Blog · Board and management reporting
How to read quota attainment as a distribution rather than an average: the share of reps between 80 and 120 percent, the tails, the spread by tenure and by territory potential, and what four common shapes mean, a plan that was too easy, one that was too hard, one that was uneven across territories, and one that describes a team with a coverage problem rather than a quota problem.
A sales leader reports average attainment at 94 percent. Eleven reps are above 130 and nine are below 60, and the average describes nobody. The distribution, split by territory potential and by tenure, says whether the plan was wrong or the coverage was. This guide sets out how to read the shape and the four common ones.
Per rep:
Attainment = revenue credited ÷ quota, for the period
Per team:
Share of reps in each band: under 60, 60 to 80, 80 to 120, 120 to 150, over 150 Spread: 75th percentile attainment − 25th percentile Separation by potential: median attainment in the top potential third against the bottom third Separation by tenure: median attainment among ramped reps against ramping reps
Rep identifiers only.
| Shape | Looks like | Means | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tight cluster | 70% of reps in 80 to 120 | The quotas described the territories | Nothing; protect the method |
| Hump above 120 | 40% over 120 | Plan too easy, or the year surprised | Recalibrate potential; check for a windfall |
| Hump below 80 | 40% under 80 | Plan too hard, or capacity was overstated | Check ramp and attrition in the plan |
| Two humps, split by potential | High potential territories high, low potential low | Quotas did not reflect potential | Set quota as a share of potential |
| Wide, no separation | Spread over 50 points; potential and tenure explain nothing | The difference is the reps | Coverage per rep; it usually explains it |
Twenty-four reps, year to date.
| Band | Reps | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Under 60 | 5 | 21% |
| 60 to 80 | 4 | 17% |
| 80 to 120 | 8 | 33% |
| 120 to 150 | 4 | 17% |
| Over 150 | 3 | 12% |
Spread: 58 points. Separation by potential: top third median 118 percent, bottom third median 101 percent, which is small. Separation by tenure: ramped 104, ramping 71, which is the ramp not being in the plan. And among ramped reps, the spread is still 44 points, and coverage per rep runs from 48 to 93 percent in step with it.
Two findings from one table. The ramping reps were given full quotas; the plan is wrong for them. The ramped reps with the same books got different results because they worked different shares of them; that is coverage, not quota.
Average reported. Ninety-four percent, describing nobody.
Share-above-quota as the measure. A design choice read as a result.
No split by potential. The uneven plan looks like uneven reps.
No split by tenure. New hires on full quota drag the tail and the plan is called too hard.
Wide spread blamed on quota. When it is coverage, and the fix is a different one.
Mapped once, the attainment, potential, roster and coverage exports produce the bands, the spread and both separations every quarter. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The capacity planning solution describes the setup, and the territory potential guide covers the figure that quotas should have been set from.
There is no universal figure, and the ones quoted are about a company's compensation philosophy, not its plan quality. What matters is the shape: a tight cluster around 100 percent with short tails says the quotas described the territories. The share above 100 is a design choice; the spread is the finding.
By tenure band and by territory potential band. If attainment separates cleanly by potential, the quotas did not reflect potential. If it separates by tenure, the ramp was not in the plan. If it does not separate by either, the difference is the reps, and coverage per rep usually explains it.
Yes, on year-to-date attainment against year-to-date quota, with the same bands. The shape at mid-year is the earliest evidence that the plan is uneven, and a mid-year rebalance is cheaper than a year-end argument.