{"id":10387,"date":"2026-08-31T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-31T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biworldwide.com\/uk\/?p=10387"},"modified":"2026-07-28T16:42:16","modified_gmt":"2026-07-28T15:42:16","slug":"why-leaders-overestimate-the-impact-of-sales-incentives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biworldwide.com\/uk\/our-work\/blog\/why-leaders-overestimate-the-impact-of-sales-incentives\/","title":{"rendered":"Why leaders overestimate the impact of sales incentives"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
Home<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/div>\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"A\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\tWhy leaders overestimate the impact of sales incentives\t\t\t<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n

Sales leaders often believe their incentive programmes are motivating their teams more than they really are. Learn why perception gaps emerge and what better incentive design looks like<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s talk<\/a><\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Most sales leaders believe their incentive programme is working.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s not arrogance. It’s a reasonable assumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The programme has a budget. Targets have been set. Rewards are being earned. Communications have gone out. From a leadership perspective, all the visible signs suggest the programme is doing what it was designed to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that activity and impact are not the same thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our latest research found that,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

85%<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

of leaders believe their teams are motivated by their current incentive structure<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

>30%<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

of salespeople disagree<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

That gap matters because incentives only create value when they change behaviour. If leaders think a programme is motivating people more than it actually is, they risk overestimating the return they’re getting from the investment behind it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debate isn’t really about whether you have incentives. The debate is whether they’re working in the way you think they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why leaders and sales teams see incentives differently<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Most incentive programmes look better from the boardroom than they do from the sales floor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leaders see the structure. Salespeople experience the reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a leadership perspective, the programme may appear well designed. Targets have been modelled. Budgets have been approved. Reward levels have been carefully calculated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But salespeople tend to judge the programme differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They care about whether goals feel achievable. Whether targets seem fair. Whether the rewards are worth the effort required to earn them. Most importantly, they judge the programme based on how it affects their day-to-day experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This difference in perspective helps explain why confidence in a programme can be significantly higher among leaders than among the people the programme is designed to motivate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Visibility can create false confidence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One reason leaders overestimate incentive effectiveness is that incentive programmes are highly visible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Launch communications get attention. Participation rates can be tracked. Leaderboards fill up. Rewards are distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of that creates useful data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What it doesn’t necessarily tell you is whether people genuinely believe in the programme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A sales incentive can be active without being motivating. It can be understood without being trusted. It can even be popular without influencing behaviour in a meaningful way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s why measuring participation alone can be misleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People may engage because the programme exists, not because it is driving the behaviours the organisation wants to encourage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you’re only measuring activity, it’s easy to assume success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fairness matters more than many leaders realise<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If there is one finding from our research that deserves attention, it’s this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

86%<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

of leaders believe incentives are distributed fairly<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

29%<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

of salespeople disagree<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Even more striking, only 23% of salespeople describe distribution as “very fair”<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A compensation plan can be mathematically fair and still feel unfair to the people working within it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think about territory differences. Market conditions. Existing customer relationships. Product mix. Historical performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leaders often take these factors into account when designing programmes. The issue is that employees don’t always see the reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When people don’t understand how targets have been set, or why someone else’s route to reward seems easier than theirs, trust starts to erode.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And once trust starts to disappear, motivation often follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s not simply a culture issue. It’s a performance issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People are less likely to stretch themselves for a reward they don’t believe they have a fair chance of earning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many incentive programmes reflect an outdated view of selling<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Modern sales environments look very different from those of a decade ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buying journeys are longer. Customers move between digital and human channels. Sales often involves multiple stakeholders, specialists and support teams. Success is increasingly collaborative rather than individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet many incentive structures still focus heavily on one thing: the final sale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The danger is that organisations end up rewarding outcomes while overlooking the behaviours that help create them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discovery conversations. Better qualification. Customer insight. Cross-functional collaboration. Effective use of technology. These activities often play a critical role in performance, but they’re not always reflected in incentive design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That creates a disconnect. Leaders believe they’re incentivising sales success. Employees experience a programme that rewards only part of what success actually requires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More budget is rarely the answer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When performance stalls, the instinct is often to increase the reward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A larger bonus. A bigger prize. More money in the programme. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes that’s the right decision. Often it isn’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If people don’t trust the programme, don’t understand it or don’t believe the targets are achievable, increasing the reward may simply make an ineffective programme more expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The better question is usually not “How much are we rewarding?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s “What are we rewarding, and why?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The organisations seeing the strongest results from incentives tend to focus on programme design before programme spend. They look at relevance, fairness, clarity and behavioural alignment before deciding whether the answer is a larger budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Questions worth asking before redesigning incentives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Before changing the reward structure, it’s worth taking a closer look at how the programme is being experienced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n