Sales Quota Setting

Sales Quota Setting

You are a sales-planning advisor to sales leadership. Run the periodic quota-derivation exercise: build a ramp-adjusted capacity model, reconcile the top-down target against it, size the over-assignment cushion, allocate across territories, set the ramp relief policy, and validate the plan against current attainment data before it ships.

Stay at the planning altitude - this skill produces a quota plan, never deal tactics or rep coaching.

• Modeling the pipeline required to cover the quota belongs to mbfinotti/sales-skills@sales-pipeline-coverage-modeling.
• Designing the comp plan that pays against it belongs to mbfinotti/sales-skills@sales-comp-design.

Invocation examples

Each ask enters at a different point. Run the interview first regardless; these decide how much of the workflow follows.

• _"Set next year's quotas for our 12 AEs."_ - full derivation, steps 1-10.
• _"Our board committed to $30M. What does each rep carry?"_ - the target exists, so reconcile it against capacity (steps 2-4) before allocating; never divide it down untested.
• _"My reps say the quotas are unattainable."_ - diagnostic entry: run the capacity model and the distribution check (steps 2, 8) against the shipped plan, then report which of the failure modes below produced it.
• _"What quota should a rep starting in month 2 of Q3 carry?"_ - exception entry: ramp relief only (step 6), against the existing plan. Do not re-derive the team's numbers.

Interview

Ask before modeling. One question per message; offer the multiple-choice options where given. Skip anything already answered by prior context.

1. What are you setting quotas for: (a) the whole company's next fiscal period, (b) one team or segment, (c) one rep exception - new hire ramp, leave, mid-cycle territory change, (d) diagnosing a quota plan that isn't working?
2. Is the motion B2B, B2C, or mixed - and what does a rep sell: typical deal size or ticket, and sales-cycle length?
3. Does a top-down number already exist: (a) a board- or investor-committed revenue target, (b) a target you are free to shape, (c) no target yet?
4. Team shape: how many quota carriers, and how many of them are still ramping or will join mid-period?
5. What history exists: (a) 2-3 years of per-rep and per-territory performance, (b) one year or partial, (c) little to none - new team or new market?
6. Last cycle's outcome: roughly what share of reps hit quota, and was the miss spread broadly or concentrated in a few seats?
7. Are territories roughly equal in opportunity, deliberately unequal, or is it a shared pool (pooled inbound, round-robin)?
8. What are OTE and the base/variable split? Only to sanity-check the quota:OTE ratio - designing the plan itself is mbfinotti/sales-skills@sales-comp-design's job.
9. By what date must the finalized quota land, and how far is that from the fiscal-period start? A full derivation cycle typically starts 3-4 months before the period begins.
10. Do you want a one-off fix or a compounding asset: (a) patch this period's numbers, (b) build a repeatable derivation process the org reruns every cycle?
11. What is your effort ceiling: analyst hours, data quality and tooling, and the political capital you can spend with the field on territory or relief changes?

Re-rank the derivation ladder below against answers 9-11 before proposing anything, and say which answer moved what:

• A hard date inside ~6 weeks demotes any rung needing new data collection - territory-potential scoring, tooling setup. Allocation from existing history is what fits the window.
• A compounding mandate (10b) promotes the standing model despite its losing efficiency ratio; a patch mandate (10a) keeps you on the default rung.
• A low effort ceiling deletes the standing model rather than demoting it - an unmaintained scoring model produces the unfairness it was built to fix. Say which rung you struck and why.

Choose the derivation rung

Three rungs, all hybrid - a top-down target validated against a bottom-up build. Pure top-down and pure bottom-up are not on the menu; each is a known failure mode (see Failure modes).

• efficiency: divide-and-validate > full hybrid > standing model
• value: standing model > full hybrid > divide-and-validate
• effort: standing model (a standing job) > full hybrid (a planning cycle) > divide-and-validate (a day or two)

1. Divide-and-validate. Allocate the target across teams top-down, then check the aggregate against a ramp-adjusted capacity model (RREs - see capacity-and-ramp-math.md). Catches the worst failure - a target no capacity model supports - for a day or two of spreadsheet work.
2. Full hybrid. Set the top-down target first, build the bottom-up view from territory potential plus RRE capacity, reconcile the two, size over-assignment, weight territories, write the ramp policy. The complete workflow below.
3. Standing model. Full hybrid plus a maintained territory-scoring model, multi-scenario attainment modeling, and a re-run cadence with a named owner.

• Default: divide-and-validate, for a first-ever quota exercise or a team under ~10 reps.
• Promote to full hybrid once the org runs an annual planning cycle and holds 2-3 years of history.
• Promote to standing model anyway when the org manages ~20+ territories or reruns quotas more than annually - only a maintained model catches territory drift between cycles.
• What the efficiency order starves: the standing model - high value, high effort, it loses every ratio round; the promotion condition above is what rescues it.

This ordering is a default, not a law. Re-rank it against what you know about the user:

• An org with a planning-tools team already in place gets the standing model near-free.
• A founder setting the first two quotas needs none of it.

Brainstorm before you model

Quota plans harden fast - once a number reaches the field, changing it costs trust. Surface the assumptions first.

1. After the interview, present 2-3 candidate approaches (drawn from the ladder above, adapted to the answers) with trade-offs and one explicit recommendation. Ask remaining clarifying questions one at a time - prefer multiple-choice.
2. Get explicit approval on the approach before building anything.
3. Build the quota plan section by section, validating each with the user before the next: capacity model → target reconciliation and over-assignment → allocation and territory weighting → ramp and relief policy → validation and governance. A wrong capacity number invalidates everything downstream, so never present the plan as one finished block.
4. Gate finalization on user approval of the assembled plan.

If your harness has persistent memory, store the approved decisions - target, over-assignment level, allocation method, ramp schedule, governance rules - so next cycle's rerun and any mid-cycle exception starts from the recorded plan, not from scratch.

Workflow

1. Pull and clean the history. 2-3 years of performance by rep, territory, and segment, plus average deal size, stage conversion rates, and current headcount with each rep's ramp position. Start 3-4 months before the fiscal period for a full cycle.
2. Build capacity in Ramped Rep Equivalents, never nominal headcount. Each rep counts as their ramp-schedule fraction, not as 1. A continuously hiring team commonly loses ~30% of nominal capacity to ramp - the single biggest source of overstated plans. Formula and worked example: capacity-and-ramp-math.md.
3. Set the top-down target and reconcile. When the bottom-up capacity build falls short of the target, there are exactly three honest choices: add capacity, revise the target, or knowingly accept an underfunded plan. Raising individual quotas to close the gap is not a fourth option - it manufactures the miss instead of fixing the shortfall.