To cap or not to cap, that is the question! Caps on earnings and/or payouts have been, and are currently, used in the hopes of limiting the damage of runaway commission payouts that could potentially ;
When one looks at the use of caps, it is clear that they are employed as a means of dealing with uncertainty. Uncertainty about many things such as the future, the efficacy of the comp plan design, the balance of territory design or the accuracy of quota's referenced through out the plans. As the name implies, caps aim to limit exposure to the negative affects of runaway commissions by capping the plans at a predefined achievement level (say 200% of quota). Above this ceiling, no commissions will get paid out.
Caps are far more common to sales incentive plans than commission plans as quota based plans often have accelerators built in for over quota achievement to provide payee's with increasing rates of earnings for attainment over 100% of target. Poorly set plan parameters such as quota can result in runaway payouts if achievement of an individual or set of individuals run way past the target achievement level.
Sales leaders and designers of sales compensation plans that turn to caps to protect the business from unknown events that could result in runaway payouts may want to think twice, it is an approach that is fraught with danger and many negative possibilities.
If you are looking to avoid the negative effects of a capped sales compensation plan yet protect the business from the damage of runaway commissions, here are a few options;