▲ | diggan 3 days ago | |
> If you remove that carrot, it just doesn't work How come it works for basically every other job on this planet? Developers aren't paid per feature implemented/bug fixed, and we still do those things, how come sales people are unable to do things for a fixed monthly salary? | ||
▲ | jasode 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
>, how come sales people are unable to do things for a fixed monthly salary? You have to separate out 2 different ideas of the "theoretical idealized salesperson that works for fixed salary" -vs- "real-world salesperson that works for variable commissions". The businesses that have attempted to pay fixed salaries for salespeople end up attracting incompetent salespeople who can't sell. They become a negative cost on the company's payroll because they can't bring in any revenue. In contrast, the high-performance salespeople (the "rainmakers") are attracted to the variable high-commission, because they know they have the hard-to-find skills to actually sell and bring in the money. If a salesperson has the skills to get a customer to sign a contract and pay money, they have the leverage to get a percentage of that. Developers, db sysadmins, tech support staff, etc are not in situations to directly influence and shake the hand of a new potential customer and convince them to write a check. | ||
▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Sales works that way in every industry. A top salesman can make more than the CEO from commission. Many top salespeople have a zero base salary. The pressure is pretty crazy, though. I’m not cut out for that kind of thing. | ||
▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
It's not that they're unable to; it's that the field attracts people who are financially motivated and other companies have compensation structures that reward personal performance. Top salespeople generally won't work for a fixed salary because they want to make as much as they can, and the way they do that is by having as much of their compensation tied to personal performance as possible. I personally think more engineers/developers should think the same way, but it's also much harder to directly tie job performance to compensation when contributing to a product. | ||
▲ | Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Sales is unique because the monetary benefit to the company is mostly objective: If someone closes a $10 million sales contract, that becomes $10 million in revenue. If a team of developers work together to fix a bug, how would you calculate the revenue value of the bug and how would you distribute that to the team that solved it? Technically the value of a bug is negative because it costs the company, so do you subtract that from the pay of the engineers he worked on it? If 5 people implement a feature that uses a library developed by 5 other people, which was built on the platform team's infrastructure, how do you divide up the commission? It doesn't work. | ||
▲ | speed_spread 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Because sales are quantifiable and directly mapped to performance. To get that kind of proportional payback in engineering you'd need very clear financial objectives for a project. I could see that happening in optimization scenarios where consultants are brought in and get paid for whatever they can trim from operational costs. |