Comp Plans, Roles, and Territories
The first article in this series focused on a simple truth: integration cannot wait until Day One.
Once a deal closes, leaders quickly move from planning to implementation. That is when the real operating model decisions begin. Who reports to whom? Which compensation plan applies? How will territories be assigned? What happens when two sales teams have relationships with the same referral source? How will performance be measured?
These questions may sound tactical, but they carry real strategic weight. In business development integration, the operating model is where the deal thesis meets the day-to-day work of the sales team.
If leaders move too slowly, people fill in the blanks themselves. If leaders move too quickly, they can create unnecessary disruption. The goal is not to force every team into a new model overnight. The goal is to create enough clarity, consistency, and communication so that people understand where the organization is going and how they fit into it.
Why does the operating model become difficult?
Most integrations do not struggle because leaders fail to care. They struggle because the design work is complex, and the people leading it may not have deep M&A experience.
Amy Sutton-Feld sees this often in integration work. Leaders may be strong operators, but they may be navigating their first acquisition, tuck-in, or multi-market integration. They may not fully understand the deal structure, the transaction thesis, the cultural differences, or the amount of change their teams are about to absorb.
That lack of preparation can show up quickly.
Sales leaders are asked to stabilize teams, communicate change, protect referral relationships, align territories, explain compensation, and keep performance moving. At the same time, they may still be learning what the transaction means. Without clear support, they can feel like they are operating on an island.
That is why change management and communication are not soft pieces of integration. They are operating requirements.
People can often tolerate uncertainty when leaders are transparent about it. “We do not know yet, but we are working through it and will come back to you” is better than silence. When leaders do not communicate, employees create their own version of the story, and that version is rarely helpful.
Compensation plans shape behavior
Compensation is one of the first places where integration tension appears.
Sales compensation is personal. It affects livelihood, motivation, retention, and how people define success. When two organizations come together, leaders may face an uncomfortable choice: keep separate compensation plans for a period of time or move everyone to a single structure quickly.
Both options carry risk.
If separate plans remain in place, people may compare payouts, expectations, and perceived fairness. One team may believe the other side has a better deal. If everyone is moved into one plan too quickly, top performers may realize they will earn less under the new model and begin looking elsewhere. Kassi Ellison described situations where organizations had to scramble after the fact to adjust base pay because the new plan created retention risk that had not been fully addressed up front.
The better approach is to model the impact before changes are announced.
Leaders should understand how current sellers are paid, what behaviors the plan rewards, and how the new plan will affect total compensation. They should also understand whether the current plan is driving the right type of business.
Volume alone does not tell the full story. A seller may appear to be a top performer because referral counts are high, but those referrals may be late, expensive, difficult to convert, or poorly aligned with the organization’s broader goals. Amy noted that some salespeople bring in a lot of business, but not always the right business. Kassi shared a similar example where sellers who ranked highly under an old model were no longer viewed the same way once referral quality and cost were considered differently.
That is the heart of the issue. Compensation plans do not just pay people. They teach people what the organization values.
Role clarity is non-negotiable
If compensation affects motivation, reporting structure affects stability.
By Day One, and ideally by announcement, people should know who their leader is. They need someone they can go to with questions, concerns, and decisions. Without that clarity, confusion spreads quickly.
This is especially important when two leadership structures come together. If two leaders appear to have authority over the same team, employees may not know whose direction to follow. If a legacy leader is displaced without explanation, the team may interpret it as a sign of what is to come. If the acquiring organization’s leaders are not prepared to communicate, the transition can feel impersonal and disorganized.
Kassi described the importance of moving quickly once communication is approved. When she had a team to transition, she called every person so they could hear her voice, make a connection, and receive some assurance. That human contact matters. It turns a structural change into a leadership moment.
Role design is also about more than boxes on an org chart. It should answer practical questions:
- Who owns which accounts?
- Who manages which sellers?
- Which roles are staying the same?
- Which roles are changing?
- Which decisions are final, and which are still being worked through?
- How will leaders support the team during the transition?
When these answers are missing, employees often create their own definitions. That can lead to panic, duplicated work, internal competition, and preventable turnover.
Territory decisions should follow a “do no harm” approach
Territory design is one of the most visible parts of business development integration because it affects both the sales team and referral sources.
Kassi’s guidance is simple and practical: start with a “do no harm” mindset. Before changing territories, leaders need to understand where the business is coming from, who is bringing it in, which referral relationships are at risk, and what disruption the new design could create.
This is where data matters.
Claims data, EMR data, rep performance, referral source history, geography, service lines, and market potential should all inform the new territory model. In some cases, overlap may reveal an opportunity. A seller may have more than 100 referring accounts on a list, which is not realistic coverage. Integration can create an opportunity to redesign territories more thoughtfully, improve focus, and strengthen account management.
But the transition must be managed carefully.
Amy emphasized the need for “rules of the road” when overlap exists. Until the future territory model is finalized, leaders need clear expectations for how salespeople should handle shared accounts, communication with referral sources, and handoffs.
The referral source experience is just as important as the internal sales structure. If a hospital, facility, physician group, or other referral partner suddenly hears from multiple representatives under the same company, confusion can damage trust. If an account is reassigned, the handoff should be intentional, respectful, and clear.
A poor handoff makes the organization look disorganized. A strong handoff protects the relationship.
Performance expectations need common definitions
Integration also exposes differences in how organizations define and measure performance.
One company may have aggressive goals, weekly sales call expectations, CRM documentation, and data-driven strategic planning. Another may have used the same goals for years, relied on informal relationship management, or measured seller performance primarily by referral volume.
Neither team can align until leaders define the basics.
What counts as a lead? What counts as a referral? What counts as a qualified referral? How are conversions measured? What does good business look like? How are sales activities documented? What is expected from a weekly cadence? What role should the salesperson play after receiving the referral?
These questions matter because role expectations may differ significantly. Kassi described a common example: in one organization, sales reps may meet with families, conduct informational visits, and support consent-related conversations. In another organization, the seller may be expected to secure the referral and hand it off so they can return to referral development. For some salespeople, that change can feel like a loss of purpose, trust, or satisfaction in the role.
Leaders should not assume these differences are minor. They shape how people work, how they view their value, and whether they believe the new organization understands their contribution.
What stabilizes the team
When leaders need to stabilize a business development team quickly, the priorities are clear: communication, change management, leadership visibility, and a compelling reason to believe in the future.
Amy’s priority is change management and communication. Teams need to understand the integration steps, what is known, what is not known, and when they can expect answers. Silence creates space for rumors. Transparency creates room for trust.
Kassi adds an important sales-specific point: business development teams need to feel that the change is something they can believe in. Salespeople are often the first voice referral sources hear after an acquisition. If they are uncertain, frustrated, or unconvinced, that uncertainty can show up in the market. If they understand the value of the change, the new resources available to them, and the support they will receive, they are better prepared to represent the organization with confidence.
This does not always require a national event or large investment, but it does require intention. Kassi shared a positive example of a newly acquired sales team that received visible investment, training, team-building, and a message that the new organization was prepared to support them. That experience helped turn uncertainty into energy.
In another example, she described a transition that went well because leaders visited agencies in person, met with people one-on-one, promoted talent from the acquired organization, maintained certain specialty programs for a period, and avoided immediate knee-jerk changes. The result was a smoother transition with minimal turnover.
That is the lesson: stabilization is not only about structure. It is about how the structure is introduced.
Questions leaders should ask before redesigning the BD model
Before making decisions about compensation, roles, territories, and performance expectations, leaders should ask:
- What does each compensation plan reward today?
Understand whether the current plan drives volume, referral quality, strategic growth, service line mix, or other behaviors. - How will compensation changes affect top performers?
Model total compensation impact before announcing changes, especially for high-performing sellers and managers. - Does every person know who they report to on Day One?
Reporting clarity should be treated as a core integration requirement, not a later administrative step. - Where do territories, accounts, or referral relationships overlap?
Identify potential confusion before it reaches the market. - What are the rules of the road until the future model is finalized?
Give teams clear direction on shared accounts, handoffs, referral source communication, and sales activity expectations. - Do both organizations define performance the same way?
Align definitions for leads, referrals, conversions, activity expectations, CRM use, and what “good business” looks like.
The operating model is a trust exercise
Comp plans, roles, and territories are part of the operating model. But they are also trust decisions.
When handled well, they help people understand the future and see their place in it. When handled poorly, they can create confusion, resentment, turnover, and disruption to referral sources.
The goal is not to avoid change. Change is part of integration. The goal is to manage change with enough clarity and care so that the business development team can keep moving forward.
That requires more than an org chart. It requires leadership alignment, data-informed decisions, thoughtful communication, and a transition plan that respects both the acquired organization and the buyer’s existing team.
CHAP Growth Solutions helps organizations work through these decisions with practical, customized advisory support. Our team helps leaders assess sales structure, compensation risk, territory alignment, role clarity, performance expectations, and the communication needed to support adoption.
If your organization is preparing for an acquisition or working through business development integration, CHAP Growth Solutions can help you build a clearer operating model and protect the relationships that support sustainable growth.
by Amy Sutton-Feld, ASF Consulting, and Kassi Ellison, CHAP Growth Solutions
Amy Sutton-Feld, Founder of ASF Consulting, brings 20+ years of healthcare leadership experience and a track record of integrating more than 30 acquisitions. She partners with healthcare organizations to maximize value, reduce risk, and accelerate performance through expert integration, transformation, and change leadership.
Learn more: ASF Consulting | asuttonfeld@asf-consulting.org | 920-737-2042
Kassi Ellison is a healthcare growth strategist and sales leader with 15+ years of experience helping home health and hospice organizations accelerate admissions, expand market share, and build high-performing business development teams. As CHAP’s Vice President of Growth Consulting, she equips providers with the strategies, skills, and leadership needed to drive sustainable growth.
Learn more: CHAPinc.org/growth