This is a recap of our recent webinar, Nobody Outsells the Plan: 1,000+ Revenue Leaders Say THIS Predicts Who Hits Target, with leaders from Stryker and Deloitte Digital, now available on demand.

When we first analyzed the results of the 2026 Market Spotlight report, we went back and ran the numbers again. The finding surprised us.

We surveyed more than 1,000 revenue leaders to understand what most strongly predicts whether a company exceeds its revenue target. The answer wasn't seller experience, company size, the number of sellers, or industry. What was? The quality of the revenue plan.

Companies with the strongest plan design beat their target 58% more often than companies with the weakest.

That finding changes how we should think about sales performance. When a sales team falls short, the instinct is often to look at execution. But what if the decisions made during planning are already limiting what even your best sellers can achieve?

That's what I wanted to explore when I sat down with Aaron Perry, Senior Director of Sales Operations and Customer Service at Stryker, and Abe Awasthi, US Sales Transformation Practice Lead at Deloitte Digital for our recent webinar.

What stood out from our conversation was how often the consequences of planning decisions appear somewhere entirely different from where they started.

Aaron and Abe shared five practical ways to strengthen your revenue plan. Here's what you can put to work with your team now.

Key Takeaways

• Companies with the strongest revenue plan design beat target 58% more often than those with the weakest.
• Roughly 75% of a seller's daily activity is shaped by the revenue plan, so execution problems often start in planning.
• Only 4% of companies can tell which planning decisions worked; documenting the reasoning behind each decision fixes that.
• Companies that use AI for territory, quota and pay decisions exceed target 46% more often.
• Incentive compensation is the fastest lever to pull midyear; only 38% of companies say they can change the plan quickly.

Sellers Follow the Plan, Even When It Works Against the Strategy

Sellers make decisions about where to spend their time every day, but the revenue plan has already shaped many of those choices. It determines which accounts they cover and makes some opportunities more rewarding to pursue than others.

Our research suggests that roughly 75% of a seller's daily activity is shaped by the revenue plan.

I find that significant because planning decisions don't stop influencing performance once the planning process ends. A territory that overlooks high-potential accounts can limit a seller's opportunity for an entire year. An incentive that rewards the wrong behavior can influence hundreds of individual sales decisions before anyone recognizes the pattern.

Deloitte Digital’s Abe Awasthi explained how leaders can mistake a seller's response to the plan for a performance problem.

When a capable seller pursues a smaller deal that will close this quarter instead of a more valuable opportunity with a longer sales cycle, leaders may question the seller's judgment. But if the compensation plan rewards near-term attainment, that seller may be making a perfectly rational decision.

Abe also pointed to how compensation can influence pricing decisions. If a seller knows they won't reach the target needed to earn a higher commission rate, they may be more willing to discount a deal, especially if their compensation plan rewards the sale without accounting for the lost margin.

Before changing incentives or territories, consider how those decisions will affect other parts of the business.

• If you're asking sellers to prioritize different products, can your supply chain support the shift?
• If enterprise expansion is the priority, do the right accounts have sufficient coverage?

A strong revenue plan accounts for those tradeoffs before they create problems elsewhere.

Only 4% of Companies Can Tell Which Planning Decisions Worked

Companies are far better equipped to build the plan than to learn from it. About one in five have a clearly accountable owner or a defined, repeatable planning process. And only 4% have a way to tell whether past plan decisions worked.

Think about what that means for your next planning cycle.

A company knows whether it hit its target. Leaders can report on attainment by region and track revenue growth. But can they determine whether last year's territory changes improved performance? Whether revised incentives produced the intended behavior from sellers or whether capacity assumptions held up?

Without that evidence, leaders can end up carrying forward decisions they haven't been able to evaluate.

Stryker’s Aaron Perry acknowledged how difficult this can be, even in an organization with an established planning process. At Stryker, teams document baseline assumptions about territories, customers, and expected market growth. The challenge, Aaron said, is preserving the reasoning behind those assumptions while the organization is already moving toward the next quarter or annual plan.

Abe was surprised by how few companies can tell which planning decisions actually worked.

Teams don't need to introduce another major process to start learning which planning decisions worked.

Abe’s advice? Start documenting the reasoning behind significant planning decisions and what you expect to happen. You can even start with something as simple as meeting notes.

For example, if your team redesigns territories to improve coverage of high-potential accounts, record what you expect to change. Then revisit those assumptions during regular business reviews. Are sellers reaching more of those accounts? Are opportunities progressing as expected?

When next year's planning cycle begins, your team can use that evidence to decide which changes to keep and which to reconsider, rather than relying on revenue results alone. It's worth the effort. Leaders who could name the plan decision that most affected last year's result, and show the evidence behind it, beat target 37% more often than those working from judgment (63% versus 48%).

Direct AI Towards the Decisions That Build the Revenue Plan

Most conversations around AI in sales focus on helping individual sellers become more productive. But our research points to another opportunity: using AI in the planning decisions that affect the entire sales organization. 57% of companies already use AI when they define plan decisions such as territories, quotas, and pay, and those companies exceed target 46% more often than companies that don't.

Consider the difference between helping one rep research an account faster and helping a planning team find a better way to distribute opportunity across hundreds of territories.

Aaron sees potential in using AI to challenge the assumptions behind territory and quota design. At Stryker, teams have a short window between closing one year and building the next plan. AI could help them compare alternative territory designs and question assumptions they might otherwise carry forward.

Abe encouraged leaders to experiment with the data they already have rather than wait until it's perfect. Start by using AI to challenge a territory or quota assumption, then have your planning team evaluate the alternatives before making changes.

You Can Improve the Revenue Plan Without Waiting for Next Year

During the webinar, an attendee asked how much a company can realistically change midway through its planning year. It's a fair question. In large organizations, changing quotas or redesigning territories midyear can often create disruption of its own. Only 38% of companies in our research say they can change the plan quickly.

Aaron explained that Stryker sets sales plans annually but revisits its financial outlook every month and quarter. Depending on the business, leaders can adjust incentives or respond to shifting demand without replacing the annual plan. He pointed to incentive compensation as the quickest lever, since sellers react fast to pay changes.

But how do you get sales leadership to prioritize changes when they're focused on hitting this quarter's number?

Abe recommended showing leadership where the current revenue plan could be putting revenue at risk right now. Are high-potential accounts going uncovered? Are incentives encouraging sellers to pursue smaller deals over more valuable opportunities?

When RevOps leaders can show how those planning decisions may be affecting current performance, they give sales executives a stronger reason to act now rather than wait for next year's plan.

Which Part of Your Revenue Plan Needs Attention First?

In our 2026 Market Spotlight research, we measured the quality of revenue plans across five dimensions. Leaders can use these dimensions to identify where their planning decisions may be helping or limiting their ability to hit revenue targets:

• Accountability: Do you hold plan owners accountable for the decisions they make, rather than only whether the company hits its number?
• Anchoring: Does this year's plan reflect your current business strategy, or does it largely carry forward last year's assumptions?
• Alignment: Do the teams that own territory, quota, capacity, and compensation decisions make them together, against the same assumptions?
• Analysis: Can you connect last year's results to the specific planning decisions that produced them, and use what you learned to improve the next plan?
• Adaptability: Can your team adjust the plan when business conditions change, or must changes wait until the next planning cycle?

Our research found that companies that scored higher on any one of these dimensions were more likely to exceed their revenue targets. You don't have to improve all five at once to make progress. Get the Revenue Plan Checklist to score your plan against these five dimensions and see what you can improve now.

When performance slips, don't stop at asking what sellers need to do differently. Ask whether the revenue plan is encouraging the behavior you're seeing, and whether that's the behavior your business needs.

Watch the webinar replay, Nobody Outsells the Plan: 1,000+ Revenue Leaders Say THIS Predicts Who Hits Target, for the full conversation with Stryker's Aaron Perry and Deloitte Digital's Abe Awasthi. You can also download the 2026 Market Spotlight Report, Nobody Outsells the Plan, to explore the full research.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is revenue plan quality?

Revenue plan quality is how well a company makes and manages its territory, quota, capacity and compensation decisions. The 2026 Market Spotlight measures it across five dimensions: accountability, anchoring, alignment, analysis and adaptability. Companies with the strongest plan design beat their revenue target 58% more often than companies with the weakest.

Why do sellers behave in ways that seem to work against the strategy?

Usually because the plan rewards it. Roughly 75% of a seller's daily activity is shaped by the revenue plan: which accounts they cover and which deals pay best. A seller who chases a smaller deal that closes this quarter, or discounts to win it, is often responding rationally to how the compensation plan is built.

How do you know whether last year's planning decisions worked?

According to our latest research, most companies can't. Only 4% have a way to tell whether past plan decisions worked, and about one in five have a clearly accountable plan owner or a repeatable process. The fix is to document the reasoning and the expected outcome behind each significant planning decision, then revisit it in regular business reviews. Leaders who can do that beat target 37% more often.

Can you change a revenue plan midyear?

Yes, but pick the lever carefully. Redesigning territories or quotas midyear creates disruption of its own, and only 38% of companies say they can change the plan quickly. Incentive compensation is the fastest lever, because sellers respond quickly to pay changes. Show leadership where the current plan is putting revenue at risk right now to make the case.

Where should AI be used in revenue planning?

In the planning decisions that affect the whole sales organization, not only in individual seller productivity. 57% of companies already use AI to define territories, quotas and pay, and they exceed target 46% more often than companies that don't. A practical start is using AI to challenge one territory or quota assumption before the next planning cycle.