FMCG companies have a group of 'diligent' sales team leaders who issue monthly sales targets at the start of each month and then track performance through countless conference calls—semi-weekly, weekly, ten-day, and bi-monthly meetings. Who achieved what rate? Who has a high achievement rate? Share your experience; who has a low rate? Explain the reasons for improvement. This so-called process management is actually just managing the results of performance during the process. Most meeting content is a bunch of correct but useless talk, seemingly tracking in real-time, but in reality, each meeting is a low-value running account. So how should sales teams set assessments? Let me share my views.

Assessment Factors for Sales Teams: Process & Results

  1. The result of sales is performance; who should be responsible for sales results? The answer is the senior executives of the sales team. The higher the position, the greater the performance responsibility.
  2. The process of sales is execution; who should be responsible for the sales process? The answer is the grassroots staff of the sales team. The lower the position, the greater the execution responsibility. In one sentence: As sales team positions go from low to high, performance assessment becomes heavier, and execution assessment becomes lighter. Let's illustrate with an example: A company, based on its annual plan, assigns a January sales task of 10 million yuan to the provincial manager of Province A (selling the company's goods to distributors). The provincial manager breaks down the task to 10 office managers, who then assign tasks to regional supervisors, who then assign distribution tasks (selling goods from distributor warehouses to retail outlets) to sales representatives. Many companies have done this for over a decade, but it seems to be failing now. The most common problem is that it's hard to recruit grassroots salespeople. Most field workers are still from the post-80s generation. I visited several brand managers and all said there is a serious gap at the grassroots level, with few post-90s entering the FMCG industry. Investigation reveals three main reasons: first, too much pressure (over 60%), second, unsatisfactory income (about 30%), and third, tiring work (about 10%). Why is pressure the biggest obstacle for post-90s entering FMCG? I think the key is the assessment factor. As mentioned at the beginning, 'diligent' leaders essentially pass down performance pressure layer by layer, ultimately to grassroots staff. So what is the correct approach? Let's take the office manager as the basic unit. Suppose Office Manager Zhang San is assigned a task of 1 million yuan. He should plan how to achieve this 1 million. Step 1: Break down the 1 million into each product item based on historical data. Step 2: Break down product item targets to each supervisor. Step 3: Further break down each supervisor's item targets into process indicators (Supervisor Li Si gets a 200,000 task, consisting of 150,000 for product A and 50,000 for product B. To achieve 150,000 for product A, at least 400 freezer displays, 200 cut-case displays, and 300 shelf displays are needed). Step 4: The supervisor assigns process indicators and resources to sales reps (Rep Wang Wu receives the target of achieving 100 freezer displays, 80 cut-case displays, and 60 shelf displays this month). The overall assessment system becomes: The office manager is responsible for achieving performance. He needs to think about what his subordinates should do to complete his performance, then pass down the results to supervisors (at this point, supervisors are assessed on the results after the process), and sales reps are assessed on process execution. There are four possible outcomes: 1. Process indicators completed, but performance not achieved. This means the office manager's process indicators for breaking down performance are problematic; following his method won't complete the task. Sales reps are rewarded, the office manager is penalized, and the provincial level is jointly liable (for lax oversight). 2. Process indicators completed, and performance achieved. This means the office manager's thinking is mature, provincial guidance is in place, and sales execution is effective; all three are rewarded. 3. Process indicators not completed, and performance not achieved. This means the process indicators are not feasible or the execution team has attitude/skill issues, etc. It requires review and reflection, and the provincial manager's assistance. 4. Process indicators not completed, but performance achieved. This means the office manager set process indicators too high, or the team is resting on past achievements, falsifying data, or other unexpected events affected performance. The provincial manager must pay high attention. Summary: For sales team assessment factors, as a sales rep, as long as I complete the process according to the supervisor's requirements, I am qualified; sales volume is only 20% related to me. As a supervisor, as long as I lead my reps to comprehensively complete the process indicators issued by the manager, I am qualified; sales volume is 40% related to me. As a manager, I need to convert performance indicators into process indicators to safeguard my performance; sales volume is at least 60% related to me. As a provincial manager, I need to provide performance reference opinions to managers and review whether process indicators are reasonable; sales volume is at least 80% related to me. This is what I advocate: as sales team positions go from low to high, performance assessment becomes heavier, and execution assessment becomes lighter. We don't need sales reps to bear too much performance pressure; they should have a proper attitude and do the process well. Of course, we also don't allow sales management to use physical 'diligence' to mask mental 'laziness', ensuring the healthy development of the sales team.

Salary Structure for Sales Teams: Base Salary + Bonus + Dividends & Stock Base salary is more about work attitude. As long as employees have a proper attitude and do their jobs properly, they basically get the base salary. Bonus is more about skills. Skills require continuous accumulation. On the basis of attitude, achieving the best performance will maximize your bonus. Dividends & stock represent employees' commitment to the future, a belief in deep binding with the company, sharing ups and downs, etc., accumulated over time, performance, and profits. The most important part is the bonus, which is the employee's performance assessment. The amount of bonus essentially reflects the employee's ability and value creation capability, revealing their true worth. The bonus amount must have significant differences. Try to amplify the income differences between performance achievements. If the bonus difference between achieving 120% and 90% is less than 30%, then the performance setting is problematic. Based on the brand's development stage, I have three salary structures for reference: 1. Category leaders: 631 60% base salary + 30% performance assessment + 10% year-end bonus. Generally, leading brands have a say in the industry and have comprehensive systems and mechanisms. The sales team's work is mostly executing tedious basic services. Attitude and team stability are important, so increase base salary and appropriately reduce the bonus portion. 2. Category mid-tier companies: 541 50% base salary + 40% performance assessment + 10% year-end bonus. Generally, mid-tier companies have just carved out their own territory, have some market influence, and are eager to press forward and take the lead. They urgently need talented individuals and hope to attract strong performers through high incentives, while also using high incentives to screen talent and build their talent pipeline. So the bonus portion is heavier. For example, in 2015, Jinmailang Beverage had a place in the market, and its sales team salary model was 541. Later, by 2018, as Jinmailang Beverage gradually moved into the industry's first tier, it shifted to the 631 model. 3. Category startups: 442 40% base salary + 40% performance assessment + 20% year-end bonus. Generally, startup brands don't have sufficient funds. To survive, they must increase employee output, but they also need to manage recruitment pressure. So the base salary is designed to ensure employees' basic survival, while high bonuses help the company control labor costs and screen for suitable talent. Regarding year-end bonuses: China's market is vast, and market conditions vary by region. Headquarters cannot understand details thoroughly. As long as task targets are manually broken down, there is no absolute fairness. It is recommended that year-end bonuses be assessed independently on two dimensions: target achievement and incremental growth, with both an increment bonus and an achievement bonus. If the annual target is not met but there is incremental growth, it should be rewarded. Not achieving the target doesn't mean the team didn't work hard; don't deprive the sales team of their proactive initiative for incremental growth. Summary: The key to sales team performance assessment is to adjust the bonus ratio to match the brand's own development. Within a reasonable range, the higher the bonus, the stronger the team's fighting spirit, but the weaker the stability. Conversely, the lower the bonus, the more comfortable the team. Of course, this doesn't contradict the process and results assessment above. The higher the performance of executives, the higher the bonus; the more process work grassroots do, the higher the bonus (if the leader assesses me to do 10 cut-case displays and I do 20, naturally my bonus is higher).

Safeguarding Assessment: Fairness & Transparency 1. Fairness Sales team income should not be determined solely by the amount of tasks, but more by the difficulty coefficient of completing tasks. For example, in a strong region, completing an extra 1 million might just be a matter of pressing channel inventory with one or two customers, while in a weak region, completing the same 1 million requires more customers and more effort. The effort is different, so bonus fairness should set a task coefficient: high tasks have a large coefficient, low tasks have a small coefficient. 2. Transparency When it comes to money, don't be sneaky. While protecting the company's business secrets, regularly disclose all data of peers, such as achievement rate rankings, overachievement rate rankings, and corresponding bonus amounts, so everyone can see and compete with each other. Summary: Bonuses without fairness and transparency are meaningless. Sales teams are not institutions that make money quietly. Everyone earns by ability; you can compare who earns more or less, but ensure the team is psychologically balanced and strives to catch up and earn more.

Final Thoughts: How to design a sales team's salary system? I think we should grasp five keywords: process, results, ratio, fairness, and transparency. For brands, how to distribute money is crucial. Companies that don't know how to distribute money can't make money. Only by distributing money under a real mechanism and spending it properly can you effectively stimulate the goodwill within the team, align hearts and minds, and grow the company bigger and stronger.