A strong argument would at least consider the systemic consequences of commissions, rather than just extolling the assumed virtues in a circular argument. What is their impact on product? On support? Engineering morale? On the customer experience itself? Just a myriad of effects not even considered here when commissions are looked at in isolation, the system be damned.
It's probably very true that it's not plausible to do anything but commission-based sales in this market, and competing with other companies offering so much more money for the same job is just not worth the effort. But it's lazy to assume that their isn't a better holistic model, taking into account the whole company system, and not solely myopic sales metrics.
It's not a circular argument to point out that excellent sales people will take the commission job, while bad sales people will take the salaried job. All the things you mention (support, morale, ...) are second-order considerations -- the first order consideration is getting the best people.
This assumes a specific philosophy of how companies work (good individuals) while an alternative model of good working systems is also effective. A systems view is less dependent on good individuals.
As W. Edwards Deming said, "A bad system beats a good person every time."
I've read articles from credible people talking about building commission-less sales cultures and I like the idea.
But from experience in a few different companies, one of which involved me directly working with a decent-sized sales team, adverse selection is empirically a major issue.
Among the things I feel like I've learned is that the sales people who are most engaged with the product space and can converse most intelligently about the product you're building are not necessarily the people who are best at actually driving revenue, and that a fledgling product for which the numbers don't exist to guarantee a pretty steady stream of commissions will drag very intelligent-sounding ineffective salespeople out of the woodwork.
There seems to be a species of salesperson that has evolved to sell executive management on continuing to pay them while blaming the rest of the company for their inability to close deals, rather than selling prospective customers on a product. I've had the misfortune of working with some of them. At the time, they even had me on their side! It's really quite creepy in retrospect.
I'd go way out of my way to avoid attracting the sort of salesperson who is driven by anything other than transactionally closing deals as quickly as possible, just to avoid the possibility of having to work with someone like that again.
It's important to note that what counts in the end is the bottom line of the company.
Revenue brought in by sales has a direct effect on the stuff that matter. The effect of product quality, support quality and engineering morale matters only to the extent that it affects revenue.
A salesman getting some CFO to sign on the dotted line has a clear and guaranteed impact on your profits.
An engineer developing an excellent new feature or removing a major future scalability problem might have an uncertain (though possibly large) effect on your profits in the distant future. Maybe the feature will drive new sales, and maybe it won't. Maybe the company won't ever reach the volume where the future scalability problem will matter, as they'll go out of business.
Companies are in the business of using money to make money. Selling a feature doesn't work will get you money that might allow to make that feature. Making a great feature that's not sold is money and effort that's completely wasted.
Thinline misposted response to the inc.com article:
Interesting last comment (from November 2016) to the original article:
"Important Update *
I am currently employed at Pluralsight, and I feel obligated to point out that the author of this article, our CEO, no longer believes or stands behind any of the content in this article. Pluralsight does not operate under the Deming philosophy. As of January 2017, Pluralsight will be implementing sales commissions again. We have reverted to the typical high-pressure, high-stress quota models found in most companies.
Mostly. Going back a ways to companies like Digital Equipment Corp., sales commissions weren't originally used--or at least they were limited. The theory was that you wanted to form long-term partnerships with customers, not encourage selling things they didn't need, etc. This was a minority practice though and DEC itself eventually abandoned it.
Although it's not directly related to commissions, as others have touched on, sales is generally a very performance-oriented culture. You don't hear about the challenges of interviewing for sales because it's really pretty simple. You often hire based on past performance and, if you hire someone who doesn't make quota for a quarter or two, you get rid of them. A useful quote is: "I've never met a sales manager who has trouble firing people."
You have to find a way to measure it though. As long as you can't that it doesn't matter if there are a more holistic way to think about it (my guess is that there are but it requires a lot more data pick-up-point)
What matters is who creates profit which is easy to measure by their paycheck. What I was saying was that if want a more holistic way to approach it you will need to find a better way to measure who is involved in the sales process.
It's probably very true that it's not plausible to do anything but commission-based sales in this market, and competing with other companies offering so much more money for the same job is just not worth the effort. But it's lazy to assume that their isn't a better holistic model, taking into account the whole company system, and not solely myopic sales metrics.
Edit: is Pluralsight a big enough counterexample? Maybe some food for thought from Aaron Skonnard here: https://www.inc.com/aaron-skonnard/why-sales-commissions-don...