.png)
We owe a lot to the Industrial Revolution: mass production, modern business systems, and the first scalable salesforces.
But we also inherited something else:
A way of thinking about motivation that doesn’t quite hold up anymore.
At the heart of it? A belief that people only work harder when you pay them more to do more.
It’s the carrot-and-stick model. Classic, intuitive—and deeply flawed.
If you’re building comp plans in RevOps today, here’s why the old model no longer works, what the Industrial Revolution misunderstood, and what neuroscience, behavioral economics, and modern tools like Leaptree Incentivize now make possible.
🏭 The Industrial Roots of Incentive Design
The earliest large-scale sales orgs emerged in the late 19th century alongside factory systems and the rise of management science.
Think:
- Commission-only reps
- Territory-based quotas
- “Pay-for-performance” contracts
- Managers as overseers, not coaches
This era was defined by the thinking of Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of “scientific management.”
Taylor believed workers were fundamentally lazy, and that monetary reward was the only true motivator.
His fix? Measure, control, reward. Repeat.
This shaped the foundation of modern compensation:
More effort = more pay.
No results = no reward.
🧠 What the Industrial Model Got Wrong
The model wasn’t entirely wrong. But it made some costly assumptions:
❌ Assumption #1: Motivation is purely financial
Modern research shows that while money matters, it’s rarely the top motivator beyond baseline needs.
As Daniel Pink put it: “Pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table—then they care about autonomy, mastery, and purpose.”
❌ Assumption #2: Output is the only metric that matters
In factory work, output is countable. But in modern sales, inputs matter too:
- Discovery quality
- Forecast hygiene
- Pipeline velocity
- Collaboration across teams
❌ Assumption #3: People are interchangeable
The Taylorist model assumes uniformity. But salespeople today bring different strengths, cycles, and styles.
Incentives should adapt—not flatten.
📈 What Modern Science (and RevOps) Tell Us Instead
Today’s top RevOps leaders draw from behavioral economics, neuroscience, and organizational psychology, not just payroll math.
Here’s what they know:
✅ Behavioral design works better than brute force
Small nudges, public recognition, and gamification can outperform big bonuses—especially in complex sales.
Thaler & Sunstein (2008), Nudge Theory
✅ Transparency = trust = traction
Opaque comp plans don’t just confuse reps—they demotivate them.
According to Gartner (2023), reps are 2.3x more likely to hit quota when they fully understand how they’re being paid.
✅ Real-time feedback > end-of-quarter surprises
The old model gave results at the finish line.
New tools like Leaptree Incentivize show progress in real time—fueling momentum, not just reward.
✅ Comp plans can drive behavior, not just results
Want better CRM data hygiene? Faster onboarding? More cross-sell activity?
Incentivize the behavior—not just the end sale.
💡 So What Do We Do Now?
Here’s how RevOps teams can build post-industrial incentive systems:
🛠️ Use tools that allow for customization and experimentation
📊 Align rewards to leading indicators, not just lagging metrics
🧠 Apply behavioral insight to trigger motivation
🔍 Build transparency into every plan
🤝 Involve salespeople in plan design and iteration
The best part? You don’t need to do this manually.
Platforms like Leaptree Incentivize give you:
- Real-time dashboards
- Behavior-based incentive design
- Transparent earnings breakdowns
- Flexibility to adapt plans by persona, role, or stage
It’s not just modern. It’s more human.
Final Thought: It’s Time to Evolve Past the Factory Floor
The Industrial Revolution gave us a lot. But it also gave us a limited view of human motivation.
Modern sales is creative, consultative, and collaborative.
That means comp plans should do more than push reps to grind.
They should guide reps to grow.
Not just “sell more.”
But “sell smarter, better, together.”
Because in 2025, the best-performing teams won’t be the ones chasing carrots.
They’ll be the ones working with clarity, trust, and purpose—and getting rewarded for all three.
📚 References
- Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management.
- Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Riverhead Books.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.
- Gartner (2023). Sales Compensation Trends: From Pay to Performance Design