Opinions expressed by contributors to Entrepreneur reflect their individual perspectives alone.
Over the course of many years serving as a coach for a wide array of sales teams, I have frequently observed the toll that traditional, competition-dominated sales environments can take on managers and leaders. Among the defining characteristics of sales professionals is the fact that they are often highly competitive individuals. This trait is not inherently negative—indeed, when properly channeled, their drive for victory can lead to consistent revenue growth and impressive levels of productivity. Yet this very intensity can also present enormous challenges for management. A leader is often tasked not only with keeping these high performers on target but also with ensuring that their aggressiveness and impulsive tendencies do not spiral into damaging behaviors that undercut organizational harmony.
On numerous occasions I have personally witnessed situations in which star performers battled over territorial assignments, resources, or client ownership, creating levels of hostility that disrupted entire teams. What begins as a dispute over sales geography can escalate into open conflict, forcing the sales manager into the role of mediator or referee rather than strategist. Instead of dedicating energy to long-term planning and inspiring innovation, leaders find themselves trapped in continuous conflict resolution, which is both mentally exhausting for them and destabilizing for the broader company culture.
Experiences like these compelled me to search for new, healthier ways of structuring sales organizations. I immersed myself in studying companies that had successfully redefined their approach to the sales function, particularly those that dismantled the rigid silos characteristic of conventional departments. In doing so, I noticed how these forward-thinking organizations adjusted their compensation models to prioritize collective accomplishments above strictly individual wins. By choosing to emphasize shared success, they fostered environments in which collaboration became not only possible but expected. These models revealed to me a compelling truth: there is a more sustainable and effective path forward for sales teams—and leaders who adopt it stand to benefit greatly.
The inherent ambition and determination of salespeople can absolutely fuel business growth. However, when that ambition is misdirected internally, with team members focused on besting one another instead of external rivals, precious time and energy are wasted. The result is counterproductive: instead of uniting to overcome market challenges, employees become entangled in personal rivalries that prevent them from collectively achieving broader company objectives. Moreover, intense internal rivalries prevent sales professionals from developing mutual trust, which is essential for reaching shared milestones.
One meaningful solution lies in restructuring the internal selling framework to explicitly reward collaboration. When team members are incentivized to work together, they are more likely to pool their diverse talents and expertise, thereby increasing the probability of outperforming external competitors. Yet leaders must act with intentionality: collaboration cannot merely be declared as an abstract value and then forgotten. Instead, it must be deliberately woven into the very fabric of the organization’s sales culture. This means systematically adjusting processes and policies so that collaboration is both measurable and enforceable, ensuring that outcomes are tangible and not left to chance.
The first step is to provide sales representatives with greater flexibility. Many organizations rigidly assign territories, vertical markets, or distinct product lines to individual sellers. While seemingly efficient, this structure often sparks competition and resentment, particularly if some assignments are perceived as more lucrative or prestigious. To diminish these tensions, consider experimenting with approaches that reduce barriers between teams. For example, the energy company Nexus Power has replaced the conventional model with a structure based on five collaborative divisions that span eleven western states. Rather than limiting commissions to individual product categories, Nexus encourages cross-division collaboration, allowing representatives to leverage each other’s expertise when customer requirements are complex or multi-faceted. The outcome is twofold: customers experience more seamless support, and the sales force becomes recognized as comprehensive advisors capable of addressing end-to-end needs. To adopt a similar framework, a leader might start by mapping current organizational boundaries, launching pilot programs that permit flexible collaboration, and instituting transparent revenue-sharing systems along with scheduled knowledge exchanges. Equally important is a redesigned compensation model that rewards teamwork so that employees are never penalized financially for supporting their peers.
Next, companies can integrate group-based commissions within incentive structures. Traditional compensation schemes rely heavily on personal quotas, but such systems often discourage mutual support. Evidence suggests that many organizations are shifting direction: one survey revealed that more than ninety percent of businesses intend to adjust their incentive models in the near term. Pfizer provides a particularly effective example, with thousands of U.S. field representatives grouped into overlapping business lines and micro-territories. Their model ensures that when an entire region collectively surpasses 100% of its sales target, every employee in that group benefits from an annual performance bonus. Territories are also recalibrated on a quarterly basis, minimizing perceptions of inequality and cementing a sense of shared purpose.
A third, equally powerful approach is to empower employees by aligning their roles with their innate strengths. Tools such as the Clifton Strengths assessment can provide managers with insights into whether a given salesperson thrives as a relationship-builder, a lead generator, a closer, or a technical expert. Once these unique talents are identified, leaders can restructure workflows so that individuals are placed in settings where they are most likely to excel. For instance, natural networkers might be tasked with generating opportunities, while detail-oriented communicators can focus on nurturing client relationships until contracts are finalized. This thoughtful distribution of tasks not only drives higher collective performance but also brings clarity to team dynamics, illuminating skill gaps that can be filled through future hiring. As markets evolve, such strength-based collaboration also enables greater adaptability, since teams already operate as cohesive units rather than isolated competitors.
Ultimately, leaders already face immense pressures without shouldering the constant burden of refereeing interpersonal rivalries. By deemphasizing destructive competition and systematically encouraging cooperation, managers can reduce stress while unlocking the full power of their teams. The lesson is clear: a culture built upon collaboration does more than protect morale—it elevates performance across the board, driving results that no cutthroat environment could sustainably achieve.
Sourse: https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/want-to-sell-more-make-your-team-less-competitive-not-more/494828
