Mark Roberge’s Post

View profile for Mark Roberge, graphic

Co-Founder @ Stage 2 Capital, Prof @HarvardHBS; Founding CRO @HubSpot; Author of Best Seller "The Sales Acceleration Formula"

Hypothesis: “The sales compensation plan for your first sales hire attracts the wrong person and motivates the wrong behavior.”  On the most recent episode of the #TheScienceOfScaling podcast, I explore this statement with Nick Dellis, VP of Revenue at Mercury, one of the FinTech unicorns in the recent class of growth startups. Using this compensation strategy, he has established strong cultural foundations upon which to instigate scale. I left the conversation with more conviction to lean into best practices on early-stage sales compensation that I teach at Harvard Business School and in the Science of Scaling playbook. Rather than utilizing a traditional sales commission plan for the first sales hires, instead pay them 80% or so of their market OTE and give them an equity stake appropriate for their role and the stage of your startup. Here are the reasons why a traditional sales commission plan is wrong at this stage: (1) It attracts the wrong candidate. A traditional sales compensation plan attracts a coin-operated salesperson, which can yield high-performing sellers but only when the company has the foundation in place to make them successful. The most important value this first hire brings to the company is not necessarily the first wave of customers but, more importantly, a massive influx of feedback generated by dozens of sales conversations each week. To unlock this value, we need an individual who is almost half product manager and half seller. (2) At this stage, we are usually in product-market-fit discovery mode, requiring frequent reflections on feedback from the market and rapid iterations on our product value proposition and ICP. However, sellers on a commission plan are more short-term revenue-focused and will be motivated to sign up any customer rather than instigate necessary product pivots and build a foundation of the right customers. (3) The north star metric for the entire organization at this stage should be the Leading Indicator of Retention (#LIR), not maximizing ARR or ACVs.  The traditional sales commission plan misaligns the seller with this north star, incenting them to sign up any customer for as large an ACV as possible, which could lead to an unrecoverable churn/contraction issue one year later. I do believe a sales commission plan should be implemented during the scale stage, but after PMF is achieved and during the Go-To-Market-Fit phase. But Nick is proving that theory wrong. It's quite an intriguing case study. Have a listen here.  https://lnk.to/TSOS!mr

Ken Smith, MBA, M. Ed.

Growth accelerator, product designer, climate action leader

1mo

The key to this strategy is the product team needs to listen to and consider the sales team partners in product design. If sales brings back intel from the market that product ignores, PMF will take longer risking a second round of investment; and what could have been a very successful and effective sales person will move on to a different team that will listen and partner with sales, and the first company will have to start all over again. Early on product & sales must be inseparable.

Patrick J. King

Business Development - Digital Marketing | Digital Strategy | Customer Experience | B2B | B2C | Retail & eCommerce, Professional Services | Education | Healthcare | NFP

1mo

Totally agree, 100%. Too many businesses don't understand that developing long term relationships, which they advocate they want initially, can take time, especially from 'cold'. Although, once in, it's always a case of "how quick can you get a deal"?. Good candidates and employees therefore don't feel a real part of the team, even when you hold a 'senior' position. It is such poor business practice and disrespectful to established sales and business development professionals. I've witnessed many potential long term and fruitful partnerships scuppered by not empowering and understanding the vital role they/we play.

After advising a few very early companies Mark Roberge I can't tell you how much I AGREE with this approach. We need athletes that can do more than just dial ... but you also need hard core hunters too ... so I think it's important to really understand where the company, product and market are and then decide. But no matter, I love the 80% OTE rule of thumb!

Joe Ippolito

Sandler- Sales and Leadership Trainer, Coach & Consultant

1mo

The biggest assumption and mistake leaders make with salespeople is to believe that their #1 motivation is money. Now money of course is important, but there are many other factors to motivate to the highest level of consistency and performance. And btw, they don’t leave you for the money either.

Vladislav Semenov

Sales Leader, Founding AE in AI, SaaS, >20,000 hours in startups, No Churn in 4+ Years

1mo

Fun podcast. I backed into a hybrid of this! As the founding sales person who had little control but I willing CEO partner there’s ways the sales person can take back some control. #1: share recordings and feedback with the product team. Don’t guide them to a solution just share data. #2 get buy in on what problems are scale across the target market and that product will align if you find a customer with a budget, pain and the willingness to collaborate. #3 sell the idea of design partnerships, where product delivers a vision for the solution and one it two customers bring the data/problem. It takes time and patience but you build a real customer connection. It’s part of the reason why I left my last full time role with 0 customer churn ite joining a company with less than 10 people and scaling it to over 100. To take care of the compensation part, when negotiating your stock options create a spiff that doubles your shares, make it based on the non sales things you’ll do and get buy in every quarter (confirm via email from your CEO) that you’re achieving these. Similar to the bi-annual review Nick covered I agree that early stage sales people need to be compensated differently because they lay the plumbing.

Like
Reply
Dominic Blank

🏗 On a mission to build a new pool of great sales talent | 👩🏫 Enabling sales teams with continuous and individualized training I 🔥 Passionate sales entrepreneur

1mo

Also reflects my experience. Founders are often oblivious to the fact that it takes a different skill set at the beginning. Its about discovery and nailing product market and message market fit. Experienced reps incentivized by their comp plan often get frustrated that good execution doesn't get them to where they want to be (yet).

Pierre Schramm

Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) | collect.AI | Ex-Billwerk+ | Mastership Revenue Architecture (WbD) | Deloitte Technology Fast 50 Award Winner | SaaS | Software | Artificial Intelligence | Go To Market | RevOps |

1mo

Virtual shares (VSPOS) proved their worth in the early phase of my startup, as did long-term incentives. In fact, I would undercut the 80% and compensate with a higher shareholding. Direct participation is also a good option for key people. I think more tech startups would survive with a strong GTM expertise in the founding team (or a CRO already in the early phase).

Like
Reply
Richard Spanier

Owner @ Spanier Consulting| DIY Sales Strategies for startups and new businesses

1mo

Great listen. Bingo! I've argued the same 80/20 comp plan - or 100% straight salary with team bonuses, is key to ending much of the churn in the sales ranks and a step forward in improving the reputation of the sales profession. We can't continue to build sustainable sales processes using the (disgusting) "coin-operated" mentality still in effect through most sales management plans and their organizations.

Like
Reply
James Shetler

GTM Leader | Driving Revenue Growth and Client Success

1mo

Great episode! I’ve spent countless hours tinkering and “engineering” comp plans in earlier stage companies and this approach would have eliminated that distraction.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics