Sales teams are being asked to move faster in a volatile market. But according to new research from CaptivateIQ, many are starting the race without a map.
In its 2026 State of Sales Report, based on a survey of 500 U.S. sales professionals, the company found that 71% of reps begin their fiscal year without assigned quotas. In an era defined by AI disruption, budget tightening, and longer buying cycles, that’s more than a planning hiccup—it’s a systemic breakdown.
The report paints a picture of revenue teams trying to modernize while still tripping over foundational issues like delayed targets, outdated metrics, and error-prone commission payouts.
Annual Planning Is Dead—But the Replacement Isn’t Working
Nearly half (49%) of sales professionals say their organizations have increased how often they set or update quotas over the past three years. Instead of annual targets, many companies now reset goals quarterly (28%) or even monthly (27%).
That’s a rational response to market volatility. Sales cycles lengthened for 49% of respondents over the past year, and 90% reported obstacles hitting targets. The biggest culprits: economic shifts (52%), customer-side changes (39%), and internal organizational disruptions (31%).
In theory, more frequent target adjustments should improve alignment. In practice, execution lags.
While 29% of salespeople receive quotas within the first week of the fiscal year, 42% wait a month or more. Even more concerning, 23% say they don’t have specific sales goals at all.
If more than half of reps see targets change at least quarterly—and many monthly—those early weeks without direction represent lost momentum that compounds quickly.
Motivation Isn’t the Problem—Clarity Is
There’s a common fear that constantly shifting goals demoralize sellers. The data suggests otherwise.
Seventy percent of respondents say goal adjustments actually motivate them—provided the targets feel realistic and aligned with market conditions. Another 67% say their motivation stays high as long as goals are clear and transparent, regardless of how often they change.
In other words, reps aren’t resisting agility. They’re resisting ambiguity.
For HR and sales enablement leaders, that’s a critical distinction. Frequent planning cycles aren’t inherently damaging. Poor communication and delayed execution are.
AI Is Everywhere—But Still Basic
AI adoption among sales teams is high. Eighty-one percent of respondents say they use AI for at least some sales activities.
But the use cases are tactical:
-
Customer research (43%)
-
Drafting emails (39%)
-
Meeting transcription (35%)
That’s productivity assistance, not strategic transformation.
While 71% of AI users say it has improved productivity, there are clear friction points. AI hinders performance when:
-
Tools are too basic (26%)
-
Accuracy is questionable (22%)
-
Proper training is lacking (20%)
The takeaway: AI is widely adopted but under-leveraged. Without training, trust, and integration into core workflows, it remains a helpful assistant rather than a revenue accelerator.
Companies May Be Measuring the Wrong Things
Despite modernization rhetoric, 11% of sales professionals are still measured on activity metrics like emails sent or calls made—inputs that are increasingly automated or AI-assisted.
As generative AI drafts outreach and sequences run autonomously, measuring raw activity becomes less meaningful. What matters more are conversion rates, deal velocity, customer retention, and revenue quality.
If organizations cling to outdated metrics while introducing new technology, they risk misaligning incentives with actual value creation.
Commission Errors: The Silent Productivity Killer
Perhaps the most damaging finding in the report concerns compensation accuracy.
Seventy-seven percent of sales professionals say they’ve experienced commission payout errors. That’s not a rounding error—it’s a trust problem.
The fallout is measurable:
-
31% have left or considered leaving a sales role due to recurring payout issues
-
21% say errors have negatively impacted their day-to-day motivation
-
Commissionable reps spend an average of 1.6 hours per week calculating payouts themselves
For an organization with 500 sellers, that equates to more than 40,000 hours annually spent on “shadow accounting”—time that could be spent closing deals.
In a performance-driven culture, incentive compensation isn’t just payroll. It’s psychological infrastructure. When trust erodes, so does engagement.
A Sales Planning System Under Strain
Ironically, 69% of respondents describe their organization as “well-equipped to handle future market changes.” Yet the operational data suggests otherwise.
Delayed quota setting. Constant target shifts. Outdated metrics. AI underutilization. Commission errors.
These aren’t minor inefficiencies. They’re structural weaknesses that directly affect revenue predictability and rep morale.
CaptivateIQ CEO Mark Schopmeyer framed it bluntly: modernization efforts mean little if reps lack clear direction—or if they spend more time auditing payouts than selling.
What This Means for HR and Revenue Leaders
For HR and RevOps teams, the report highlights three priorities:
-
Fix foundational processes before layering innovation. AI tools won’t compensate for unclear quotas or inaccurate commission systems.
-
Align incentives with modern selling realities. Move beyond activity-based metrics to performance outcomes.
-
Invest in trust. Transparent, timely, and accurate compensation systems are retention levers—not back-office utilities.
As market volatility persists, agility in sales planning isn’t optional. But agility without operational precision can backfire.
The message from the field is clear: sales professionals are ready to adapt. They just need direction—and compensation systems they can trust.
Join thousands of HR leaders who rely on HRTechEdge for the latest in workforce technology, AI-driven HR solutions, and strategic insights
