Sales Management
Q: Why would top sales people become poor performers
after a reorganization?
Q: Is there a formula for deciphering the difference
between a training need and a performance issue?
Q: What is your opinion of sales candidate interviewing
and selection instruments?
Sales
Q: How can I get customers to open up and answer
questions? I often feel like I'm pulling teeth just to find
out if my products can help them or not.
Q: What's the best way to get past the Gatekeeper?
Training
Q: Why should we transition from training to
performance improvement?
Q: How can we tell if our training department
should transition from delivering traditional training to
performance outcomes?
Q: Is there an easy formula for evaluating the
impact of training?
Q: Why is the training department often one
of the first for cut-backs during down-sizing or budget cuts?
Q: How can I appeal to senior management to
give me the budget and trainers needed?
Q: What is performance improvement science?
Q: Why would top sales people become
poor performers after a reorganization?
A: Sometimes it has to do with a shift in corporate culture.
For example, a company whose culture is nurturing or entrepreneurial
is likely to have high performers who value and thrive in
that culture. However, if changes in senior management radically
created an autocratic culture, high performers might become
poor performers. While still willing and able to sell, they
may be de-motivated to sell for the new management and find
themselves miscast in a new culture. Therefore, training is
likely to be ineffective as a stand-alone intervention because
of a dramatic shift in organizational values. Here, the clear
communication of the new expectations and helping employees
make the transition, or move on, can be achieved through coaching
and alterations in performance system measurement and rewards.
This is a common scenario that typically self-corrects
after an unnecessary period of turmoil and dysfunction that
results in poor sales performance. When a company doesn't
know what's working, it can't proactively assess how change
will impact performance. Assessment tools can be used to identify
not only what a salesperson's values, but also identify whether
they can sell, will sell and will sell for a given company.
Q: Is there a formula for deciphering
the difference between a training need and a performance issue?
A: An oversimplified way to discriminate between a performance
issue and a training need can be summed up by an old saying.
"If you put a gun to their heads, can they do it?"
If the answer is yes, then it is a performance issue, not
a training issue. In which case a training program would be
a waste of resources. We have developed a decision tree algorithm
as a job aid to assist trainers and managers in differentiating
training from performance issues and what to do for each.
Q: What is your opinion of sales
candidate interviewing and selection instruments?
A: In general, we advocate the use of these assessment
instruments as a component of the selection process to be
given at the end of the first interview to those that will
be brought back for second interviews. There are several good
instruments and some tend to be more applicable to certain
jobs than others. In general, we find the most utility to
instruments that can also identify what the candidate values.
This helps to identify those most likely to succeed and fit
in your culture. It can identify those that "can not
sell, will not sell, or will not sell in a given culture".
This is key to why past performance-based interviewing is
ineffective as a stand-alone selection instrument. In fact,
chances are that the performer who is able to show a great
track record did so only when the company provided 'value'
to them. Their interest in changing companies is likely linked
to their current company's unwillingness or inability to continue
providing what they value. Some instruments can identify what
the candidate values, so if the candidate is hired, the Manager
can use the instrument to assist motivating, coaching and
counseling around the Performer's values, e.g. money, service,
belonging, etc. and the priority of each. If a new compensation
plan allows for performers to 'write their own ticket' with
no cap on possible bonus earnings, most managers would give
the usual broad-brushed pep talk to focus on money. However,
if Performer A values money, Performer B values service and
Performer C values belonging, giving the same bonus pep talk
to all will only reach one third of the audience.
Hiring the right fit, creating critical success factors
and best practices are the foundation of a performance initiative.
Training can only do with what is given them. In addition,
the time and money wasted on making a bad hire are staggering.
Doing it right is a pay now or pay (a lot more) later proposition.
Enhancing Sales Performance
Q: How can I get customers to open
up and answer questions? I often feel like I'm pulling teeth
just to find out if my products can help them or not.
A: This is often the result of a weak start to the call.
An effective opening that sparks interest and gains agreement
to the topic would earn you the right to ask questions. In
addition, feeling like you're 'pulling teeth' should make
you stop to evaluate what words you are using to start the
question. You'll be surprised how often you are starting questions
with words that require only a yes, no, or brief answer. Re-word
your question to start with who, what, why, where, how, when,
tell me, etc. Unless the customer just isn't interested, a
good start to the call and the right probes should make a
considerable difference.
Q: What's the best way to get past
the Gatekeeper?
A: Your question gives away the problem. Seeing the Gatekeeper
as the SPO or Sales Prevention Officer creates an adversarial,
rather than collegial mindset. Our jobs seem to put us at
odds with them. Just as it is our job to gain access, it's
their job to act as traffic cops. The realization that we
are perceived as adversaries by virtue of our jobs alone is
important to keep in mind. Now I'm not saying that we should
apologize for our existence. Not at all. We know that we provide
a valuable service. What we need to do is to try to see things
from their perspective so they may be more open to seeing
things from our perspective.
So let's put ourselves in the gatekeeper's shoes for
a moment. There are armies of office equipment, telephone
companies, credit card companies, investment people, retirement
and medical plan representatives, and every other sales solicitor
you can think of. Just as you are conditioned to be on the
defensive and say 'no' to an endless stream of telephone solicitors,
they are conditioned to say 'no'. Like it or not, we are often
seen as just another annoyance in an endless stream of people
who conspire to throw the schedule off-track, causing the
staff and boss to blame them for not doing their job.
You can have a great work ethic, excellent product and
disease state knowledge and outstanding selling skills but
if you don't get face-time with the customer, you can't change
prescribing habits. In a very real sense, the gatekeeper can
make or break your career in this business.
Maximizing Training's Impact And
Return On Investment
Q: Why should we transition from
training to performance improvement?
A: We can provide at least thirteen reasons:
1. Clarifies all stakeholders' expectations, motivation
and buy-in
2. Identifies performance-based problems and pinpoints
those problems that can be addressed through a training or
performance intervention
3. Reveals what people are not doing at all/correctly/efficiently
that must be improved to increase productivity
4. Helps determine if existing training is relevant
5. Creates highly relevant business driven programs
6. Establishes a partnership attitude instead of teacher/student
mindset
7. Uses precious classroom time and resources more efficiently
- ROI
8. Sets the direction for design to drive development
of future initiatives
9. Provides value to the organization and individuals
10. Evaluates performance improvement instead of critiquing
training events
11. Identifies success milestones in meeting objectives,
e.g. cost-benefit
12. Provides productivity, job satisfaction and retention
value to the organization and individuals
13. Promotes department credibility and resource allocation
Q: How can we tell if our training
department should transition from delivering traditional training
to performance outcomes?
A: As a general rule, look for some of the following
signs and symptoms:
Attendees don't want to be there and don't see what's
in it for them to attend programs.
Training complaints about inadequate class time and budgets
Training evaluates it's impact only with "smile sheets,
" or program critiques
Training tracks how many training events and headcount trained
rather than business-oriented results
Tacking new materials and product launch information to old
training agendas rather than zero-based development aligned
with new marketing and sales strategies
Creating agendas arbitrarily rather than aligning the amount
of study and classroom time with performance appraisal and
compensation/bonus criteria
Accommodating requests for talking heads training instead
of performance outcomes training
Poor buy-in from sales management because they do not see
how the training will help them meet sales goals
Q: Is there an easy formula for evaluating
the impact of training?
A: You must first decide which level of evaluation is
appropriate for which training intervention. There is no 'pat'
answer, but you do well to build the desired level of evaluation
into the training design and roll-out. In general, you should
consider evaluating one or more of the following:
1. Did they like it?
2. Did they learn it?
3. Did they use it?
4. Was it worth it?
Since performance improvement is the foundation of return
on investment evaluation, programs selected with a performance,
rather than training focus are easier to evaluate. They often
have better management and trainee 'buy-in' and demonstrate
better ROI data. Numerous studies by the ASTD, as well as
the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI),
have documented that appropriate training can provide ROI
ratios exceeding 10:1. However, when training was designed
from a performance intervention and improvement perspective,
ratios soar to ranges of 400 to 2,000:1.
Q: Why is the training department
often one of the first for cut-backs during down-sizing or
budget cuts?
A: It is because we don't know the value of training
that training departments are among the first squeezed during
downsizing. Data from an American Management Association (AMA)
study published in the February 1996 issue of Training magazine
delivered compelling data to support why training should not
suffer when budgets are cut. In fact, the AMA study found
a high correlation between increased profit and productivity
in companies who, after their workforce cuts, actually expanded
training. The remaining workforce in these companies produced
a 44% increase in productivity, as opposed to 29% in the organizations
who did not increase their training.
After a year, the AMA reported that the companies expanding
training saw profits jump by 80% while those with cuts saw
46% gains. Productivity increased by 70% with training expansion
but only 41% for those keeping training intact.
Q: How can I appeal to senior management
to give me the budget and trainers needed?
A: In general, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. If you are focused on delivering business results
and have transitioned from delivering training events to performance
outcomes, you have already built your case. If not, gather
all of the data possible within your organization to make
your case. Focus on gathering testimonials from influential
stakeholders and surveys citing results from successful programs.
Look outside of your company to gather as much objective
data as possible. For example: The American Society for Training
& Development's (ASTD) second annual report on "Standards
for Valuing Training Investments" cited enterprises that
have a high ratio of employees to trainers have lower learning
outcomes. Conversely, those with higher trainer to employee
ratios generally enjoyed better transfer of learning to the
job. The data linked higher learning outcomes with better
organizational performance.
Q: What is performance improvement
science?
A: It's a goal-driven, systems process for clear alignment
between the company's vision and strategies, its business
units and development requirements, resulting in measurable
outcomes. The objective is to prepare the organization and
individual employees to meet the current and near-term business
goals. Performance improvement is also referred to as performance
development and performance science. The differences are largely
a matter of semantics. While we are focused on improvement,
we use the term development because most people don't like
to be told of a need to improve but are interested in developing.
