Timeline for How to divide commission for sales involving multiple staff?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2014 at 4:08 | comment | added | user22656 | Thank you. Nonetheless, how would your answer resolve the issue that 'More than one employee may be needed to "master" a transaction' ? I worry that the restriction of one employee to a sale might be inferior, because in the past, two employees on a sale have boosted revenue. Your rotation helps with possible friction though. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 18:33 | comment | added | Donald | @jtodd - You don't slack off because you will still be reviewed based on your numbers. I was just adding another alternative to trying to literally keep track which person's turn it was. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 17:50 | comment | added | user20914 | @Ramhound I'm sort of seeing "divide the commissions up equally, and include attendance in the factoring" in that suggestion.. hat about promoting competitive performance? If I know that I and Sally Sue both get the same cut, regardless of whether she helps 30 customers in a week and I help 15, why not slack off? It's not like she won't pick up the slack to ensure her commission. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 12:20 | comment | added | Donald | You could just do it by sales. If there are 30 sales in a day, each person gets 10 comissions. If there are 45 sales, do the queue system, if somebody doesn't work a day they are not placed in the rotation. This way its not a matter of who helps get the sale but the sale happens. You should still keep track of who makes the sale in order to indicate stronger/weaker sales people but only in the context of perhaps yearly/monthly awards and for manager duties. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 20:57 | history | answered | user20914 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |