The Changing of the Guards

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.