The three conflict categories
- Direct vs channel: direct sales and a partner both pursuing the same prospect. The most common, most-deserving-of-codification.
- Partner vs partner: two partners pursuing the same prospect. Resolved by registration timestamp.
- Post-deal commission disputes: deal closed, both direct and partner claim credit. Resolved by registration record and the eligibility check at registration.
Each category needs a written rule and an escalation path. Treating them ad-hoc is the failure mode.
Rules of engagement (RoE) — the canonical document
The Rules of Engagement is a 2-3 page document covering: which accounts are direct-only (Approved Direct Account List, refreshed quarterly), which territories are partner-led, the deal registration policy and protection period, the partner-of-record rule on renewals, and the escalation path for unresolved disputes.
Every partner gets a copy at signing. Every direct sales rep gets it at onboarding. Both sides refer to the same document; both sides are bound by it. Without a single canonical RoE, partners and direct will each have their own version of the rules and disputes become irresolvable.
Direct vs channel: preventing the conflict
Most direct-vs-channel conflict is preventable through up-front structure:
- Account assignment in CRM. Every account in your CRM should have an ownership flag: direct, channel, or shared. Defaults must be set explicitly.
- Direct outbound exclusion rule. Direct sales does not outbound into accounts assigned channel without channel manager sign-off.
- Pre-engagement check. Before a partner registers a deal, the eligibility check confirms direct has not engaged in the last 60 days.
- Compensation neutrality. Direct reps should be compensated equivalently on channel-influenced and direct-sourced deals in their territory. This removes the incentive to fight over attribution.
Partner vs partner: first in time wins
Two partners register the same prospect within 30 days of each other. The rule that resolves it cleanly: first in time wins, by timestamp on the canonical submission channel. No exceptions, no judgment calls.
The losing partner is notified within 24 hours of the second registration. They may be offered a secondary role (technical support, complementary services) if the winning partner accepts. Otherwise the lead is the winning partner's exclusively.
This rule feels harsh; it is necessary. Any judgment-based resolution invites disputes about whether the channel team is playing favorites.
Post-deal commission disputes
Deal closed; both direct and a partner claim attribution. The default rule: the registration record is determinative. If the deal was registered by the partner and the registration was approved, the partner is paid. If not, direct earns the deal and the partner is not paid.
The exception that prevents harshness: if the partner materially influenced the deal but did not register it (because they did not know they should, or because the customer initiated contact), pay a goodwill commission at 50 percent of standard. Document the exception and feed the learning back into partner onboarding so the gap does not recur.
Escalation path
Standard escalation: (1) channel manager handles routine cases in <48 hours; (2) VP channel handles appeals in <5 business days; (3) founder or COO handles unresolvable conflicts. Escalation above VP should be rare. If it is not, the rules need tightening or the program has a culture problem.