Sales quotas may seem like a good idea until ‘sandbagging’ starts

Every job has or should have an identified set of objectives, some measurement by which an associate’s effectiveness can be gauged to be unacceptable, acceptable or superior.

A Major League Baseball hitter is superior if he hits above a 300 average. A basketball player scoring over 20 points a game is a standout. A winning percentage of less than 50 percent over time will likely cause a coach to find a new job.

In sales, the most common objective is meeting or exceeding quota. But quota setting is an elusive art. Finding the balance that supports company objectives and a salesperson’s market opportunity requires knowledge and participation at multiple points by multiple parties.

The company must be in tune with its market growth potential and be able to translate it to various regional and local levels. Sales management must be familiar with its resources and their capabilities. Mismatching opportunity and quota expectation can drive negative behavior or allow excessive rewards.

It’s rare that a bottom-up view from the sales organizations equals or exceeds the growth objectives of management. Management wisely stretches the objectives while depending on the forecast of the sales force. It’s a check-and-balance system that when properly used can provide the best results for all involved. Every company has marketplace growth targets that require performance or the health of the business may be put in jeopardy.

Rather than take ownership of a challenging goal, some salespeople essentially despair when they receive a quota that they regard as clearly unattainable. They may try to game the sales objective system by sandbagging, a practice whereby a sales person manipulates the forecast or the sales process to artificially improve their attainment for the present or future sales period.