This past quarter has been one of the clearest examples of poor operational planning and lack of accountability from upper management that I have experienced.
Mid-quarter, leadership pushed out a completely new CRM platform on behalf of the client before the organization was ready. Leadership had not been properly trained, frontline reps were pulled away from their normal duties for training and transition work, and productivity was disrupted as a result. At the same time, the company also chose to pilot a brand-new warm sales transfer process — essentially layering a new sales motion on top of a premature CRM rollout.
When my team was moved into this new sales motion, we were switched back to the old software after already being pushed toward the new platform. Then, after less than a month of piloting the new program, we were pulled off the pilot and moved back again to the newer CRM. In total, we were moved between CRM systems three times in one quarter.
During the pilot, we were not given the basic tools or structure needed to execute successfully. There was no proper scheduling software, no clear sales playbook, no defined process, and no real operational guidance. Instead, reps were expected to build the process themselves while also being held accountable to productivity and performance expectations. My team, which has consistently been one of the stronger-performing teams in the overall motion, gave feedback, created processes, and even built slide decks to clearly communicate what was needed from leadership.
Despite being told the pilot was successful, leadership ended it in less than a month and then appeared to hold representatives responsible for productivity and goal misses that were heavily influenced by management’s own decisions. The constant software changes, lack of tools, unclear expectations, and poorly planned rollout were not meaningfully taken into consideration by the client or by internal upper management. Rather than owning the fact that the CRM launch was premature and the sales pilot lacked proper planning, leadership shifted the blame onto representatives.
Compensation has also been a major concern. There had already been conversations around pay disparity, and employees were told that more thorough discussions would take place. Instead, the company ended the quarter by announcing that employees would be required to return to the office three days per week, with only a $3,000 salary increase added to a base salary of roughly $34,450. Another potential $3,000 was mentioned but tied to future metric attainment.
When employees asked about the revised commission structure, leadership said they could not speak to it yet, while still claiming the new pay would be “market rate.” That was frustrating and difficult to take seriously when no fleshed-out commission plan was available to present.
The return-to-office mandate is especially concerning because many employees live at least 45 minutes away, with some commuting one to two hours each way. This creates real concerns around gas costs, time, childcare, and overall quality of life. It was even more frustrating to learn that this was apparently not something the client required, but rather an internal decision by Concentrix.
Overall, the combination of low pay, shifting expectations, lack of planning, unclear commission structure, and forced office attendance feels like intentional attrition. It is difficult not to view these decisions as a way to reduce headcount while placing the burden on employees.
