Growth-stage B2B company

A one-person revenue engine is not a sustainable business

A commercial team built, without anyone deciding it, around one exceptional producer.

An illustrative scenario. It does not describe a client or a real company.

Frame

Objective, horizon, non-negotiables and who holds authority.

A company’s highest-performing commercial leader generates approximately 30% of new revenue. Their compensation strongly rewards individual sales.

They retain relationships personally, promise delivery terms without operational involvement, give colleagues little account credit and have contributed to capable employees leaving. Customers trust the individual more than the company.

The CEO wants to promote and retain them. Operations wants controls. HR wants team-based compensation.

Should the company reward exceptional individual production, or redesign the system even if doing so causes the producer to leave?

Objective: Build a commercial capability that belongs to the company, without throwing away the skill that built the revenue.
Horizon: Two to four quarters: long enough for behaviour to be observed, short enough that dependency does not deepen.
Non-negotiables: Customers are protected through any transition.
Commitments to customers are ones the company can deliver.
Who decides: Chief executive. Compensation, promotion, succession and employment are the CEO’s decisions. They are not delegated to a model or a policy.

Observe

What is established, what is assumed and what is missing.

Every item is typed. Facts come from the scenario. Assumptions are illustrative quantities added so the consequences can be calculated. Unknowns are left unknown.

Established 6

Fact:
The highest-performing commercial leader generates approximately 30% of new revenue.
Given in the scenario. High confidence.
Fact:
Their compensation strongly rewards individual sales.
Given in the scenario. High confidence.
Fact:
They hold relationships personally, promise delivery terms without operational involvement and give colleagues little account credit.
Given in the scenario. High confidence.
Fact:
Capable employees have left, and this behaviour contributed.
Given in the scenario. High confidence.
Fact:
Customers trust the individual more than the company.
Given in the scenario. High confidence.
Fact:
The CEO wants to promote and retain. Operations wants controls. HR wants team-based compensation.
Given in the scenario. High confidence.

Assumed 5

Assumption:
New revenue is €20m a year.
Illustrative modelling assumption. Medium confidence.
Assumption:
About 85% of the individual’s relationships are held personally, and 60% of that revenue would follow them out. Shared ownership would bring the personal share to 40%.
Illustrative modelling assumption. Low confidence.
Assumption:
35% of their deals carry delivery terms operations did not approve, costing 12 points of margin on those deals.
Illustrative modelling assumption. Low confidence.
Assumption:
4 regretted leavers in 18 months, at about €0.12m each to replace.
Illustrative modelling assumption. Low confidence.
Assumption:
On current incentives the individual’s share of new revenue grows about 6 points a year.
Illustrative modelling assumption. Low confidence.

Not yet known 2

Unknown:
Whether the individual can lead through others: developing colleagues, institutionalising relationships and selling what the company can deliver.
Illustrative modelling assumption. Low confidence.
Unknown:
Whether the individual would leave if the system changed.
Illustrative modelling assumption. Low confidence.

Model

The relationships that can be calculated, and their limits.

Only relationships that can honestly be calculated are modelled. Apply one bounded pressure, or move one assumption, and follow the consequence across the organisation.

Apply one pressure

As briefedThe scenario as it was first described. An outside offerThe individual receives an offer elsewhere and asks for the promotion now.A key account would follow themA major customer says openly that it would move with the individual. The share of personal revenue that would follow rises to 80%.Two more resignationsTwo more capable colleagues resign, citing account credit. Regretted leavers reach 6.

Or change one assumption: Share of new revenue from one person

30%

Bounded to 10% to 50%.

What changed

First effects

Second effects

Third effects

Thresholds

Commercial

New revenue from one person€6.0m

Operations

Margin lost to unapproved terms€0.3m

Delivery commitments bypass operationsCrossed

People

Cost of regretted leavers€0.5m

Exposure under shared ownership€1.4m

Capable people are leavingCrossed

The individual is negotiating from strengthNot crossed

The transition has been demonstratedNot crossed

Finance

Growth in exposure from waiting a year€0.6m

Risk

The same exposure in a year€3.7m

Revenue that would leave with them today€3.1m

The company depends on one personCrossed

Most personal revenue would follow themNot crossed

Apply a pressure to see what moves, in what order, and where it stops.

Contest

Functional positions, conflict and a critic.

Each function answers in the same structure: a recommendation, the evidence it rests on, the assumption underneath, its confidence, the consequence for another function and the authority it would need.

Commercial

Argues for: promote and retain

Retain and promote. €6.0m of new revenue sits with one person, and €3.1m would leave with them. Do not provoke it.

Rests on: Fact:The highest-performing commercial leader generates approximately 30% of new revenue.
Fact:Customers trust the individual more than the company.
Assumption:About 85% of the individual’s relationships are held personally, and 60% of that revenue would follow them out. Shared ownership would bring the personal share to 40%.
Assumes: Promotion secures loyalty, and the behaviour can be coached afterwards.
Consequence for people: A promotion on current behaviour tells every other seller what the company rewards.

Operations

Argues against: promote and retain

Require operational approval for non-standard terms now. 35% of these deals carry commitments we did not agree, costing €0.3m a year.

Rests on: Fact:They hold relationships personally, promise delivery terms without operational involvement and give colleagues little account credit.
Assumption:35% of their deals carry delivery terms operations did not approve, costing 12 points of margin on those deals.
Assumes: Approval can be made fast enough not to lose deals.
Consequence for commercial: Some deals will be repriced or lost once terms have to be deliverable. Forecast accordingly.

People

Argues for: redesign the commercial system

Move to shared account ownership, and reward team development, retention and deliverability. 4 capable people have left, at €0.5m before counting what they would have sold.

Rests on: Fact:Capable employees have left, and this behaviour contributed.
Fact:Their compensation strongly rewards individual sales.
Assumption:4 regretted leavers in 18 months, at about €0.12m each to replace.
Assumes: People left because of account credit, and not because of pay alone.
Consequence for finance: Team-based reward changes the timing of cost. Model the transition year.

Finance

Conditionally for: redesign the commercial system

The dependency is growing. Exposure is €3.1m now and €3.7m in a year on current incentives. Shared ownership would bring it to €1.4m. Fund a departure reserve either way.

Rests on: Assumption:About 85% of the individual’s relationships are held personally, and 60% of that revenue would follow them out. Shared ownership would bring the personal share to 40%.
Assumption:On current incentives the individual’s share of new revenue grows about 6 points a year.
Assumption:New revenue is €20m a year.
Assumes: 60% of personally held revenue would follow the individual.
Consequence for people: A reserve only helps if each major account has a named second relationship.

Conflict

Retention against control

Commercial against Operations

Commercial would not risk €6.0m of revenue. Operations is absorbing €0.3m a year of promises it never agreed.

Calculated

Revenue that would leave with them today

€3.1m

The exposure the company carries now.

Assumption: Assumption carrying weight

About 85% of the individual’s relationships are held personally, and 60% of that revenue would follow them out. Shared ownership would bring the personal share to 40%.

Low confidence. If this is wrong, the calculations that rest on it move with it.

Unknown: Evidence to obtain first

Whether the individual can lead through others: developing colleagues, institutionalising relationships and selling what the company can deliver.

The answer could be “the transition is demonstrated” or “the individual refuses”. They lead to different decisions, which makes this the question to settle first.

The critic

A separate pass reads the positions for conflict, unsupported certainty, benefits counted twice, omitted effects and false precision.

Contradiction between functionsCommercial, Operations
Commercial and Operations take opposite sides on "Promote and retain". Both cannot be followed.
Unsupported certaintyCommercial
That the behaviour can be coached afterwards is a hope. Nothing yet shows the individual can lead through others.
Omitted second-order effectCommercial
The case for promotion counts the revenue and leaves out what the behaviour costs: €0.3m of margin a year and €0.5m of attrition.
Omitted second-order effectFinance, People
Waiting is not neutral. Exposure grows by €0.6m a year while nothing is decided.
Highest-value missing evidencePeople
The most valuable unknown is whether the individual can make the transition. It is the only evidence that would justify promotion, and it can be observed within two quarters.

Where that leaves the room

Agreed

Nobody disputes the individual’s skill, or that the company needs the revenue.

Still in dispute

Commercial and Operations. Whether the revenue is worth its terms. Commercial counts what is sold. Operations counts what has to be delivered.

Not for analysis to decide

Compensation, promotion, succession and employment decisions belong to the chief executive. Analysis can identify concentration, simulate incentive structures and surface behavioural effects.

The disagreements are kept. Someone accountable has to choose between them.

Decide

Options, trade-offs and an accountable call.

Three credible courses of action. Each one is carried by assumptions that would need to be true. Choose the one you would take. Your choice is not scored.

Promote and retainReward the production. Secure the revenue. For this to be right:

Promotion secures loyalty.
The behaviour can be coached once the title is given.
The people who left would have left anyway.

Redesign the commercial systemShared ownership, operational approval and team-based reward, accepting that the individual may leave. For this to be right:

The company can absorb the revenue that would follow them out.
Customers can be moved into relationships with the company.
The individual is given a genuine chance to lead differently.

Part ways nowRemove the dependency before it grows. For this to be right:

The behaviour will not change.
Customers can be held without the individual.
Skill of this kind can be replaced.

Christianna’s judgement

Redesign the system. Offer the individual a larger job.

Exposure is €3.1m today and €3.7m in a year if nothing changes. Shared ownership brings it to €1.4m. Promotion is available, and it depends on the transition, not on personal revenue.

The decision as signed, at the starting position

Redesign the commercial system and build the wider team, accepting the risk that the individual leaves.

I do not punish genuine skill or remove the person reflexively.

I give them the opportunity to demonstrate a higher form of leadership: building capability in others, institutionalising relationships and selling work the organisation can deliver.

Promotion should depend on that transition, not on personal revenue alone.

Rejected: Promotion on personal revenue alone. Removing the person reflexively.
The assumption carrying it: That revenue the organisation does not own is not yet a durable capability, however large it is.
Authority I keep: Compensation, promotion, succession and employment decisions.
What I would delegate to AI: Identifying concentration, simulating incentive structures and surfacing behavioural effects.
What would change my mind: Promotion becomes appropriate if the individual demonstrates an ability to develop others, institutionalise relationships and operate within company-wide commitments.

If the relationships, knowledge and revenue belong to one person rather than the organisation, you do not yet have a durable commercial capability.

Christianna Hamilton

This is one accountable judgement for the stated objective and evidence. It is not offered as the universal answer.

Act

Bounded actions, owners and approvals.

A decision is finished when it has owners, limits and a way of being checked.

First action

Make account knowledge and relationships visible to the company.

Measure to watch

The share of the individual’s accounts with a second, named relationship inside the company.

Make account knowledge and relationships visible to the company.
CommercialPrepare for approval
Introduce shared account ownership and succession coverage.
PeopleHuman decision required
Require operational approval for non-standard delivery commitments.
OperationsPrepare for approval
Reward team development, account quality, retention and deliverability.
PeopleHuman decision required
Prepare financially and commercially for departure.
FinanceDraft
Protect customers through an orderly transition plan.
CommercialPrepare for approval

Where calculation ends and human authority begins

Calculate and surface. Evidence, assumptions, arithmetic and consequences are made visible.
Investigate and challenge. AI can extend the search, prepare options and test for conflict or unsupported certainty.
Decide and own. An accountable person weighs the trade-offs, makes the call and remains responsible for what follows.

Learn

What would show the judgement was wrong.

A judgement should say in advance what would overturn it. Change one material condition and see whether it holds.

The individual makes the transitionOver two quarters they move accounts into shared ownership, develop colleagues and work within operational approval.The individual refusesThey reject shared ownership and make clear they will leave if it is introduced.

Next decisionContain the downside while improving the evidenceIndustrial manufacturer Previous decisionDistribution is positioningPremium consumer brand

A decision of your own

If a situation in your organisation has this shape, I would be glad to talk it through.

hello@christiannahamilton.com

Method and provenance

The scenario is illustrative. It does not describe a client, an engagement or a real company.

What the tools do, and what remains human

Calculate and surface. Arithmetic and thresholds are handled consistently so the same inputs produce the same result.
Investigate and challenge. Functional positions expose disagreement. The critic looks for conflict, missing evidence, double counting and unsupported certainty. A live reading, where offered, can extend that challenge but cannot alter the underlying numbers or the signed decision.
Decide and own. The signed judgement is Christianna Hamilton’s. It is written in advance and remains the responsibility of a person, not a system.

Evidence

Items marked given in the scenario come from the written brief. Items marked illustrative modelling assumption are quantities added so that consequences can be calculated. Evidence last reviewed 2026-09-21.

Calculations in this decision

Quantity	Unit	What it assumes
New revenue from one person	EUR million	None beyond its inputs.
Revenue that would leave with them today	EUR million	Personally held relationships follow at the stated rate.
The same exposure in a year	EUR million	Current incentives continue unchanged.
Growth in exposure from waiting a year	EUR million	None beyond its inputs.
Exposure under shared ownership	EUR million	Shared account ownership and succession coverage are in place.
Margin lost to unapproved terms	EUR million	Overrun applies only to deals with unapproved terms.
Cost of regretted leavers	EUR million	Replacement cost only. Lost sales are not counted.