How Are RevOps Teams Restructuring Sales Compensation Plans for AI-Assisted Reps in 2027?

Curated by Kory White · Fractional CRO, CRO Syndicate

👍 Yup or 👎 Nope — vote this up its category:

📅 Published Jun 18, 2026

How Are RevOps Teams Restructuring Sales Compensation Plans for AI-Assisted Reps in 2027?

Published: June 18, 2026 · Updated: June 18, 2026

Direct Answer

In 2027, RevOps teams are restructuring sales compensation around one hard truth: when an AI SDR books meetings and an AI agent drafts proposals, the human rep is no longer the bottleneck on activity - they are the bottleneck on judgment, deal orchestration, and closing.

The dominant redesign moves money off raw activity (dials, emails, demos booked) and onto outcomes the AI cannot own: net-new logo acquisition, multi-threaded complex deals, expansion, and gross-margin-aware deal quality. Practically, teams are doing four things at once.

First, they are raising quotas 20 to 40 percent for AI-assisted reps because each rep now covers more pipeline, while shortening ramp from the old 6-to-9-month norm toward 3 to 4 months. Second, they are flattening or shrinking the SDR-to-AE comp ladder as AI absorbs top-of-funnel prospecting, redeploying former SDRs into hybrid "AI orchestrator" or junior-closer roles.

Third, they are introducing quality and integrity gates - clawbacks, margin floors, and human-touch verification - so reps are not paid for AI-generated pipeline that never converts. Fourth, they are keeping on-target earnings (OTE) roughly flat or slightly up while steepening the curve: accelerators above 100 percent attainment get richer, and the floor gets thinner.

The teams getting this right treat comp as a change-management instrument, not a spreadsheet - they pilot with one segment, instrument it in tools like Xactly, CaptivateIQ, Spiff (Salesforce), or QuotaPath, and only then roll it wide.

The 2027 Context: Why the Old Comp Model Broke

1.1 The Activity-Pay Assumption Collapsed

The legacy model paid reps - directly or indirectly - for volume of human effort. SDRs earned on meetings booked; AEs earned on a quota sized to how many deals one human can work. In 2027 that assumption is gone.

AI prospecting agents from vendors such as Clay, 11x, Artisan, and Regie.ai, plus the agentic layers shipping inside Salesforce Agentforce and HubSpot Breeze, now generate, enrich, and sequence outbound at a volume no human team could match. When activity is near-free, paying for activity overpays for a commodity.

RevOps leaders who left activity-based SPIFs in place through 2026 watched cost-of-sale rise while win rates stayed flat.

1.2 The Productivity Step-Change Is Real But Uneven

The lift from AI assistance is not uniform across the funnel. Top-of-funnel research, list-building, first-touch email, and call summarization compress dramatically - often 50 to 70 percent time saved per rep on those tasks. But late-stage work - navigating procurement, multi-stakeholder consensus, custom pricing, and the actual close - barely moves.

So the comp redesign has to be stage-aware: pull pay out of the stages AI commoditized, concentrate it in the stages where human judgment still decides the outcome.

graph TD A[AI tooling deployed to reps] --> B{Is the paid behavior now AI-commoditized?} B -->|Yes: dials, emails, meetings booked| C[Remove from comp move to capacity metric] B -->|No: closing, expansion, multi-thread| D[Increase weight in plan] C --> E{Did rep capacity rise?} D --> E E -->|Yes| F[Raise quota 20-40% shorten ramp to 3-4 mo] E -->|No or unclear| G[Hold quota, instrument and re-measure next quarter] F --> H{Add integrity gates?} G --> H H -->|Yes| I[Margin floor + clawback + human-touch verification] H --> J[Pilot one segment in Xactly / CaptivateIQ / Spiff] I --> J J --> K[Measure attainment dispersion then roll wide]

The Four Structural Moves RevOps Is Making

2.1 Re-Sizing Quota and Compressing Ramp

Because an AI-assisted AE covers more accounts and works more pipeline per hour, quota capacity goes up. Most teams in 2027 are landing in the 20 to 40 percent quota-increase band for fully tooled segments, with the high end reserved for high-velocity SMB and mid-market motions where AI leverage is greatest.

Enterprise quotas move less because the close still depends on human-led consensus. Just as important, ramp is compressing. New hires reach productivity faster when call coaching, account research, and objection prep are handled by an AI copilot such as Gong or Clari Copilot.

RevOps teams are moving ramped-quota schedules from the traditional 6-to-9-month curve toward 3 to 4 months, and they are adjusting the ramp guarantee (the draw paid during ramp) down accordingly to protect cost-of-sale.

2.2 Flattening the SDR-to-AE Ladder

The biggest organizational shift: AI is absorbing the SDR function. Where a team once ran a 1:1 or 2:1 SDR-to-AE ratio, many 2027 orgs run leaner human SDR teams backed by AI agents, or they have collapsed the role entirely. That breaks the old comp ladder where SDR comp (often $45K-$70K OTE, ranges vary by region and segment) was a stepping stone to AE.

RevOps is redeploying strong SDRs into AI orchestrator roles - humans who supervise agent output, personalize the high-value 10 percent of accounts, and qualify AI-sourced meetings before they hit an AE's calendar. Comp for these hybrid roles blends a meeting-quality bonus (paid on accepted, sales-qualified meetings, not raw booked meetings) with a sourced-pipeline-to-close kicker, aligning the human to outcomes rather than volume.

2.3 Adding Integrity Gates So AI Pipeline Earns Its Pay

When AI generates pipeline cheaply, the failure mode is junk pipeline - reps and agents stuffing the funnel with low-intent accounts to chase activity credit. RevOps counters with integrity gates baked into comp:

Margin floors: deals below a configured gross-margin threshold earn a reduced rate, discouraging AI-assisted discounting sprees.
Human-touch verification: a meeting or opportunity must show a logged human action (a real discovery call, a multi-thread email from the rep) before it counts toward variable pay.
Clawbacks: commission on deals that churn or fail to onboard inside a defined window (often 90 to 180 days) is reversed, which matters more now that AI can close fast but shallow.

2.4 Steepening the Curve Without Blowing Up OTE

Most teams are holding OTE roughly flat to slightly up to avoid a comp shock that triggers attrition, but they are redistributing the dollars. The base-to-variable split is shifting modestly toward variable (for example from 60/40 toward 55/45 in closing roles) so more pay is at risk against outcomes.

Accelerators above 100 percent attainment get richer, rewarding the reps who use AI leverage to overperform, while the soft floor that used to protect low performers is thinned. The net effect is greater attainment dispersion: the gap between top and bottom reps widens, which is exactly what RevOps wants when leverage rewards skill.

The Operator Playbook: Who Owns What

3.1 The RevOps Comp Lead

Owns the plan design, modeling, and instrumentation. This person builds the new plan in a dedicated sales performance management (SPM) platform - Xactly Incent, CaptivateIQ, Spiff, or QuotaPath for leaner teams - and runs what-if models against last year's deal data before launch.

They define the quota credit rules, the margin floor, and the clawback logic, and they own the dispute and adjustment workflow.

3.2 The Sales Leader and Finance Partner

The VP of Sales owns adoption and the narrative to reps - why the plan changed and how a strong rep earns more, not less. Finance / FP&A owns the cost-of-sale guardrail, signing off that the new accelerators and raised quotas keep variable comp inside the planned percentage of revenue.

RevOps sits between them, translating field reality into models Finance trusts.

3.3 Enablement and the Rep

Enablement owns the AI-tool adoption that makes the raised quota achievable - if reps cannot actually use the copilot, the higher quota is just a pay cut. The rep owns the behaviors the new plan rewards: deep multi-threading, expansion motions, and margin-aware selling. The plan only works when these four roles move together.

Rolling It Out Without a Revolt

A comp change is the single most sensitive lever in revenue. The 2027 best practice is a staged rollout, not a big-bang reset.

sequenceDiagram participant RO as RevOps Comp Lead participant FIN as Finance / FP&A participant SL as Sales Leader participant REP as Reps (Pilot Segment) RO->>FIN: Model new plan vs prior-year deal data FIN-->>RO: Approve cost-of-sale guardrail RO->>SL: Present quota, accelerators, integrity gates SL-->>RO: Align on narrative and pilot segment RO->>REP: Launch pilot in one segment (SMB or one region) REP-->>RO: Attainment + dispute data over 1-2 quarters RO->>FIN: Reconcile actual vs modeled cost-of-sale FIN-->>SL: Confirm economics hold SL->>REP: Roll plan to full team with refined thresholds

The discipline is: model first, pilot one segment, instrument everything, then scale. Teams that skip the pilot and reset comp company-wide in one quarter consistently see mid-year attrition spikes among the exact tenured reps they most wanted to keep.

Bottom Line

The 2027 comp redesign is not about paying reps less because AI does the work - it is about moving the money to where humans still create value. RevOps teams raise quotas and compress ramp to reflect higher capacity, flatten the SDR ladder as agents absorb prospecting, gate variable pay with margin floors and clawbacks so AI-sourced pipeline earns its keep, and steepen the curve so skilled operators of AI tooling pull away from the pack.

Hold OTE roughly flat, redistribute toward variable and accelerators, pilot in one segment with a real SPM platform, and treat the whole exercise as change management rather than a spreadsheet edit. The teams that do this convert AI leverage into margin; the teams that leave activity-based plans in place just pay more for cheaper work.

FAQ

Should we cut OTE since AI is doing part of the rep's job? Generally no. Most 2027 teams hold OTE roughly flat or nudge it up while shifting the base-to-variable split toward variable and steepening accelerators. Cutting OTE outright is the fastest way to trigger attrition among your best reps, who are also the ones who use AI leverage to overperform.

Move the dollars, do not remove them.

How much should we raise quota for AI-assisted reps? The common 2027 band is 20 to 40 percent, weighted by motion. High-velocity SMB and mid-market segments sit at the top of the range because AI leverage there is greatest, while enterprise quotas move less because the close still depends on human-led, multi-stakeholder consensus.

Always model the increase against last year's actual deal data before committing.

What stops reps from gaming AI to inflate pipeline for commission? Integrity gates. The three that matter most are a gross-margin floor (sub-threshold deals earn a reduced rate), human-touch verification (an opportunity must show a logged human action to count), and clawbacks on deals that churn inside 90 to 180 days.

These keep variable pay tied to durable, human-validated outcomes rather than AI-generated volume.

Which tools do we need to run a redesigned plan? A dedicated sales performance management platform is the backbone - Xactly Incent, CaptivateIQ, or Spiff (Salesforce) for larger teams, QuotaPath for leaner ones. Pair it with revenue-intelligence tooling like Gong or Clari to verify the human-touch and deal-quality signals your new plan pays on.

Model in the SPM tool before launch and instrument attainment dispersion after.

Sources

Xactly, "Sales Compensation Planning and Benchmarks" - xactlycorp.com/resources
CaptivateIQ, "The State of Sales Compensation 2026-2027" - captivateiq.com/resources
Salesforce, "Agentforce for Sales" product documentation - salesforce.com/agentforce
Gartner for Sales, "Future of Sales: AI and Seller Productivity" - gartner.com/en/sales
Forrester, "AI-Assisted Selling and the Reshaping of Quota" research - forrester.com
Gong Labs, "Revenue Intelligence and Rep Productivity Benchmarks" - gong.io/resources
The RevOps Co-op, "Comp Plan Design in the Age of AI Agents" community guidance - revopscoop.com

Keep reading

# How Are RevOps Teams Restructuring Sales Compensation Plans for AI-Assisted Reps in 2027?

**Published:** June 18, 2026  ·  **Updated:** June 18, 2026

## Direct Answer

In 2027, RevOps teams are restructuring sales compensation around one hard truth: when an **AI SDR** books meetings and an **AI agent** drafts proposals, the human rep is no longer the bottleneck on activity - they are the bottleneck on **judgment, deal orchestration, and closing**. The dominant redesign moves money **off raw activity** (dials, emails, demos booked) and **onto outcomes the AI cannot own**: net-new logo acquisition, **multi-threaded** complex deals, expansion, and gross-margin-aware deal quality. Practically, teams are doing four things at once. First, they are **raising quotas 20 to 40 percent** for AI-assisted reps because each rep now covers more pipeline, while **shortening ramp** from the old 6-to-9-month norm toward 3 to 4 months. Second, they are **flattening or shrinking the SDR-to-AE comp ladder** as AI absorbs top-of-funnel prospecting, redeploying former SDRs into hybrid "**AI orchestrator**" or junior-closer roles. Third, they are introducing **quality and integrity gates** - clawbacks, margin floors, and human-touch verification - so reps are not paid for AI-generated pipeline that never converts. Fourth, they are keeping **on-target earnings (OTE)** roughly flat or slightly up while **steepening the curve**: accelerators above 100 percent attainment get richer, and the floor gets thinner. The teams getting this right treat comp as a **change-management instrument**, not a spreadsheet - they pilot with one segment, instrument it in tools like **Xactly**, **CaptivateIQ**, **Spiff (Salesforce)**, or **QuotaPath**, and only then roll it wide.

## The 2027 Context: Why the Old Comp Model Broke

### 1.1 The Activity-Pay Assumption Collapsed

The legacy model paid reps - directly or indirectly - for **volume of human effort**. SDRs earned on **meetings booked**; AEs earned on a quota sized to how many deals one human can work. In 2027 that assumption is gone. AI prospecting agents from vendors such as **Clay**, **11x**, **Artisan**, and **Regie.ai**, plus the agentic layers shipping inside **Salesforce Agentforce** and **HubSpot Breeze**, now generate, enrich, and sequence outbound at a volume no human team could match. When activity is near-free, **paying for activity overpays for a commodity**. RevOps leaders who left activity-based SPIFs in place through 2026 watched cost-of-sale rise while win rates stayed flat.

### 1.2 The Productivity Step-Change Is Real But Uneven

The lift from AI assistance is **not uniform across the funnel**. Top-of-funnel research, list-building, first-touch email, and call summarization compress dramatically - often **50 to 70 percent time saved** per rep on those tasks. But **late-stage** work - navigating procurement, multi-stakeholder consensus, custom pricing, and the actual close - barely moves. So the comp redesign has to be **stage-aware**: pull pay out of the stages AI commoditized, concentrate it in the stages where human judgment still decides the outcome.

```mermaid
graph TD
    A[AI tooling deployed to reps] --> B{Is the paid behavior<br/>now AI-commoditized?}
    B -->|Yes: dials, emails,<br/>meetings booked| C[Remove from comp<br/>move to capacity metric]
    B -->|No: closing, expansion,<br/>multi-thread| D[Increase weight in plan]
    C --> E{Did rep capacity rise?}
    D --> E
    E -->|Yes| F[Raise quota 20-40%<br/>shorten ramp to 3-4 mo]
    E -->|No or unclear| G[Hold quota, instrument<br/>and re-measure next quarter]
    F --> H{Add integrity gates?}
    G --> H
    H -->|Yes| I[Margin floor + clawback +<br/>human-touch verification]
    H --> J[Pilot one segment in<br/>Xactly / CaptivateIQ / Spiff]
    I --> J
    J --> K[Measure attainment dispersion<br/>then roll wide]
```

## The Four Structural Moves RevOps Is Making

### 2.1 Re-Sizing Quota and Compressing Ramp

Because an AI-assisted AE covers more accounts and works more pipeline per hour, **quota capacity goes up**. Most teams in 2027 are landing in the **20 to 40 percent quota-increase** band for fully tooled segments, with the high end reserved for **high-velocity SMB and mid-market** motions where AI leverage is greatest. Enterprise quotas move less because the close still depends on human-led consensus. Just as important, **ramp is compressing**. New hires reach productivity faster when **call coaching, account research, and objection prep** are handled by an AI copilot such as **Gong** or **Clari Copilot**. RevOps teams are moving ramped-quota schedules from the traditional 6-to-9-month curve toward **3 to 4 months**, and they are adjusting the **ramp guarantee** (the draw paid during ramp) down accordingly to protect cost-of-sale.

### 2.2 Flattening the SDR-to-AE Ladder

The biggest organizational shift: **AI is absorbing the SDR function**. Where a team once ran a 1:1 or 2:1 SDR-to-AE ratio, many 2027 orgs run **leaner human SDR teams** backed by AI agents, or they have collapsed the role entirely. That breaks the old comp ladder where SDR comp (often **$45K-$70K OTE**, ranges vary by region and segment) was a stepping stone to AE. RevOps is redeploying strong SDRs into **AI orchestrator** roles - humans who supervise agent output, personalize the high-value 10 percent of accounts, and qualify AI-sourced meetings before they hit an AE's calendar. Comp for these hybrid roles blends a **meeting-quality bonus** (paid on accepted, sales-qualified meetings, not raw booked meetings) with a **sourced-pipeline-to-close** kicker, aligning the human to outcomes rather than volume.

### 2.3 Adding Integrity Gates So AI Pipeline Earns Its Pay

When AI generates pipeline cheaply, the failure mode is **junk pipeline** - reps and agents stuffing the funnel with low-intent accounts to chase activity credit. RevOps counters with **integrity gates** baked into comp:

- **Margin floors:** deals below a configured **gross-margin threshold** earn a reduced rate, discouraging AI-assisted discounting sprees.
- **Human-touch verification:** a meeting or opportunity must show a logged human action (a real discovery call, a multi-thread email from the rep) before it counts toward variable pay.
- **Clawbacks:** commission on deals that **churn or fail to onboard** inside a defined window (often 90 to 180 days) is reversed, which matters more now that AI can close fast but shallow.

### 2.4 Steepening the Curve Without Blowing Up OTE

Most teams are holding **OTE roughly flat to slightly up** to avoid a comp shock that triggers attrition, but they are **redistributing the dollars**. The base-to-variable split is shifting modestly toward **variable** (for example from 60/40 toward 55/45 in closing roles) so more pay is at risk against outcomes. Accelerators above 100 percent attainment get **richer**, rewarding the reps who use AI leverage to overperform, while the **soft floor** that used to protect low performers is thinned. The net effect is **greater attainment dispersion**: the gap between top and bottom reps widens, which is exactly what RevOps wants when leverage rewards skill.

## The Operator Playbook: Who Owns What

### 3.1 The RevOps Comp Lead

Owns the **plan design, modeling, and instrumentation**. This person builds the new plan in a dedicated **sales performance management (SPM)** platform - **Xactly Incent**, **CaptivateIQ**, **Spiff**, or **QuotaPath** for leaner teams - and runs **what-if models** against last year's deal data before launch. They define the **quota credit rules**, the margin floor, and the clawback logic, and they own the **dispute and adjustment** workflow.

### 3.2 The Sales Leader and Finance Partner

The **VP of Sales** owns adoption and the narrative to reps - why the plan changed and how a strong rep earns more, not less. **Finance / FP&A** owns the **cost-of-sale guardrail**, signing off that the new accelerators and raised quotas keep variable comp inside the planned percentage of revenue. RevOps sits between them, translating field reality into models Finance trusts.

### 3.3 Enablement and the Rep

**Enablement** owns the AI-tool adoption that makes the raised quota achievable - if reps cannot actually use the copilot, the higher quota is just a pay cut. The **rep** owns the behaviors the new plan rewards: deep multi-threading, expansion motions, and margin-aware selling. The plan only works when these four roles move together.

## Rolling It Out Without a Revolt

A comp change is the single most sensitive lever in revenue. The 2027 best practice is a **staged rollout**, not a big-bang reset.

```mermaid
sequenceDiagram
    participant RO as RevOps Comp Lead
    participant FIN as Finance / FP&A
    participant SL as Sales Leader
    participant REP as Reps (Pilot Segment)
    RO->>FIN: Model new plan vs prior-year deal data
    FIN-->>RO: Approve cost-of-sale guardrail
    RO->>SL: Present quota, accelerators, integrity gates
    SL-->>RO: Align on narrative and pilot segment
    RO->>REP: Launch pilot in one segment (SMB or one region)
    REP-->>RO: Attainment + dispute data over 1-2 quarters
    RO->>FIN: Reconcile actual vs modeled cost-of-sale
    FIN-->>SL: Confirm economics hold
    SL->>REP: Roll plan to full team with refined thresholds
```

The discipline is: **model first, pilot one segment, instrument everything, then scale**. Teams that skip the pilot and reset comp company-wide in one quarter consistently see **mid-year attrition spikes** among the exact tenured reps they most wanted to keep.

## Bottom Line

The 2027 comp redesign is not about paying reps **less** because AI does the work - it is about **moving the money** to where humans still create value. RevOps teams **raise quotas and compress ramp** to reflect higher capacity, **flatten the SDR ladder** as agents absorb prospecting, **gate variable pay with margin floors and clawbacks** so AI-sourced pipeline earns its keep, and **steepen the curve** so skilled operators of AI tooling pull away from the pack. Hold OTE roughly flat, redistribute toward variable and accelerators, pilot in one segment with a real SPM platform, and treat the whole exercise as **change management** rather than a spreadsheet edit. The teams that do this convert AI leverage into margin; the teams that leave activity-based plans in place just pay more for cheaper work.

## FAQ

**Should we cut OTE since AI is doing part of the rep's job?**
Generally no. Most 2027 teams hold OTE roughly flat or nudge it up while shifting the **base-to-variable split** toward variable and steepening accelerators. Cutting OTE outright is the fastest way to trigger attrition among your best reps, who are also the ones who use AI leverage to overperform. Move the dollars, do not remove them.

**How much should we raise quota for AI-assisted reps?**
The common 2027 band is **20 to 40 percent**, weighted by motion. High-velocity SMB and mid-market segments sit at the top of the range because AI leverage there is greatest, while enterprise quotas move less because the close still depends on human-led, multi-stakeholder consensus. Always model the increase against last year's actual deal data before committing.

**What stops reps from gaming AI to inflate pipeline for commission?**
**Integrity gates.** The three that matter most are a **gross-margin floor** (sub-threshold deals earn a reduced rate), **human-touch verification** (an opportunity must show a logged human action to count), and **clawbacks** on deals that churn inside 90 to 180 days. These keep variable pay tied to durable, human-validated outcomes rather than AI-generated volume.

**Which tools do we need to run a redesigned plan?**
A dedicated **sales performance management** platform is the backbone - **Xactly Incent**, **CaptivateIQ**, or **Spiff (Salesforce)** for larger teams, **QuotaPath** for leaner ones. Pair it with revenue-intelligence tooling like **Gong** or **Clari** to verify the human-touch and deal-quality signals your new plan pays on. Model in the SPM tool before launch and instrument attainment dispersion after.

## Sources

- Xactly, "Sales Compensation Planning and Benchmarks" - xactlycorp.com/resources
- CaptivateIQ, "The State of Sales Compensation 2026-2027" - captivateiq.com/resources
- Salesforce, "Agentforce for Sales" product documentation - salesforce.com/agentforce
- Gartner for Sales, "Future of Sales: AI and Seller Productivity" - gartner.com/en/sales
- Forrester, "AI-Assisted Selling and the Reshaping of Quota" research - forrester.com
- Gong Labs, "Revenue Intelligence and Rep Productivity Benchmarks" - gong.io/resources
- The RevOps Co-op, "Comp Plan Design in the Age of AI Agents" community guidance - revopscoop.com

Was this helpful?

⌬ Apply this in PULSE

Gross Profit CalculatorModel margin per deal, per rep, per territory

Related in the library

KnowledgeHow are RevOps teams using AI to forecast revenue more accurately in 2027?Read →KnowledgeWhat does the 2027 wave of SaaS vendor consolidation mean for RevOps tech stacks?Read →KnowledgeHow do you measure marketing's revenue impact in 2027 without third-party cookies?Read →KnowledgeWhy are B2B companies shifting budget from SDR teams to AI prospecting agents in 2027?Read →KnowledgeHow does the AI talent war and compensation for elite researchers work in 2027?Read →KnowledgeHow does the college football coaching salary and buyout market work in 2027?Read →KnowledgeHow does the NFL rookie wage scale work and what can RevOps learn from it in 2027?Read →KnowledgeWhat is Microsoft Copilot for Sales and what does it mean for RevOps in 2027?Read →KnowledgeHow should RevOps structure sales compensation plans in 2027?Read →KnowledgeHow do you build a 2027 RevOps tech stack from scratch on a $50K annual budget?Read →

How Are RevOps Teams Restructuring Sales Compensation Plans for AI-Assisted Reps in 2027?

How Are RevOps Teams Restructuring Sales Compensation Plans for AI-Assisted Reps in 2027?

Direct Answer

The 2027 Context: Why the Old Comp Model Broke

1.1 The Activity-Pay Assumption Collapsed

1.2 The Productivity Step-Change Is Real But Uneven

The Four Structural Moves RevOps Is Making

2.1 Re-Sizing Quota and Compressing Ramp

2.2 Flattening the SDR-to-AE Ladder

2.3 Adding Integrity Gates So AI Pipeline Earns Its Pay

2.4 Steepening the Curve Without Blowing Up OTE

The Operator Playbook: Who Owns What

3.1 The RevOps Comp Lead

3.2 The Sales Leader and Finance Partner

3.3 Enablement and the Rep

Rolling It Out Without a Revolt

Bottom Line

FAQ

Sources

What does the score mean?