I'm asking in the context of a small female clothing and shoe store of 2 owners + 3 employees. Define staff as either an owner or employee. This assumes that sales require only involve 1 employee.

Situation: Daily, more than one employee may be needed to "master" a transaction.

  What do I mean? For any particular customer, although staff A might generate revenue of $100 on her own, if staff B enters the exchange between staff A and customer, then staff B may generate another $150 of revenue for the same customer. So total revenue = $250.

Question: How should the owners formulate commission for multiple staff? My first thought is to divide total commission by the total number of employees, but I fear problems like:

1. A may respond indignantly to B's interference, if B didn't increase revenue in the end. Then A might interpret B's interposition as greed to split commission (depravedly).

2. Per contra, A may actually need B's intervention, if the customer likes B more.

3. Moreover, what if these two intercessions are separate? It has transpired that after A had finished, a few remarks by B, at the till, resulted in further purchases by the customer.

4. I realise that the existence of commission might instigate a fight for the customer, but how can fray be reduced?

I'm asking in the context of a small female clothing and shoe store of 2 owners + 3 employees. Define staff as either an owner or employee.

Situation: More than one employee may be needed to "master" a transaction. This and this don't help. What do I mean? For any particular customer, staff A might generate revenue of $100 on her own. However, if staff B enters the exchange between staff A and customer, then staff B may generate another $150 for the same customer. So total revenue = $250.

Question: How should the owners share/formulate commission for a sale needing multiple staff? The sample numbers above show that it's unfair and naive to divide total commission by the total number of employees. I fear problems like:

1. A may respond indignantly to B's interference, if B didn't increase revenue in the end. Then A might interpret B's interposition as greed to split commission (depravedly).

2. Per contra, A may actually need B's intervention, if the customer likes B more.

3. Moreover, what if these two intercessions are separate? It has transpired that after A had finished, a few remarks by B, at the till, resulted in further purchases by the customer.

4. Commission might instigate a fight for the customer, but how can fray be reduced?