Australia Post's $1.9M CEO Pay Proves Your Sales Comp Will Never Be Fair

Australia Post's CEO just pocketed $1.9 million while the organisation lost $200 million. Let that sink in: negative performance, positive comp.

Now look at your commission plan. Miss quota by 10%? You're getting 40% of target commission, maybe less if there's a threshold kicker. Miss it by 20%? You might be on a performance plan. Miss it entirely? You're gone.

But executives? Different rules. Christine Holgate got fired over $20,000 in Cartier watches (which she spent legitimately). Her replacement earns nearly $2 million while the business bleeds cash. Australia Post's top five execs averaged $850k each. In the private sector, it's worse—Aussie executives earn 60 times the average worker, leading the developed world.

Here's what this means for you: The comp structure you're grinding under is designed to extract maximum output while minimising payout risk. Thresholds, clawbacks, quota relief caps, accelerators that only kick in at 120%—all engineered to keep your earnings predictable while your CEO's compensation has no ceiling.

You hit 95% of quota? Tough. Should've closed that last deal. Your CRO hits 70% of revenue target? Here's your retention bonus, stock refresh, and board seat.

The sales profession is built on meritocracy until you reach the executive floor. Then it's built on whatever the remuneration committee decides sounds reasonable.

Want proof? Check how many sales leaders have clawback clauses in their contracts. Now check how many AEs do. The asymmetry isn't accidental.

What to do: Stop thinking comp fairness exists above your level. Negotiate everything—base, OTE split, threshold elimination, accelerators, quota relief. Get it in writing. And when leadership talks about "aligning incentives," remember: their incentives align just fine. Yours don't.

The meritocracy ends where the executive comp committee begins.