Stock Grants Value of Sales Leads Provided Sales Training Provided Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 35
Hypothesis 2: Senior sales reps are driven by different elements than junior reps Importance of Each Factor in Deciding Whether to Stay in Role or Take Another (>10 Years in Sales) Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Health Benefits X Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Retirement Benefits Company Strength Company Culture Paid Time Off Quota Size Sales Training Provided Value of Sales Leads Provided Equity/Stock Grants Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 36
Hypothesis 2: Senior sales reps are driven by different elements than junior reps Importance of Each Factor in Motivating You to Perform (>10 Years in Sales) Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Quota Size? Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Health Benefits Company Culture Paid Time Off Retirement Benefits Company Strength Equity/Stock Grants Value of Sales Leads Provided Sales Training Provided Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 37
Over time, base salary becomes less important as sales people select a package 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 2yrs First Packages - Drivers by Sales Tenure 2-5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15yrs 15-20yrs 20-25yrs Over 25yrs X Base Salary Quota TTC 38
Over time, upside acceleration becomes more important to senior sales people 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 2yrs Second Packages - Drivers by Sales Tenure 2-5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15yrs 15-20yrs 20-25yrs Over 25yrs X Base Salary Quota Accelerator 39
Over time, leadflow becomes moderately more important to senior sales people 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 2yrs Third Packages - Drivers by Sales Tenure 2-5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15yrs 15-20yrs 20-25yrs Over 25yrs X Base Salary Quota Leadflow 40
Top performers selection criteria mirrored the overall populations priorities Variable Incentive Opportunity Importance of Each Factor in Deciding Whether to Stay in Role or Take Another Base Salary Health Benefits (Top 10% Performers) X Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Retirement Benefits Company Strength Company Culture Paid Time Off Quota Size Sales Training Provided Value of Sales Leads Provided Equity/Stock Grants Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 41
Top performers also showed a distinct reliance on variable pay for motivation Importance of Each Factor in Motivating You to Perform (Top 10% Performers) Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Quota Size X Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Health Benefits Company Culture Paid Time Off Retirement Benefits Company Strength Equity/Stock Grants Value of Sales Leads Provided Sales Training Provided Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 42
Highly engaged sales people tend to credit the strength of the company with their status Importance of Each Factor in Deciding Whether to Stay in Role or Take Another (Highly Engaged) Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Health Benefits Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Retirement Benefits Company Strength Company Culture Paid Time Off Quota Size Sales Training Provided Value of Sales Leads Provided Equity/Stock Grants Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 43
Highly engaged sales people are still motivated by variable pay, but career rises Importance of Each Factor in Motivating You to Perform (Highly Engaged) Variable Incentive Opportunity Base Salary Quota Size X Future Career Advancement Percent of Respondents Health Benefits Company Culture Paid Time Off Retirement Benefits Company Strength Equity/Stock Grants Value of Sales Leads Provided Sales Training Provided Recognition Trip Company Car 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not a Consideration Not Important, but Considered Important Critical 44
What did sales people have to say? All the above compensation plans are only relevant if quotas are set accurately. Without realistic quotas there will be a major lack of motivation. Six years ago I would have chosen the higher risk, lower base pay and higher incentive plan because business was good and it was easier to hit my quota. Having a base salary that you can exist on is critical. If I don't have to stress about making enough to support my family - I work much harder to over achieve on the incentive part of my compensation. Accelerators are no benefit if targets are set so high that that they are unattainable. 45
What did sales people have to say? Effective sales people always set their sight beyond the 100% achievement. Incentives after quota is what makes the game interesting and keeps me motivated. Sales leads mean nothing in this job we create our own and do not need Marketing to do it for us, as they are usually off base and its a waste of money and time. Preference is going to be for a higher at risk when combined with higher multipliers. If the risk and multiplier is reduced, then the quota should be reduced as effort and risk is no longer proportional. Due to the global economic environment it'd work better to have either an aggressive plan with small quotas or a conservative plan with high quotas. 46
What did sales people have to say? I'd like a careful balance of being able to make a lot of money when I hit big, but not having to survive on Ramen noodles when I don't. Base salary is used by the banks to determine my ability to secure a loan, so it has disproportionate importance relative to other types of incentive plus the taxes in my country penalize bonuses. Just as important as some of these factors is the amount of authority the sales person has at the local level flexibility is critical to execution. 47
What can we conclude? Hypothesis #1 (Confirmed) Variable incentive opportunity, followed by base pay dominated the attractors and motivators for almost all segments. Career advancement showed better than expected, especially with junior or Asian sales people. Company strength affected job selection and engagement. Hypothesis #2 (Mixed) Base salary shows a marked decline in importance over a sales person s career. TTC and accelerators show a marked increase in importance over time. Quotas and leadflow remain a tertiary consideration. Hypothesis #3 (Rejected) Top performing and highly engaged sales people still care most about compensation, except in parts of Asia and Europe where career advancement and company strength matter most 48
Other interesting observations: While variable pay is stated as the top priority by almost all groups, most sales people currently choose base salary over other factors when presented with packages Recognition and car allowances, often touted in sales organizations, may be prime opportunities for cost savings Women tended to have a more balanced perspective, assessing a company s culture, strength and benefits more than men Half of all people surveyed viewed themselves as 90 th percentile performers companies should harness that optimism in this economy 49
Additional Information Stop by our booth if you d like more information Elements of the Employee Value Proposition for Sales Sales Compensation Design Sales Force Effectiveness Hewitt s Booth #909 E-mail: scott.sands@hewitt.com Mobile: 404.276.7876 50
Appendix 51
Composition of the Sample Participants by Gender Female 26% Percent of Participants Who are Engaged in Their Work Yes 30% Male 74% n=940 No 70% n=937 Participants by Age Participants by Performance Level Under 30 16% Over 60 1% 50-59 7% 30-39 47% 75%ile 35% 90%ile 49% 40-49 29% n=947 50%ile 13% 25%ile 2% 10%ile 1% n=950 52
Composition of the Sample Participants by Salary as Percent of Total Income Participants by Sales Experience Number of Respondents 250 200 150 100 50 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of Respondents 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Less than 2yrs 2-5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15yrs 15-20yrs 20-25yrs Over 25yrs Fixed Salary as % of Total Income n=942 Years in a Sales Role n=949 53
Professional Biography Scott Sands Scott Sands is a Principal and Sales Force Effectiveness Practice Leader located in Atlanta, Georgia. He works with senior executives in large, global companies to identify opportunities for revenue growth, select the proper sales channels, refine selling processes and messages for specific market segments, staff organizations with the right type and number of sales professionals, set fair but challenging goals, and design motivational incentives. He has 18 years of experience in industry and with leading professional service firms, including Briggs & Sands Consulting, Sibson Consulting, The Alexander Group, and Watson Wyatt. His recent client work includes: Fortune 1000 telecommunications, technology, pharmaceutical, insurance, banking, energy, and heavy manufacturing companies including: Adobe, Assurant, AT&T, Avaya, British Petroleum, Broadcom, Cisco, Cox Communications, CSC, Dell, Electrolux, EMC, General Electric, Intelsat, Johnson & Johnson, Merial, MetLife, National Semiconductor, Nortel, Northrop Grumman, Qwest, Roche, SonyEricsson, Sprint, Symantec, Travelers, Unisource, Verizon, VeriSign, and WellCare. Scott is a frequent author and speaker at national conferences. His work has appeared in Workspan, Selling Power, SAMA's Velocity, and Sales & Marketing Executive Review. In 2006, he co-authored the WorldatWork's bestselling book Sales Compensation Essentials. Scott holds a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Mathematics from Vanderbilt University and a MBA with a focus in Marketing and Organization Effectiveness from The University of Texas. Scott oversees all dedicated Sales Force Effectiveness consulting resources in North America. He coordinates with global Hewitt Talent and Organization Consulting resources to ensure that this fast-growing segment delivers proven approaches, cutting-edge insight, and client business impact. 54