Why compensation shapes behaviour
Compensation is one of the most powerful behavioural levers in any revenue organisation. Sales reps optimise against what they are paid for. Customer success teams prioritise what their bonuses depend on. Marketing teams campaign toward what their MBOs measure.
If compensation rewards functional metrics — MQL volume, individual pipeline coverage, NPS scores — the system optimises functionally and the system-level outcomes (revenue, profitability, productivity, CX) are not actively pursued. If compensation rewards system-level outcomes alongside functional metrics, the behavioural orientation shifts.
RevOps' structural role
RevOps' role in compensation design is to ensure the plan structure aligns with the integrative work the function exists to drive. This means: identifying system-level metrics that can be measured fairly across the functions, designing plan structures that pay for both functional and system-level performance, and instrumenting the data infrastructure that makes the system-level measurement possible.
The structural insight is that compensation cannot be designed by any single function and remain integrative. Sales-designed plans optimise for sales. Finance-designed plans optimise for cost. RevOps-designed plans, when done well, optimise for the system.
What good compensation design includes
Three components mark mature RevOps compensation design. First, explicit weighting between functional and system-level metrics — typically 50-70% functional, 30-50% system-level for most rep roles. Second, alignment across the three functions on shared system-level metrics, so sales and customer success aren't pulled in opposite directions by their plans.
Third, periodic plan review with both functional and system-level performance review — quarterly or annually, with structured analysis of whether the plan is producing the intended behaviour. Plan design is iterative, not static; mature implementations refresh the design every 12–18 months based on behavioural evidence.