Hello dear practitioners,
This is a very delicate and complicated matter. I'll try to make it short.
I'm working right now on a Holacracy implementation for a company and I reached a circle that is responsible for an entire Acquisition/Sales Funnel. This circle has Key Accounts, Sales Development Representatives, Inbout marketers, and more.
Of course, as it is a standard market practice - at least in Brazil - some of these positions receive incentives based on a specific metric (like monthly booking). We are in the middle of an implementation and we do not intend to change any compensation systems and incentives program right now.
The huge problem is that these incentives are not only tied to metrics, but also to targets. That is, if I make 80% of the target I do not receive proportionally the same as if I make 100% or more. Furthermore, there is a minimum target (let's say 20%) that if I do not reach it, I don't receive any comission/incentive.
What happened is that I recently facilitated the first tactical (and governance meetings), and our spreadsheet for the "metrics review" only contained the metrics, with no targets set for every metric. And obviously, they asked me to add a "Target" column for all the metrics. I didn't say yes, because I am not sure this is the best way right now. But I said I would prepare a material about targets and talk to them later on.
Well, I think I have some options right now and I would like to know your thoughts:
1. Just add the target column and handle this later. I'm not very happy with this one...
2. Explain the disadvantages of targets in a teal perspective and tell them they can add metrics like "difference from ambition in a %" for the ones that they cannot live without, but say it is not recommend to add target for all metrics.
3. Ask them to handle targets outside tactical meetings in order to fix this later.
What do you think? Do you suggest any other approach?