Every sales org has the same ritual. A spreadsheet appears. Someone says the word “coverage.” Someone else says “balance.” By the end of the meeting, leadership assures the team that territories were designed objectively. Most reps nod. Some don’t.
Territory design is treated like math, but anyone who has carried a quota for more than a year knows the outcome of the year is often decided before the first call is made. Two equally capable reps can finish twelve months apart in performance, reputation, and career trajectory because of lines drawn on a map or names placed in an account list.
That reality is uncomfortable, which is why we keep pretending territory is neutral.
Where the Spreadsheet Begins Lying
Territory models usually start with clean intentions. Leadership looks at revenue potential, account counts, historical spend, geography, and vertical mix. The goal is simple: give everyone a fair shot.
The problem is that every input relies on assumptions.
Revenue potential is an estimate based on past behavior that may no longer apply. Account counts ignore variance in complexity. Geographic balance fails once travel friction enters the picture. Vertical focus assumes buyers behave consistently inside categories that are already outdated.
By the time the spreadsheet feels objective, subjectivity has already done its work.
The model looks fair because it uses numbers. What it can’t show is which accounts are stalled, which are expanding quietly, which buyers are about to churn, and which relationships are already warm.
Territory as a Career Multiplier
Sales careers compound quickly. A rep who lands a strong territory early builds confidence, hits numbers, earns trust, and gets better opportunities next year. A rep who inherits a thin patch misses, resets, and spends the following year digging out.
This is why two reps with identical talent can diverge so dramatically. One is described as consistent. The other is described as struggling. The difference sometimes traces back to account quality and timing, not effort or intelligence.
Once a rep is seen as a top performer, their territory tends to stay safer. Once a rep is seen as risky, they tend to inherit more risk. The loop reinforces itself quietly.
The Myth of the Fresh Start
Annual territory resets are sold as fairness mechanisms. New year, new opportunity. Clean slate. In practice, very little resets. A “new” territory often includes accounts already mid-journey. A “new logo” may have years of context behind it.
Reps feel this immediately. Some open January with deals that have momentum. Others open with cold silence and a calendar full of prospecting blocks. Both are told they started equal.
Why Leadership Accepts the Illusion
If territory fairness were truly enforced, revenue would become less predictable.
Leaders face a tradeoff. Optimize for fairness and accept volatility, or optimize for stability and accept inequality. Most choose stability.
Continuity reduces risk. Known accounts produce known outcomes. Reassigning them introduces uncertainty. That doesn’t mean leaders are acting in bad faith. It means they are optimizing for outcomes the organization rewards. Fairness is valued. Predictability is required.
Why Reps Feel Gaslit
The frustration comes from the mismatch between language and experience. Reps are told territories are even. Their lived reality says otherwise. When they raise concerns, the conversation returns to the spreadsheet. Numbers are cited. Models are defended.
What never appears is context. Who had the account last year? What conversations already happened? Which buyers are actively evaluating? Which accounts are stalled indefinitely.
Those details matter more than any column total, yet they rarely shape the final map.
The Hard Truth
Territories will never be perfectly fair. Selling involves too many variables. Anyone promising true balance is selling an illusion. The real question is whether organizations are honest about the limits of their models and the power territory holds over outcomes.
