Bob Burg has a series of posts going which revolve around questions of the “goodness” or “badness” of paying commissions. My post is going to center around the “effective/not effective” meaning of the questions vs. the moral/ethical aspect.
Bob made the point, “If you are in business, you are in commission sales.” I totally agree. Not just because I totally grew up in the ’80s,(like totally!) but because the inverse is true, as well. If you are in commission sales, you are in business, for yourself.
Both sides of an #antimetabole are not always true e.g. You can take the girl out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the girl. Not true on many levels. But when the inverse is true, e.g. Those who matter don’t mind, and those who mind don’t matter. Then there’s probably something to it. #petitioprincipii
And the the higher your income is dependent on the commissions (as a percentage of your compensation package,) the more this is true. For those of you not in sales, full commission is obvious, but many sales people’s compensation package range from 100% salary to 20% to small spiffs and everything in between.
Dan Pink, in his book Drive, explains this further and, in my opinion, is misunderstood by most. Dan makes the point that external rewards often work against an individuals motivation. A research study was done years ago that showed rewarding highly creative work can diminish desire to do the activity.
But, even though commissions are external rewards, some salespeople don’t view them as such. High commission six-figure sales people feel in control of this reward system which makes it feel intrinsic for them. This is similar to how business people are highly creative, autonomous, and purpose-driven and at the same time can be money motivated.
Bringing this back to the question of “commission sales. Is it good? Is it bad?’” Bob hit the nail on the head. It’s the salesperson that makes it good or bad.
I hope this sounds like a circular argument to you… ’cause it is! ( #petitioprincipii )
