"Is Your Comp Plan Actually Motivating?" Diagnostic
A 15-question scored audit that tells you whether your comp plan is driving the behaviours that grow revenue, or just paying out on deals that would have closed anyway.
What's inside
- 0/1/2 scoring instructions and a 30-point scale
- 5 diagnostic categories, 3 questions each: Line of Sight, Pay Mix & Leverage, Threshold & Accelerator Design, Windfall/Luck Control, Behaviour-Outcome Alignment
- All 15 diagnostic statements written as a scorecard table
- 3 scoring bands (0-10 / 11-20 / 21-30) with what each means operationally
- A worked 'Windfall Test' example showing how to classify top-10 payouts as rep-influenced vs. windfall
- The 25%-windfall threshold rule for flagging a plan as luck-driven
- Category-specific 'what to do with your score' action guidance
Is Your Comp Plan Actually Motivating? — A 15-Point Diagnostic
Who this is for: Sales leaders, RevOps, and CFOs who want an honest read on whether the compensation plan is engineering the behaviours that grow the business, or just writing checks for revenue that would have landed anyway.
How to score: For each statement, score how true it is of your current plan:
- 0 = No / Rarely
- 1 = Partially / Sometimes
- 2 = Yes / Consistently
Total possible: 30 points. Score the plan as it actually operates, not as it was designed to operate on paper.
Category A — Line of Sight (max 6)
| # | Statement | Score (0/1/2) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A rep can calculate their own payout for a specific deal, on the spot, without opening a spreadsheet or emailing finance. | |
| 2 | The plan is documented on one page or less — no 12-page PDF with footnotes and appendices. | |
| 3 | Reps see the compensation impact of a deal before they close it (CRM or live dashboard), not just on payday. |
Category B — Pay Mix & Leverage (max 6)
| # | Statement | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | At least 40% of OTE is variable/at-risk for quota-carrying roles. | |
| 5 | The pay mix matches the sales motion — richer variable for transactional/high-velocity motions, more base-weighted for long strategic cycles. | |
| 6 | There's a real accelerator above 100% attainment (>1.0x) that rewards over-performance without being rich enough to invite gaming. |
Category C — Threshold & Accelerator Design (max 6)
| # | Statement | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | The threshold to start earning commission is low enough that a ramping rep can realistically hit it — no all-or-nothing cliff at 100%. | |
| 8 | There are no more than two sudden "cliffs" in the payout curve that create end-of-quarter sandbagging or deal-pulling behaviour. | |
| 9 | The measurement period (monthly/quarterly/annual) matches the real sales-cycle length. |
Category D — Windfall / Luck Control (max 6)
| # | Statement | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | Pulling the last two quarters of top-10 payouts, the majority of deal size/timing is attributable to something the rep actually did — not inbound luck, a pre-existing relationship, or an inevitable renewal. | |
| 11 | Renewals/auto-expansions on evergreen contracts pay at a lower rate than net-new logo or expansion the rep actually sourced and worked. | |
| 12 | There's a cap, a de-cap review, or a windfall clause for deals where the rep's actual influence was minimal. |
Category E — Behaviour-Outcome Alignment (max 6)
| # | Statement | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | The plan pays for at least one leading indicator (pipeline generation, multi-thread depth, expansion conversations) in addition to closed revenue. | |
| 14 | The plan's mechanics — not just the number — have changed in the last 12 months in direct response to evidence it was rewarding the wrong thing. | |
| 15 | Finance/RevOps backtested this plan against last year's actual deal data before rollout, rather than launching on assumptions alone. |
TOTAL SCORE: ___ / 30
Scoring bands
- 0–10 — Paying for Revenue, Not Performance. The plan is a payroll mechanism, not a behaviour lever. Expect sandbagging, end-of-period discounting, and windfall payouts on deals reps barely influenced. Priority: run the Windfall Test below before touching anything else.
- 11–20 — Mixed-Signal Plan. Some good mechanics exist but at least one category is actively working against you. Use the category subtotals to find which one — that's your redesign priority, not a full rebuild.
- 21–30 — High-Leverage Plan. The plan is doing real work. Keep backtesting it every renewal cycle (Q14/Q15) — plans decay as the business and product mix change even when nothing on paper changes.
The Windfall Test (worked example)
Pull your last 2 quarters of top-10 individual commission payouts. Classify each:
| Deal | Commission Paid | Rep-Influenced? | Windfall? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deal A | $12,400 | Yes — multi-month discovery, competitive displacement | No |
| Deal B | $9,800 | No — inbound RFP, price-list renewal | Yes |
| Deal C | $8,200 | Partial — inherited relationship, rep ran the paperwork | Yes (50%) |
Sum the windfall dollars ÷ total commission dollars in the sample. If windfall commission exceeds 25% of the total, the plan is materially rewarding luck over performance — go straight to Category D fixes (lower renewal rates, add a de-cap review, tighten "rep-sourced" definitions).
What to do with your score
- Category A weak: Simplify before redesigning mechanics — reps can't respond to incentives they can't calculate.
- Category B/C weak: Model the payout curve against last year's actual deal-size distribution before changing numbers.
- Category D weak: Run the Windfall Test this quarter, not next planning cycle — fastest fix, highest credibility payoff with reps.
- Category E weak: Add one leading-indicator component next cycle; don't try to fix everything in one redesign.
How to use it
Score all 15 items with your comp plan documentation and last two quarters of actual payout data open side by side, then run the Windfall Test on your top-10 payouts before deciding what to redesign.