Most companies spend significant time refining strategy.

Market positioning is debated. Pricing is adjusted. ICP definitions are updated. Growth ambitions are recalibrated.

But behaviour inside the organisation rarely shifts because of strategy documents.

It shifts because of incentives.

Compensation structures, quota mechanics, approval thresholds and reporting definitions quietly determine how people act under pressure. They define what feels safe, what feels rewarded and what feels risky.

Strategy expresses intent.

Incentives shape behaviour.

If strategy emphasises long-term positioning but compensation rewards short-term volume, behaviour will follow the compensation plan. If leadership communicates margin discipline but approvals accelerate under quarter-end pressure, discounting behaviour adjusts accordingly.

No memo overrides a misaligned incentive.

The effects are often subtle.

Deal structure changes first. Then pipeline composition shifts. Forecast probabilities drift. Customer selection becomes narrower or broader depending on what is rewarded.

Over time, the revenue system begins to optimise for the logic embedded in incentives rather than the logic articulated in strategy.

This is not cynicism.

It is rational behaviour.

Sales leaders optimise for quota attainment. Customer success leaders optimise for retention and expansion metrics. Marketing optimises for pipeline generation targets. Finance optimises for predictability and margin protection.

If those optimisation logics are not structurally aligned, misalignment is inevitable.

Incentive design is therefore not an administrative exercise.

It is architectural.

Before adjusting targets or refining messaging, leadership should ask:

What behaviour will this structure reward under pressure?
Where will individuals optimise if performance gaps appear?
What trade-offs are we embedding implicitly?
Who has authority to enforce discipline when incentives conflict?

These questions are uncomfortable because they expose tension between ambition and discipline.

But they are essential.

Revenue predictability improves when incentive logic, authority structure and strategic intent reinforce each other.

It erodes when they compete.

Strategy may define direction.

Incentives determine movement.