When talking with members recently about their current challenges, lots of conversations have centered around the consensus-based sale – these days, you need to convince more people with different interests to agree on any purchase.  But how do you get everyone to agree to a purchase, especially if it’s the slightest bit disruptive?  Clearly, we have a stronger need for advocates inside an organization than ever before.

But how can you make people want to share your content and advocate on your behalf?

It turns out two Wharton professors already looked at what makes people share, with an investigation of what makes people share New York Times articles.  Independent readers described articles using a number of adjectives, and then the professors looked at how likely the articles were to be in the list of top shared articles.

Short answer?  The most shared articles are those that inspire awe.

(In case you’re interested — number two: things that inspire anger, three: practical utility, four: emotionality, tied for five: anxiety and surprise, bringing in the rear: positivity.  Things that inspire sadness are much less likely to be shared.  You can find much more in the – ironically – widely shared New York Times article about the paper here).

So what does it mean to be awe-inspiring?  In the New York Times, this generally meant it was a complicated, intellectual article about science, including ones with headlines like “The Promise and Power of RNA.”  As one of the authors says, “You’d see articles shooting up the list that were about the optics of deer vision.”

At the highest level, here’s how the authors defined awe-inspiring: “Its scale is large, and it requires “mental accommodation” by forcing the reader to view the world in a different way.”  Read More »

Click Image to Enlarge

Table stakes. You’ll hear it at nearly any poker table—it’s the minimum amount of buy-in required to simply have a seat and play. You’ll also hear it in the business world to describe the basic fundamentals needed to enter a market or execute a transaction. In the Sales world, we’ve discovered a set of table stakes skills that are often overlooked in sales managers.

And here’s the kicker of it…this set of table stakes is something you’re likely taking for granted, and here’s why: 25% of total sales manager effectiveness has very little to do with Sales.

We’re all familiar with other traditional assumptions that don’t apply in Sales. Compensation principles (what other functions have to create a President’s Club to ensure sufficient motivation?) and promotion patterns (a star frontline performer does not necessarily translate to a star manager) are just two examples.

Perhaps we’ve become so comfortable assuming Sales is different we forget to look for places where it’s actually not different. Take a look at the first graphic to the right:

Click Image to Enlarge

What this shows us is that the skills we traditionally assume managers have—the ability to listen and reliability—need to be elevated to “must have” status.

The second graphic to the right shows just how non-negotiable these skills are in sales managers. Without these fundamentals, these table stakes, your sales managers are leaving revenue on the table. Period.

We’ll be exploring these manager fundamentals this week in our upcoming webinar, but here are few considerations:
Read More »

Recently, I’ve had a couple of conversations with members about some of the words and titles we’ve chosen to convey our research findings—most notably, the “Challenger” sales rep (the big finding from last year’s SEC study on rep effectiveness) and “Sales Innovation” (the big finding from this year’s manager effectiveness study). 

In discussions I’ve had about the Challenger™ term, some members have asked whether it might have been more appropriate to call these reps “the new relationship builder”—after all, this is what the Challenger represents, isn’t it?  Whereas the classic relationship builder is focused on pleasing the customer, the Challenger is focused on making the customer professionally more effective in his or her job.  Isn’t that just a performance-based relationship? 

Similarly, in this year’s study, I’ve been pressed to explain how “Sales Innovation” is truly distinct from “deal-level coaching.”  Isn’t this really what the innovative manager is doing when he or she partners with a sales rep to “un-stick” a deal?

I don’t necessarily disagree with either of these arguments since they are both sound points of view based on a firm understanding not only of Sales, but of SEC content.  But, should we go back and rewrite those studies with terms like “new relationship builder” and “deal-level coaching” so they’re more agreeable to members and don’t run the risk of rubbing people the wrong way?  Absolutely not.

Why?  Because one of the most important things to do in challenging conventional wisdom—whether through a research study like those produced by the SEC, inside your own organization or with your own customers—is to be controversial.  Mind you, you need to have good reason (i.e., robust data and sound logic) to be able to challenge conventional wisdom…but data and logic alone won’t get it done.  Words matter and the story you tell matters.   Read More »

No question, 2009 was a tough year.  And for some of us 2010 isn’t much better.  In fact, I’m struck by the number of sales executives I’ve spoken to across the last 6 months who’ve told me that, actually, last year was the good year, and this year is the tough one. 

That said, irrespective of when the tough times hit your organization, we find the general reaction in Sales is the same.  In times when reps are struggling to sell, one thing we can all agree on is the need to double our efforts around driving sales process compliance.

The idea being, no matter how tough the economy, good selling is good selling.  So let’s make sure we’re following the motion of good selling, even if it doesn’t always lead to a deal.

One thing we know to be true based on our research at the Sales Executive Council is that customer buying behaviors are changing.  In some cases quite dramatically. 

Whether it’s evolving customer needs, increased demands for consensus across customer stakeholders, changes in decision making authority, heightened budget pressures, or re-designed buying processes, one thing members tell us again and again is, for many accounts, Sales has changed.  And as a result, deals are getting bogged down in all sorts of unexpected ways, unique from customer to customer, even from deal to deal.

But if that’s the case, we now live in a world where a standardized sales process will only get us so far.  Driving compliance around the behaviors known to lead to success only works, if we can predict in advance what actually leads to success.   Read More »

Show of hands… How many of you see your good channel partners (you know, those who achieve certification and continually invest in your partnership) receive the same rewards as your not-so-hot channel partners (those who never complete training and constantly strain your supply chain with inaccurate forecasts)?

As much time and effort as companies spend on selecting the right channel partners, few have managed to establish a performance measurement and incentive process that actually reinforces desired channel partner behaviors.

Why is this?

Well, chances are, what you ideally want out of your channel partners is directly at odds with what your channel partners want from you. So then, how do you actually motivate channel partners to act in accordance with your – the supplier’s – strategy?

Companies often make the mistake of evaluating partners’ performance using primarily volume-based metrics. While simple to track, these metrics do not provide much insight into the quality and profitability of deals closed or partners’ dedication to your company.

Instead, performance measurement programs should incorporate both volume- and behavior-focused metrics so that you can track how partners are producing business, not just how much.

You should aim to have objective, uniform metrics that measure the performance of both yourselves and your channel partners against the strategies and plans you both previously agreed upon. Both suppliers and partners need to clearly understand the other side’s expectations of their performance.   Read More »

No matter who I talk to around the world, I hear the same thing:  2010 is about a return to growth.

For many of us, the dark days of 2009, frankly, were a world where flat was the new up, and survival was success.  Heading into the next 12-18 months, however, no one is likely to get a second round of forgiveness for turning in a flat performance. 

I often quote the head of sales at a global manufacturing company who simply told his sales force this year, “In 2010, it’s not OK, not to grow.” Period.

But for many sales organizations, that emphatic message isn’t backed by clear direction.  Sure, we want to grow, but how do we do it?  And what I’m finding is, this year, more than most, sales leaders are “placing the customer first.”

The term “customer centricity” is back this year in a dramatic fashion.  The idea being, if we want to grow in 2010, we’re going to have to ensure that everything we do delivers maximum customer value.

But what exactly does it mean?  What should we actually do?  And more importantly, how do we do it in a way that drives growth?

After all, there are several ways to be customer centric that are actually bad for business—discounts, terms, and conditions which undermine profitability in exchange for little long-term gain.

To answer those questions, we surveyed over 5,000 individuals across Council members’ customer organizations—c-suite executives, end users, procurement officers, key influences, you name it—and we found one conclusion in particular to be consistently true regarding what customers value most in a supplier.    Read More »

In my last post, I explained how the most important sales-specific skill a manager can have right now – much more important than resource allocation and just inching out coaching – is sales innovation.  But innovation and creativity are not words we frequently use in Sales (at least not in a good way).   So what do we really mean by sales innovation, and how do we get it?  I’ll answer that here, and sprinkle in some links to relevant cases that SEC members can access.

Let’s start by talking about the military.

In the Army, there’s an old saying that applies equally well to Sales:  “No plan survives engagement with the enemy.”

No matter how carefully one plans for battle, the reality on the field will inevitably present in a different way.  And as a result, over the years, army leaders have adopted a style of leadership known as Commander’s Intent.

Commander’s Intent is just that:  a clear, concise statement of the specific goal a commander is looking to achieve. Something like:  “Capture and hold that hill until reinforcements arrive.”

In this approach, Army leaders have stopped giving step-by-step instructions on how to actually go about capturing the hill, because they’ve learned that once the team gets out in the field and engages in battle, they have to quickly adapt to the situation on the ground in unanticipated ways.

Not surprisingly then, the field leaders who excel in the Army have to be creative, innovative, and adaptive to survive. 

Now, Sales is not exactly like war, but it is a series of (hopefully friendlier) battles to win ground over competitors.  And given that these days those battles are less predictable than ever before, it makes sense that deviating from the plan is now increasingly necessary.    Read More »

By Andrew Kent

The Major League Baseball All-Star Game is upon us, which means my Fantasy Baseball team gets a few days off—and my mouse-clicking finger gets some much-needed rest.  Turns out, this wonkish fantasy “sport” has a lot to teach us about compensating a sales force.

For the uninitiated, the goal of Fantasy Baseball is to assemble a team of players that will maximize performance across a range of statistics.  Traditionally, Fantasy Baseball leagues track five key statistics each for batters and pitchers. 

But some fantasy league managers like to achieve a more granular view of a player’s performance.  Just check out this league I’m in this year – it tracks 12 stats per player:

Now somebody please tell me: with all those statistical categories and numbers on the screen, how am I supposed to decide how valuable a player is to my team?  Maybe a player gets a lot of RBIs, runs, and home runs, but how many doubles and triples should I sacrifice?  It’s overwhelming—and in fact, research suggests that our brains cannot process more than 3-5 variables when making a decision.

But while the Fantasy Baseball example seems obvious, many of us do the same thing to our sales reps with overly complicated compensation plans.  In the same way that measuring baseball players on too many statistics cripples my fantasy team decision-making ability, including too many metrics in the comp plan makes it impossible for reps to figure out what they’re being paid to do.    Read More »

The topic of sales competencies and rep development has been coming up quite frequently in our recent conversations with members.  Some sales leaders are getting more frustrated with training’s failure to make behavior changes “stick”; some have started realizing that the new economy calls for a new set of skills that is largely lacking in reps; and some are simply looking for ways to boost rigor around training to increase the likelihood of success.

All good reasons to be talking to us, especially as we’ve learned that nearly two-thirds of all sales reps (61%) are unsatisfied with the business and sales skill training provided by their companies.

The bad news is we know that training alone has a relatively small impact on improving productivity – only 22%.  The good news is companies that take a more comprehensive development approach— integrating training, coaching, and real-world experience—have seen a 4 fold increase in productivity up to 88%.

We’ve set out to find what it is these companies do differently and will be tackling this subject of training and rep development over the next few months. Here’s what we have learned so far:

1) Do not limit rep development to just classroom learning.  Our research shows that reps forget 87% of training content within 30 days. Most of the actual learning and skill improvement happens as reps repeatedly “apply” and “perfect” new knowledge and skills on the job with continuous support and reinforcement from their managers.      Read More »

By Andrew Kent

Sales leaders often assume that a detailed compensation plan can optimize “coin-operated” rep behavior.  This, however, is the wrong way to think about sales comp.

Simply put, there is no such thing as a perfect comp plan—no matter which structure you go with or how much analytical rigor you put into your plan design, you’re going to incent some undesirable behaviors and upset a portion of the sales force. 

When you over-think comp plan design, moreover, you’re overestimating the rationality of human behavior and your ability to control it.  Human beings are unpredictable creatures, and incentives are as likely to distort behavior in ways you don’t intend as they are to influence behavior in the right direction.

In other words, compensation is about psychology, not economics.   

With that in mind, we’ve developed a list of 20 principles of sales compensation we’ve dubbed “The Truth about Sales Compensation.” Here are two of my favorites from the list:

Principle #2: Compensation cannot do everything.

Sales leaders tend to over-rely on compensation as a management tool, when other levers would more effectively solve the root causes of problems.     Read More »