The situation
A large field sales organisation had an expensive, multi-layer incentive scheme built up over years of bolt-on bonuses and legacy overrides. Leadership suspected the scheme was rewarding the wrong behaviours, but lacked the evidence to act. Any proposed change triggered pushback from people who'd learned to optimise for the existing rules rather than actual results.
What I did
First, I classified the field into value-creating versus value-draining segments using real behaviours: new customer acquisition, development of existing accounts, team growth, and retention. This showed that roughly a quarter of the field generated the majority of growth while a long tail absorbed a meaningful share of incentive spend with minimal contribution.
Then I built a live compensation simulator that replaced hour-long Excel recalculations with instant scenario testing. Leadership could now compare multiple scheme designs in the same meeting, seeing cost, savings, and who wins or loses by segment and behaviour profile.
Finally, I designed both the new scheme and the transition plan. This included identifying high-value segments at risk of leaving if changes were handled badly, mapping legal and behavioural risks, and creating a targeted "builder bonus" to protect the people the business couldn't afford to lose.
What changed
Incentive cost reduced by around 18% while plan achievement improved by 9 percentage points, because money finally pointed at the right behaviours. Leadership gained a reusable simulation tool rather than a one-off model. Every new incentive idea now gets stress-tested on cost, fairness, and risk before it goes anywhere near implementation.
Who this is for
If your commission or bonus scheme feels expensive, political, or impossible to change without causing chaos, I can give you two things: a clear map of who really drives value, and a simulator that shows exactly what each alternative would do before you commit to anything.