hellaprompter

questions > answers

@barelyknown

Prompt ChatGPT Deep Research

What are the pros and cons of having sales people that are jointly working on a deal negotiate the commission split between themselves? What alternatives exist to that approach? Based on the relative pros and cons, what would you recommend?

How to Negotiate Commission Splits in SaaS Deals? 2025-03-10
New Yorker-style illustration for How to Negotiate Commission Splits in SaaS Deals?

How to Negotiate Commission Splits in SaaS Deals?

When enterprise SaaS sales involve multiple salespeople on one deal, how to split the commission is a critical decision. Commission splits, if designed well, can encourage teamwork and reward everyone’s contributions, but if handled poorly they become “a painful source of distraction and lost productivity” (Best practice guidance for using Sales Commission Splits). Below we analyze the pros and cons of allowing sales reps to negotiate their own commission splits versus alternative models (predefined splits, manager-determined splits, and performance-based allocation). Key factors like collaboration, fairness, administrative effort, and conflict potential are considered for each approach. We then compare their impact on team dynamics, sales performance, and efficiency, and recommend an optimal approach.

Salesperson-Negotiated Commission Splits

Description: In this model, the salespeople involved in a deal discuss and agree on how to divide the commission between themselves, rather than following a preset formula. They essentially negotiate what percentage each will take based on their view of their contributions.

  • Pros:

    • Flexible & Potentially Fair: The split can be tailored to each deal’s unique circumstances. Reps have the flexibility to adjust shares in proportion to who did more work on that specific sale, which can feel fairer than a one-size-fits-all split if both parties truly agree on each person’s contribution (Sales Compensation: Should We Use Splits or Team Quotas?). For example, if the default might be 50/50 but one rep actually did more of the heavy lifting, they could negotiate a 60/40 split to reflect that.
    • Empowerment & Motivation: Allowing reps to negotiate gives them a sense of ownership over the process. In cases where trust exists between team members, they can openly recognize each other’s efforts and reward accordingly. This might strengthen collaboration on future deals, as each person knows they have a say in the reward. It also can motivate reps to contribute more, knowing they could argue for a larger portion if they add exceptional value.

  • Cons:

    • Conflict Risk: The need to negotiate can easily lead to disagreements and tension. If both reps feel they contributed more, negotiations may become contentious. Money disputes tend to damage trust and create tension, hurting team relationships and performance (Preventing Commission Conflicts: A Guide to Resolving Disputes). Without a clear rule, a stronger or more vocal personality might dominate the negotiation, leaving the other feeling short-changed.
    • Inconsistent Fairness: While flexible splits could be fair, they rely on the individuals’ integrity and negotiation skills. There’s a danger of unfair outcomes if one rep consistently pushes for a bigger share or if implicit biases play in. The final split might reflect negotiating ability more than actual contribution, which can breed resentment.
    • Administrative Complexity: Every deal requires a fresh negotiation, which is time-consuming and operationally inefficient. The company must track and record a custom split each time, and possibly mediate disputes. Management often ends up getting involved anyway when reps can’t agree, meaning negotiations don’t fully remove the burden on leadership. In practice, companies that allow ad-hoc negotiated splits need a documented process and dispute resolution policy to handle conflicts, adding more overhead.
    • Impact on Team Dynamics: The uncertainty around “who gets what” may discourage open collaboration. Team members might be hesitant to loop in a colleague on a deal if it means later haggling over commission. Instead of a culture where everyone works together freely, negotiation can create a guarded atmosphere until terms are settled. This can hurt overall sales performance if reps avoid teaming up on big opportunities to sidestep splitting the reward.

Predefined Percentage Splits

Description: Here the company sets a predetermined formula for splitting commissions on joint deals. For example, a 50/50 split for two account executives working together, or specific percentage allocations based on role. These rules are defined upfront and apply universally or to common scenarios.

  • Pros:

    • Clarity & Simplicity: Everyone knows the split arrangement in advance, which gives transparency and predictability. This removes any ambiguity about who gets what, so reps can focus on selling instead of worrying about negotiating their share. Administrative overhead is minimal.
    • Reduced Conflict: Because the percentages are set by policy, there’s little to argue about. By taking negotiation off the table, the company prevents internal conflicts over credit allocation. For instance, one company avoided infighting by mandating an equal split on any co-sold deal (My coworker gets half my commission and does nothing - Reddit). Reps can’t easily claim bias or feel cheated as long as they accept the system’s rules.
    • Encourages Teamwork: Predefined splits can foster a collaborative culture since reps know that helping on a deal will still earn them a share. A well-designed split plan “encourages cross-functional collaboration by rewarding team contributions rather than strictly individual efforts” (10 Sales Commission Structures to Motivate Reps (With Examples)). Reps have less incentive to hoard opportunities because they won’t lose out entirely by involving others.

  • Cons:

    • One-Size-Fits-All Fairness Issues: A fixed split may not reflect the actual effort each rep put in on every deal. If one salesperson did significantly more (or performed the most critical tasks), an equal or preset division can feel unfair. High performers might resent always giving away 50% to a colleague who contributed less. Over time, this could demotivate top contributors or encourage minimal effort from partners who know they’ll get paid regardless.
    • Limited Flexibility: There’s little room to adjust for special cases. Maybe a deal was brought in entirely by Rep A, but company policy still requires giving Rep B a fixed portion because they were tagged on the account. The rigid split could seem like a bureaucracy that ignores individual contributions.
    • Perceived Inequity in Complex Sales: In enterprise SaaS deals, different people may play very different roles. A simple predefined split might not do justice to the complexity of contributions. If, for example, a sales engineer spends dozens of hours on a proof of concept but only gets 10% per policy, they might feel undervalued.

Management-Determined Splits

Description: In this model, a manager or sales leadership determines how the commission is split on a case-by-case basis. Instead of reps deciding or following a fixed rule, management assesses each person’s contribution to the deal and assigns split percentages accordingly.

  • Pros:

    • Case-by-Case Fairness (if done well): An attentive manager can weigh each team member’s role in the sale and allocate commission in proportion to their impact. In an ideal scenario, this ensures people are rewarded in line with their actual contributions, enhancing the sense of justice within the team.
    • Conflict Mediation: Having a manager set the split can preempt or resolve disputes between reps. It removes the need for reps to hash it out directly if there’s disagreement. Management serves as an arbiter, which can be healthier for team dynamics than colleagues battling each other.
    • Strategic Alignment: Leaders can use their discretion to align commission rewards with broader business goals or team norms. For instance, if collaboration is a core value, a manager might deliberately split more evenly even if one rep could claim more – to reinforce teamwork.
    • Transparent Rationale (when communicated): A good manager will communicate why the split was decided a certain way, which can serve as feedback. Reps learn what leadership values, helping them understand how to maximize contributions on future deals.

  • Cons:

    • Perceptions of Bias or Favoritism: If a rep doesn’t agree with the manager’s decision, they may feel it was biased. Any lack of transparency or consistency in how managers determine splits can lead to suspicions that favorites are getting a bigger slice.
    • Reduced Autonomy: Salespeople might feel disempowered when they have no say in their own commission division. They might be less inclined to collaborate proactively if they fear a manager will later allocate most credit to someone else.
    • Management Overhead: Involving management in every split decision adds workload and potential delays. It may not be scalable if many deals need review, and leaders’ time is consumed by adjudicating splits rather than coaching or strategy.
    • Inconsistent Application: Different managers might apply different criteria to splits, leading to inconsistent experiences across the sales force. One manager might always split 50/50 to be “fair,” while another carefully calibrates percentages.

Performance-Based Split Allocation

Description: A performance-based allocation means that the commission split is determined by measurable inputs or results each salesperson contributed. Rather than a fixed share or a subjective decision, the split is computed based on objective criteria.

  • Pros:

    • Aligns Reward with Contribution: This model explicitly ties pay to performance, which is inherently motivating. Many companies choose to define splits “based on deal contribution” (Split commission calculator: Formulas & examples) so high contributors get commensurately higher rewards.
    • Objective and Transparent (if metrics are clear): When the split formula is based on quantifiable metrics, it leaves less room for argument. If everyone agrees on the performance criteria, the calculation is straightforward.
    • Encourages High Performance: Knowing every extra effort could increase one’s commission share incentivizes reps to go the extra mile. Over time, this can boost overall sales performance.
    • Role-Based Fairness: In cases where roles have different typical contributions, a performance-based approach can ensure each role gets appropriate credit. This addresses the common pain point of overlooked contributors by explicitly valuing their work (An Insider’s Guide to Handling Split Sales Compensation).

  • Cons:

    • Complexity in Setup: Designing a fair formula for performance-based splits can be complicated. Getting the model right so it feels fair and not overly convoluted is a challenge.
    • Data and Tracking Requirements: This approach demands reliable data tracking for the chosen performance metrics. If the data is incomplete or disputed, disagreements can still arise.
    • Potential for Gaming or Narrow Focus: Tying pay to specific metrics might inadvertently encourage reps to game the system or ignore aspects of teamwork not measured by the formula.
    • Mixed Team Dynamics: Performance-based splits introduce a competitive element within the team. Without carefully balanced metrics, reps might become reluctant to help each other unless it boosts their own measurable contribution.

Comparing the Approaches

Each commission split approach influences team dynamics, sales outcomes, and operational efficiency differently:

  • Collaboration & Team Dynamics: Predefined splits generally promote harmony by removing internal competition over the deal reward. Negotiated and performance-based splits can introduce internal competition. Management-determined splits fall in between, depending on how much reps trust leadership to fairly recognize contributions.
  • Fairness & Motivation: Predefined splits score high on procedural fairness but can struggle with distributive fairness in specific cases. Performance-based and manager-decided splits can align pay with actual contribution, boosting motivation if done transparently. Negotiated splits rely on the individuals’ sense of fairness. Any approach that results in frequent perceived unfairness or unresolved disputes will hurt morale.
  • Administrative Efficiency: Predefined splits are simplest to administer. Negotiated splits can be labor-intensive. Management-determined splits require case-by-case review, which may not scale. Performance-based splits depend on good data but can be automated once the formula is set.
  • Conflict Potential: Predefined splits have the lowest conflict potential because there’s nothing to negotiate. Performance-based models can also be low-conflict if metrics are clear. Negotiated splits come with an inherently high risk of conflict. Manager-decided splits may shift disputes upward.

Often, the optimal solution is a balanced approach that combines the strengths of predefined rules with flexibility to adjust for actual contributions. A common hybrid model starts with a default split (like 50/50) but allows leeway for reps to negotiate something else if both agree. If they cannot agree, management intervenes to finalize the split. This encourages collaboration under the assumption of fairness, but still recognizes extraordinary effort.

If a hybrid model is not desired, leaning toward more structure is generally safer for team dynamics. A predefined split model avoids infighting and is operationally efficient, though it needs periodic reviews to ensure fairness. Alternatively, if measurable contributions are very clear in your sales process, a performance-based formula can work well—provided it’s kept simple and transparent, and balanced by a culture encouraging teamwork.

In conclusion, the optimal commission split approach for joint deals is one that provides a stable framework to avoid conflict, but remains adaptable to actual performance. A default or predefined split gives that stability and promotes trust, while a mechanism for performance-based adjustment injects fairness and motivation. By implementing clear guidelines and a fair process, you ensure that commission splits reward collaboration and results, not internal politics—ultimately driving better outcomes for the sales team and the business.

Sources