Your top enterprise rep just handed in their notice. Third one this quarter. The pattern is unmistakable: they close a £200,000 deal after 11 months of relationship-building, watch a colleague earn the same commission on three transactional wins requiring a fraction of the effort, and start updating their LinkedIn profile. According to Xactly‘s 2025 Sales Compensation Report, 87% of sales teams struggle to meet or exceed quota targets. The compensation structure itself may be the problem.
Mid-market B2B companies face a specific challenge: average deal cycles now stretch to for contracts valued between £40,000 and £80,000, according to benchmark data from Norwest. Traditional commission models designed for 30-day sales cycles create systematic disadvantages for reps handling complex, multi-stakeholder opportunities. The mismatch costs organisations their best talent and undermines strategic account development.
Why traditional commission structures fail in extended B2B cycles
Flat commission rates treat all revenue as equivalent. They do not. A rep who closes £100,000 in transactional deals over three months earns identical commission to one who lands a single £100,000 enterprise contract after nine months of discovery calls, stakeholder mapping, and procurement negotiations. The maths is brutal: the enterprise rep earns roughly one-third per hour of effort. Smart people notice.
In my work restructuring compensation plans for B2B technology companies across the UK—approximately 60 projects since 2019, primarily firms with 20-200 employees—applying uniform commission rates across deal types consistently damages enterprise sales retention. The reps handling 12-month cycles earn less per hour of effort than colleagues closing transactional deals. Median turnover among enterprise-focused reps reached 34% within 18 months. This pattern may vary based on industry and existing commission baselines.
The hidden cost of flat commission rates: Applying identical commission percentages across transactional and enterprise deals systematically undervalues complex sales effort. Enterprise reps calculate their effective hourly rate—and leave when the maths stops working. CIPD employee turnover benchmarking data confirms the average UK worker turnover sits at 34%, but sales roles often exceed this significantly.
The second failure mode is timing. Commission paid at deal close creates cash flow gaps for reps working extended cycles. Six months without meaningful variable income tests financial resilience and psychological commitment. Competitors offering guaranteed draws or milestone payments during this period present compelling alternatives. That matters.
Compensation models that match complex sales realities
Five compensation structures warrant serious consideration for extended B2B cycles. Each carries distinct trade-offs in administrative complexity, cash flow impact, and retention effectiveness. The comparison below evaluates these models specifically against cycle length compatibility—the dimension most standard guides overlook.
| Model | Best cycle length | Cash flow impact | Admin complexity | Retention effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Straight commission | Under 3 months | Low (company) | Low | Poor for long cycles |
| Tiered commission | 3-6 months | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Draw against commission | 6-12 months | High (company) | Moderate | Strong |
| Milestone-based | 9-18 months | Distributed | High | Strong |
| Hybrid base-heavy | 12+ months | Predictable | Low | Very strong |
A Manchester-based B2B software company with 45 sales staff and £8M ARR illustrates the stakes. With an enterprise sales cycle averaging 9 months, their flat 8% commission structure drove three top enterprise reps to resign within the same quarter, all citing compensation frustration. The solution involved introducing tiered structures with complexity multipliers that rewarded cycle length and stakeholder count. Retention improved to 91% over the following 12 months.
Which compensation model fits your situation
-
Average cycle exceeds 9 months?
Consider draw against commission or milestone-based structures. Standard tiered models undervalue extended effort.
-
Cash reserves support guaranteed draws?
If yes, draw arrangements provide income stability without sacrificing upside. If constrained, milestone-based payments distribute company cash flow risk.
-
Current turnover exceeds 20%?
Prioritise retention features: higher base ratios, accelerators above quota, and complexity multipliers. Performance optimisation comes after stabilisation.
London-based companies face additional pressure. According to tech sales salary insights from meritt, London continues to pay a 15-25% premium over other UK regions, particularly for Sales Development Representatives. This regional differential compounds the retention challenge for companies competing against metropolitan employers while operating outside the capital. When selecting your structure, consider downloading a sales commission plan template to model scenarios before committing.
Implementing compensation changes without destabilising your team
A technology company I advised in 2022 announced their new compensation structure via email on a Friday afternoon. By Monday, four reps had interviews scheduled elsewhere. The structure itself was sound—tiered commissions with complexity multipliers. The rollout destroyed trust. Implementation matters as much as design.
A comprehensive restructuring typically spans from audit to rollout. Current state assessment occupies weeks one and two, followed by financial modelling of structure options in weeks three and four. Leadership alignment and scenario stress-testing fill weeks five and six. Communication planning and rep consultation take weeks seven and eight. Phased implementation with parallel tracking runs from week nine through twelve. First meaningful performance data emerges around month four. This timeline reflects patterns from 25 full restructuring projects with UK companies employing 30-150 sales staff between 2021 and 2025.
Compensation restructuring readiness checklist
-
Current structure documented with all edge cases and exception handling -
Financial model stress-tested against optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic scenarios -
Top performer feedback collected through confidential one-to-one conversations -
Transition period grandfathering terms defined for deals currently in pipeline -
Communication timeline aligned with quota cycle to avoid mid-period disruption
Not every situation warrants restructuring. If turnover sits below 15% and pipeline velocity meets targets, the disruption risk may outweigh potential gains. Stability has value. The most common mistake I encounter involves leaders who pursue compensation redesign when the actual problem lies in territory assignment or pipeline quality. Fix the right problem first.
When restructuring becomes necessary, connect the change to broader strategic planning. Compensation alignment supports—but cannot substitute for—coherent commercial strategy. Those developing a sales strategy should address compensation within that framework rather than treating it as an isolated operational adjustment. The question facing your organisation: does your current structure reward the behaviours that drive long-term value, or does it incentivise short-term wins at strategic cost?