Perhaps sales, and its reward structure, attracts a different kind of personality. I don't think I've ever met a salesperson I liked, whether in a sales or personal setting. The overwhelming impression is of manipulative bullies who use social norms of politeness and reciprocity to lever advantage out of people. Makes me sick.
I've met many salespeople I like and many I don't. They are not all self-centered manipulative bullies, though many are. Some are genuinely interested in making shopping a pleasant experience, and as a result get more sales (the particular person I am thinking of does NOT work on commission, incidentally). Some have strong relationships with specific customers, understand their needs very well and understand their company's products very well and rarely ever recommend anything that won't be valued.
Salespeople who sell big-ticket software tend strongly towards the bully type. This would be fine if it were only outwardly directed, but they often use the same tactics internally.
I think the same phenomenon manifests with corporate managers. It's all well and good if a middle manager has the teeth and claws to hold his own in the corporate jungle. She/he shouldn't necessarily use such armament in other contexts, such as when dealing with the craft-oriented techies in her own group.
Some buddhists would say something like, "One is shaped by their livelihood."
I've been at a few big companies now and I have to agree that sales people have certain personality traits. But it might not be because sales attracts the usual stereotypes. I think it's that effective salespeople are able to better relate to upper management. At big companies, it's often someone with a stint (usually their first job) in sales who moves into the CEO (and beforehand the COO position).
If you want to be a successful salesman, you need to sell to salespeople. Most companies are driven by sales. When they want to drive more sales, the answer is to hire more salesmen. Every year, even in bad years, the sales organization will have money to spend on new initiatives. This means the VPs and SVPs of Sales have the power of the purse.
When sales guys want to sell a back end solution, it is easier to sell to not the CIO but the COO or SVP of Sales. Show them how it can return ROI by improving customer satisfaction or highlight the weak points in their sales figures. Thusly the salespeople that end up doing well are the ones that can better relate to the sales types who are now in management.
Edit: Now that I think about it, this can probably also be applied to other types that have to interact with upper management like investment bankers. But that is a whole other rant.
In my experience, rules select players. When you notice a certain personality being over-represented in a given game, it's almost always a result of the rules weeding out the others.
So it's not too surprising that the people who remain in commission-based sales positions are overwhelmingly those who care more bout the meta-game of amassing rewards than in the business' overall well being or that of its customers.
After watching a TED presentation on External motivation, which stated it did more harm than anything. I was nodding in full agreement and trying to think of one job where it was not true. The only job I came up with was sales, I was just not sure for this one. I would really like to see a one year after report on this, this should be telling. I think it will prove commissions are not working.
My father is a sales engineer, which means he covers all the technical stuff of a sale. His employer is behind in paying commissions my father needs, not simply wants. In my experience of growing up with a father who worked as a technician and then as a salesman, I see this as a change for the better.
This method removes greed as a motivation, promotes selling helpfulness to the customer (rather than ripping them off), and stabilizes the pay of the sales guy who just had a really tough quarter but still has to pay the bills.
Sure, a well placed bonus here and there for outstanding team-work, a huge sale or contract, etc, would be a good motivator. But, I think the commission-ship has long since sailed.
If I were to guess, I would say some of the top folks that want to make more money compared to what Red-gate is paying now and don't want to trade in the risk-reward factor will probably leave.
Interesting idea, I wonder how it will turn out in a year. I think the initial motivational boost will drop after a while and they will have hard time keeping their sales people motivated after that.
Other types of employees find the source of their motivation in other things; some of us programmers are motivated by creating cool stuff, teachers are motivated by seeing the kids grow and becoming more educated, these are mostly internal motivations as opposed to external motivations such as commissions and bonuses. Maybe it's just because I don't really know the work of salespeople very well, but I can't really imagine them finding an internal source of motivation in their line of work.
The only thing I can possibly think of that might become a source of motivation for them is helping clients finding the right solution.
Why is it hard to imagine that selling the 'cool stuff' developers/engineers make (and being the best at it) is motivation enough? Without sales people all the cool stuff we hackers create, would be seen and used by almost no one.
The art of selling, even without the ugly side of it (which there's plenty) is pretty amazing. We all admire guys like Steve Jobs but don't realize that he's the best salesman there is.
Don't forget the satisfaction of helping people! When your widget fills a need, not merely a want, in a company or team, you can feel good at having met that need.
There will always be the slimy, rip-his-granny-off kind of salesman because people are like that. However, the flat-pay system would reward the good kind of salesman more often than the bad kind, and would bolster friendly competition within the company.
Don't overlook the large amount of social interaction sales people get, for a people person that is a huge perk and likely just as satisfying as building something cool is to a programmer.
If they feel they aren't being compensated properly for their performance then yes. In other jobs the 'stars' will tend to find work elsewhere unless they are suitably recognised.
I'm sympathetic to the idea and curious to see how it works for the author. A clear subset of salespeople have a distinct entrepreneurial streak. They work in sales because, similar to being a business owner, you get paid based directly on the value you provide. You would definitely lose these people, but depending on how strong your sales systems are, that may or may not be a net loss to sales. Losing entrepreneurially-minded people from your company, though, seems like a general negative.
Incidentally, one of the commenters had an effect on me quite opposite to his intention. The commenter noted how much he liked restaurants where the tip is included. This is completely foreign to my experience. My experience is that tipped service is consistently among the best service.
