Democracy and Sales Training

While we may be in the “Sales Expert” business, we are not ammune to trials and tribulations of day to day selling.  One of the prominent challenges is budgets, or more accurately, disappearing budgets.  This got me thinking about how companies use their “training” or “development” budgets, especially sales related budgets.

The question really comes down to whether sales training needs to be democratic?  Does everyone in a sales organization equally qualify for the same training?  When it comes to sales skills, for most companies it seems to be the case, and the concept is rarely if ever reviewed.  I want to emphasize that we are addressing sales skills, not sales process training; we are specifically talking about things like prospecting, interactive selling, sales leadership, etc. Many of the same organizations, who take a very “democratic” view to sales training, do not seem to have the same viewpoint to training skills outside of sales.

I find it interesting to see how decisions are made around training for sales and other positions.  It seems that most sales organizations take an all or none approach where the training is delivered by a third party at the company; there are a few organizations that will send reps selectively to sessions held in public forums or associations, but when it comes to hiring organizations like Renbor or other training companies, it is very much all or none. With the exception of some on-boarding at some companies, sales training is always looked at as something for everyone.  There is an element of “team” or team building, but I don’t think that plays much into it.

Yet when it comes to training in other areas of the company, these decisions are made much more on an individual level than a collective one.  It is OK to send two or three people for training on say Excel, presentation skills, and so on, without any thought of sending the whole team or department.  I would assume the decision is made based on just how much George may need the skills training, but also on some aspect of ROI; you spend $1,000 on the program, you expect improvements in efficiencies of $1,200 in a year and you have your ROI.  This may or may not include intangible benefits like morale, retention, and also does not include returns realized in years 2, 3 and beyond.

This same logic does not seem to carry through to sales, while sales people and sales leaders spends their day talking ROI; they seem to spend little time doing ROI.  Here is a general example.  About 25% – 30% of the current sales team will likely not adopt anything from programs, and therefore the training will have no impact or potential for return.  Most organizations know who these ‘C’ players are before we ever show up, but have just elected not to act or clean house.

There is about 50% – 55% percent who are putting in some effort, the ‘B’ players; they will put some of the new learned skills into effect, and see degrees of improvement, and the company will see an ROI on their investment in this group.  The last group is the proverbial 20% of the organization that validates the 80-20 rule, the ‘A’ players, consistent performers before the training, and that much better every time they are trained, more consistent and productive as a result.  Not only does the company realize a real return on their investment in these people, but the ‘A’ players are likely to measure their own ROI, based on the time they invested and potential opportunity lost or gained in the process.

In our discussions with customers we set the expectation that the ‘B’ group pays for the program through their improved numbers and habits, and in many cases the training leads to better retention numbers, further contributing to their ROI.  The lift delivered by the ‘A’ is the upside of a clearly articulated and executed training strategy and programme.  As far as the ‘C’ players go, frankly why bother?  Not to be cruel, but they wee underperformers before the training, like distract during the training and the first to make excuses as to why it is the programs fault they are still struggling, these excuses are usually the zenith of their creative output and productivity.

But companies continue to insist on having these people consume training budgets, and other resources, even while they know they are wasting both.  When we ask why they are including, we hear a number of reasons, the weakest of which is that as long as they are part of the team, they will get the same training as all.  These same companies will stratify their client base which in turn dictates service levels, pricing or margins.  Yet they do not apply that same logic when it comes to allocating resources to ‘C’ players.  Some tell me they have to treat all their employees the same, and they will work hard to salvage the ‘C’ players in the hope that they will improve and one day become ‘B’ players.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not about being cold or callus, I know we are talking about people, but are also talking about being profitable, which the life line of any enterprise.  So while it is important that every have an equal opportunity to succeed, it is also important that everyone make an equal effort to contribute and succeed, but if that effort is not there, it should not be rewarded, especially when it siphons off from resources that could go to ‘A’ and ‘B’ players.  By having an “all or none” democratic approach to training, you are encouraging mediocrity, and probably causing the ‘A’ players to think.  Seems to me that it would be wiser to train and reward the ‘A’ team, and help the ‘C’ team transition to a more rewarding career.

What’s in Your Pipeline?
Tibor Shanto

And The Winner Is:

We have a winner in the help Trevor out contest running over the last couple of weeks.  The winner is Amy, her answer received the most vote, 40%.  Congratulations Amy, and thank you to all who participated, we had a lot of great answers, and you can review the by clicking.

Please continue to visit, as we will be having other contest soon.

In the mean time, you can still vote for an article currently nominated for the Best Sales Article for September 2009, over at www.top10salesarticles.com.  Every vote counts, so vote often, now there is democracy at work ha!