Rapid advancements in technology have created opportunities to reach more people in more ways than ever before. The (old) model required that those wanting to learn had to travel to the expert, or teacher, to acquire the knowledge. Today, it is possible to access those same experts online, via elearning or distance learning. But what is the learning experience like? What are we teaching, and what does the student (or executive) need to learn?

Skills, Knowledge and Behavior Modification
Imagine that you wanted to build something with which you had no experience. Say... a gazebo. In scenario 1, you buy a book, follow the plans and use your best efforts to build it. In scenario 2, you watch an online video series where you're shown how to make each cut and how to use each tool. In scenario 3, you have an experienced carpenter with you and a few others who want to learn, and the carpenter shows each of you how to do each step and explain why to each question you ask.

Which scenario would give you the best learning experience, the most encouragement and instill the skills most permanently? Granted, different people learn in different ways, but for most people, you can't beat the skills that can be permanently instilled through personal instruction. You can acquire knowledge online. But acquiring the skills, experience and confidence needed to modify your behavior is best done in a classroom setting.

At the CustomerCentric Selling® 3 1/2 day workshops, attendees participate in numerous role-plays with coaches who have the experience to transfer the knowledge to a real-world situation. Further, attendees benefit greatly from the interaction they have with one another, finding comfort in the fact that others face similar problems and working together to find new skills and approaches that will help them all when they return to their jobs. You just can't replace this online.

The goal of our clients is not to just to teach skills to their sales reps. It's to make lasting changes to behavior, so that the organization can embrace and follow a process that is repeatable and scalable. I believe that this is also the need of most organizations. While elearning and online tools can be very valuable as a refresher and in reinforcing the behavior, it cannot replace the benefits of a classroom experience.

At CustomerCentric Selling®, we will continue to invest in our wonderful business partners and building that network of expertise, as we believe that this is the best way to help our clients achieve lasting change and realize the benefits of sales improvement that they are looking for.

3 Responses to "The Future of Sales Training"

1. Dave Hurlbrink Says:
   August 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am

   Excellent points. I'd also suggest that advancements in salesperson-centric technology have improved the way sales organizations and individual salespeople can implement and support what they've learned and practiced in the classroom in a context-sensitive way against each sales opportunity they're pursueing.

2. George LaRocque Says:
   August 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

   There is no replacement for the type of training that CCS provides in their workshop. It, by itself however, is not a panacea for developing sales skills, implementing sales process, and effectively managing results. Implementing an e-learning program offered as a standard in conjunction with the person-to-person workshops would be a huge benefit to the CCS customer. Those of us that are committed to sales methodology and process and leverage it everyday to drive results and develop our staff would benefit immensely from this. Ongoing refreshment of key concepts and use of key tools would be a huge help.

3. Craig Klein Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pm

   Great article! George makes a great point! In my experience, too often the sales team is sent to the workshop and maybe the manager too but, the client is not left with a workable system of holding the sales team accountable to following the techniques they learned.

   A lot of people try to do that with their CRM or contact management system but, it really needs to be customized by the sales trainer for it to work.

Over the years, I've been on the recipient end of many a request for proposal (RFP).  Like many sales professionals, early in my career this created excitement and a flurry of activity on my part, caused late nights, missed dinners and visions of endless revenue.  I learned, as many have, that when an RFP is distributed, it's sent to many possible suppliers.  By definition, the odds of any one firm winning are not great, unless that firm has stacked the odds in their favor.

That was an important lesson.  Today when I receive an RFP I still respond, only not with a proposal. I follow a process destined to obtain access to the executives involved with the decision so that I can understand the problem they are trying to solve.  This allows me to probe deeper into the root causes, with the hope that I can help the executives more fully understand the problem, its impact and its urgency. Naturally I'd like to bias this understanding toward the solution I hope to ultimately propose, but only if I can do so honestly and with integrity.

Of course this is an approach that we teach in the CustomerCentric Selling workshop.  Even though I'm happy that I learned this lesson early in my career, I'm surprised at how many people haven't, and find themselves in constant response mode, but still with a low batting average.  In business, it's important to try and stack the odds in your favor as much as possible, and if you can't use the RFP process to re-engineer the buying process, your odds are improved if you decline to respond and focus your energies on more promising opportunities.

6 Responses to "Responding to RFP's"

1. Dave Cooke Says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

   Right on the mark. I still have clients today who are caught up in the exciting cycle of chasing RFP's. I have gotten them to develop a rule that essentially states "if you haven't met with the decision makers enough to form a strategy, we cannot commit the resources." Why chase after a 'jump ball' when their are real opportunities to close. Good call.

2. John E Flannery Says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm

   Prior to joining the CCS Affiliate network, I worked for a large wireless carrier in North America. In the corporate headquarters, there was a team of 10-12 individuals in a group called \

3. Richard Boardman Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 4:14 am

   I agree with you, but I'd also observe that organisations that do enter into the RFP process can improve their odds of winning based on how they approach the process. I'm an independent CRM consultant so we get to see a lot of RFP responses and the overall quality is generally pretty poor. Organisations can do a lot to increase their chances by standing out from the crowd through simple actions like candidly answering the questions asked, not resorting to boiler-plate, taking the time to differentiate their offering, building relations with the potential customer through asking relevent questions, etc etc. I think a lot of organisations bidding on RFP's figure they have a long shot of winning and that defines how much effort they put into the process. With RFP's I think it's a case of if you decide to go, go hard.

4. David Tomkins Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 5:52 am

   We have a problem here in the UK FSI market created by credit crunch - two of my customers have had external spending freezes for 3 months, and they have seen the best way to "mark time" is to issue an RFP - sometimes RFP hell is unavoidable!

5. Brian MUrphy Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 6:26 am

   I fully agree in this concept however I do not subscribe to absolutes in sales. The important component is knowledge of the prospects needs. I currently lead a sales team that focuses a lot on government contracting. In this industry, whether a sick form of revenge syndrome or simply not knowing another way, RFP's are commonly in practice and involve a relatively impenetrable process where rigid approaches do not work and attempting to break the process is viewed as being hard to work with. So, there needs to be some measure of balance in approaching RFP responses. Again, the key component is knowledge of the prospects needs. The second major component is developing a process whereby the organization stops, takes an objective view of the probability of success and determines the best path forward. The CCS process step's most valuable tool in this regard is the letter to key players stating why the response my deviate from their process. IF that contains relevant content that hits the mark against business needs, it will lead to success.

6. Nick Moreno Says:
   September 28th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

   So true!
   Time is money. You need to know when and how to walk away from from an RFP stacked against you!
   Nick

Guest Post by John Holland, Co-Founder & Co-Author, CustomerCentric Selling

Anyone willing to have compensation dependent upon delivering top line revenue better be able to withstand pressure. Not conveying that pressure to buyers can be difficult.

Most vendors apply pressure at the end rather than the beginning of the sales pipeline. Sellers have wide latitude in entering new opportunities into their sales funnels and are expected to enter a steady stream of new opportunities every month. Sales managers get a sense for the quantity of new activities, usually with little concern about quality. Their focus is further downstream on what they hope are closable opportunities to make the forecast.

According to CSO insights, over 90% of opportunities fail to close as forecast (they don't close or close for different amounts or different dates). That statistic points out a need for managers to spend more time as deals enter the pipeline. New entries should meet defined minimum qualification standards and progress should be quantifiable as sales cycles move ahead. Consider the implication on cost of sales if quality control at the beginning of the pipeline were enforced.

Expecting sellers to close unqualified transactions in a given month is a recipe for disaster. In pipeline management and forecasting, bad news early is good news. When was the last time you heard a sales manager refuse to allow a new opportunity into the funnel because it didn't meet muster? The CSO statistic will continue to be an issue for companies that fail to scrub pipelines early and on an ongoing basis.

One Response to "Sales Pressure"

1. Dave Stein Says:
   March 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

   I completely agree with you, John.

   We asked 125 sales executives and VPs of sales from different companies to list their companies' qualification criteria in order of importance (in addition to the upper and lower parameters for acceptance). Only 22 could complete the task. That number lines up pretty will with CSO's finding.

   You can be certain every one of those remaining 103 (83 percent of those surveyed) people have deals in their pipeline that are unqualified and therefore are either unwinnable or not worth winning.

   There's a double penalty which too many managers don't see. Not only won't these people win a large percentage of deals in that pipeline, causing them to miss their forecast, but the time spent trying to move those unqualified deals forward will reduce time and focus on deals that can be won.

   Dave Stein, CEO, ES Research Group, Inc.

I've had the opportunity in the past year to work closely with a number of organizations; most often with the VP's of Sales.  Some of these organizations had deployed CustomerCentric Selling® and some had worked with other methodologies.  This post is not about what methodology is best.  Rather, I'd like to share my observations of what's working and why.

Commonly, sales "training" fails for two reasons.  A) it's viewed as just that; training, which for most people implies an "event", which it usually is, rather than a sustainable process.  B) the new skills and resulting tools are not managed (read: coached and enforced) by the sales manager.  As a result, the initial excitement fades and old habits are resumed in most cases.  Why is that?

Much of it has to do with the skill-set and experience of the sales manager.  Many sales managers have risen to their positions by demonstrating a personal mastery of sales skills.  They are quota killers and/or effective relationship builders.   But, with rare exception, they are not skilled at managing process.  And that's exactly what's needed to make any methodology become habit and to allow it to succeed.  As selling becomes more complex and revenue growth pressures continue to mount, I believe a changing of the guard is at hand and that we will see more "process-driven" sales managers than "relationship-driven" sales managers.  This change will be driven by CEO's who need predictable, repeatable and scalable revenue growth.

I'm sure that some of our affiliates can comment on their client observations in this regard, but  I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this.

7 Responses to "The changing of the guards"

1. Dave Hurlbrink Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 11:19 am

   A third reason why training often fails is because the sales technology used by a company isn't adapted properly to implement, reinforce and govern the sales process, sales messaging and skill development covered by the training. Unless their sales process, selling resources and messaging are immediately apparent and accessible from their sales system in an opportunity-specific context, this disconnect between training and day-to-day execution will exist.

2. Dan Ahrens Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

   You're preaching to the choir... amen brother!

   Sales management (and first line sales management in particular) is the work-horse of a sales process implementation, and where the rubber meets the road in terms of whether an organization really executes on behavior change or not.

   With regard to Mr. Hurlbrink's comment, I agree with that too, however, until SFA systems are truly productivity tools for sales people (and perceived as such), I believe salespeople will see the technology as simply a way for managent to inspect their activity and report on their results. This is an important function to be sure, but it doesn't provide value to the seller.

   Further, too few sales organizations put in place sales rules or business processes to drive salespeople to use the SFA systems at the right place and time. The symptom of this is an over-reliance on email and phone connections to do things that could more efficiently be accomplished by a shared understanding and usage of the full capabilities of the SFA system.

   As soon as a company realizes the difference between

3. Dave Stein Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

   Bullseye, Tim.

   One more point for your consideration: It's more than just a lack of skills that keep former sales killers who have become managers from getting the job done. Many were born without the personal traits that are typically attributed to "left-brainers"-logical and sequential thinking (being methodical), objectivity, analytical tendencies (versus gut-feel or intuition), etc. People who possess those traits are likely to adopt process as the backbone of a solution to complex challenges such as managing a sales team or a portfolio of sales opportunities. And we do agree that process is a critical component to sales and sales management effectiveness.

   We all know sales people that have been successful, at least up until now, operating by the seat of their pants. You're right. They've mastered the personal selling skills required to accomplish that despite selling from the right side of their brain.

   When you add the new layer of complexity-managing a sales team-all the skills in the world can't make up for the wrong DNA for the job.

   Dave Stein, CEO, ES Research Group, Inc.

4. BZ Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

   Process is number one. Understanding when and how to apply it is singularly important.

   However most organizations fail to understand that in order to gain sustainable balanced growth the process needs to be applied across the total organization.

   In most companies, the group most held accountable is the sales org, especially when growth goals are missed. Fair or not it's a fact of life. There are always reasons why failure occurred but companies that manage through processes applied across the whole company (after all we're all sales people) are able to see the problems earlier and make adjustments sooner than those that don't. It also helps to eliminate the blame game that inevitably follows dissappointing outcomes. Unfortunately few companies understand this or are willing to go to the lengths required to get there.

   It ain't easy, but it's worth the effort.

5. Tom Tomlinson Says:
   February 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

   1. A sales manager that \

6. Deb Miller Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm

   Thanks guys - some great comments - comments I think a CFO/ CEO might be interested in!

7. Stephen Cadley Says:
   March 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

   Tim,

   I think you have nailed two of the items (1- Training as an event, 2- new process/methodology not managed to) and the follow up comments add additional points that are worth noting and will add a few of my own.

   * Dave Hulbrink points out that SFA tools don't support the new mehtodology - absolutely a major barrier to implementing the desired change.
   * Dan Ahearn speaks to SFA systems being seen as a management tools as opposed to sales productivity tools - Definately a major reason why SFA systems fail.
   And when you combine Dave & Dan's points you get the death nell for SFA's being a tool to support or reinforce any new Sales Methodology.

   And I think Dave Stien's point that Sales Managers need to be process wonks in this day in age is right on. The time of the Sales Manager/VP as closer is over. Sales leadership needs to move from relationship masters to process masters.

   And BZ touches on something that is near and dear to my heart and that is developing and implementing change.

   As a Sales professional turned Organization Development practitioner. I have seen first hand how a CXX is willing to work through an organization wide change effort over a period of 12 to 24 months or longer, but when it comes to implementing change within a Sales organization, leadership expects one or two events to change a subset of the organization (Sales Org.) in a Qtr or less. And alot of times the executive team expects this transformation to take place without changing or modifying the supporting infrastructure (SFA, and or other depts that impact customer experience) or developing the human capital within the Sales organization.

   It is important to remind the whole organization that everyone is in Sales.