Site icon Joanna Vahlsing, PMP

2019 SMA’s Sales Force Productivity Conference – Day 2

Day 2 kicked off with a welcome from Bob Kelly, who is the Chairman of the Sales Management Association. He shared that usually there are about 1/3 of attendees are returning, and this year the conference is focusing on the following themes:

Bob then closed by mentioning that some of his MBA students from Emory were attending and invited us to his class this evening, which he’s hosting in the conference ballroom.

Keynote – The Shocking Truth About Process Driven Sales Methodology

Scott Weinhold, Executive Director at Vantage Point Performance, held a high-energy session focused on uncovering why abandoning process-driven sales methodologies for more “agile” approaches see higher win rates.

(Okay, maybe this content is resonating with me way more than I was expecting it to!)

Scott opened with a great build-up of all the “great” methodologies that are out there. There’s so much noise – how do sales leaders and organizations know where to prioritize focus, team and talent to maximize return? How do we lift revenue, improve win rates and get more reps hitting quotas?

Or, is it possible that all this noise is contributing to the negative results that we’re seeing in the industry where only about 52% are hitting quotas?

Scott then walked us through a study that was done at the Florida State University Sales Institute on the best sales methodology. Starting with the Challenger Sale back in 2012.

Below is the approach that was taken for the four studies – first with a Seller Type Study, then a Situational Study, a Situational Win Rate Study and finally an Agile Diagnostic.

Study 1 – Seller Type Study

The Top 25% self-reported that they used either a Challenge or a Consultative approach; the Top 50% identified most with Consultative. Those who identified highest with a Relational approach were in the Bottom 25%.

Study 2 – Situational Study

Because the first study focused on how sellers are identifying themselves, the next study moved to a more situational one. Asking the question – for various situations, what approach did you take? The question was asked to 1,500 reps across there different companies.

What the study found was that the top sellers (those in green) adapted their approach based on the situation. The approach depended on the kind of customer, how the customer made decisions, the team around the customer and any competition, etc – all the variables that go into winning the business.

Top performers had a lot more variance in the approach. The situation drove top performer selling strategies and Disruptive was the dominant strategy for only 30% of situations.

Study 3 – Highest Win Rates

The third study asked reps to share the situations that they face; what buying scenarios were encountered. And for each one, what did you do? How did those activities/approaches compare to win rates?

This helps identify strategies of high performers in the organization. What was found for high performers was that they adapted their approach based on the situation. Lower performers took the same approach and used the same method in every scenario – a more rigid approach.

This is where agility comes in – the higher performers were able to adapt. The study found that high performers had high situation awareness and could adapt as needed in the moment – they were experts in recognizing dynamics.

So how can that be shared with the rest of the organization? Build out the tool kit, help others improve by matching and mapping approaches to various buying situations for the rep to be able to successfully execute.

In the study, for organizations that had heavily scripted sales processes, the highest performers did not usually stick to the script. (Side note: this reminded me of a talk that Doc Norton held many years ago about learning competency models and how when he was selling magazines over the phone, there was a script to follow, but once he built up the knowledge, he stopped following the script and he was able to close more sales.)

Scott compared this to a NFL Quarterback needed to adjust the play once the situation was assessed.

The research concludes that no sales strategy is a clear winner; that the winning sales strategy was dependent on the selling situation and that on average, sellers faced 4 to 5 unique situations, of which, the top performers used, on average 4 to 5 patterns of selling behaviors.

Next came the research about how the customer buying experience is broken – 68% of buyers said that “sellers don’t understand” and 61% said that “sellers don’t adjust.” The lack of situational fluency contributes to this dysfunction – reps aren’t connecting with what’s important and recognizing that one size does not fit all.

In the 2×2 grid below, the percentage in Green is the percentage of time of a one hour meeting that the Customer thought was in that quadrant. What’s in Red is what the Seller said.

Customers are reporting that 50% of the content is not important to them and 75% is what everyone else is saying. On 10% resonated because it was important and unique.

So what do we do? If on average 20% of an organization are high performers, what about the other 80%? The suggestion is to train on agility so that reps can be prepared to adapt as they learn more situational awareness.

How do you train on agility? The FSU study researched various organizations that were required to be agile, e.g. the military, sports programs and trauma centers.

Then Scott shared the insights that are needed to be analyzed to better understand the tactics.

He wrapped with the final “back of the napkin” plan that was built throughout the presentation. That it’s:

Keynote – Implementing World Class Sales Leadership Development at Johnson Controls

In this session, Adrian Voorkamp, Director, Learning Deployment – Americas at Jonson Controls shared how Jonson Controls implemented an award-winning comprehensive program to build great first-line sales managers.

The CEO of Jonson Controls issued a goal of having 10% compounding annual growth (CAGR), and the sales leadership quickly realized that if everyone achieved their individual goals, the company still wouldn’t meet that overall goal – so they needed to hire in more sellers and more Sales Managers. They were confident in their seller training, but needed to have better Sales Leadership Training.

Adrian opened by explaining that the Sales Manager role is very different than other managers in an organization, and that’s usually where generic L&D training fails. It’s not one-size-fits-all.

Sales leaders are hired/fired by the numbers that their team brings in; however, between those numbers and the leader lie dozens of variables. It’s very fly-by-the-wire where controls are not directly linked, for example, there is reliance on the customer to have to sell the product internally to other team members at the company.

Sales Managers were also too focused on the data and didn’t dig into the “why” – they were experts on the tools, but not on the trade. They spent time on forecasting, pipelining, upside scenarios, etc.

In Sales Leadership, authority doesn’t always equal influence, and assuming that folks are appropriately influenced will cause time to be focused on the wrong things, e.g. working hard (more hours) does not always equal results.

Managing is not a factory, assembly line process – the critical success factors for their Building Sales Leaders program included:

Other takeaways:

As far as results – one year later, Learners outperform peers by 8 points in quota/budget attainment.

Improving Sales Execution

In this session, Michelle Vazzana, Ph.D., Chief Strategy Officer at Vantage Point Performance, answered the questions why do many sales organizations have such trouble with sales execution? She shared the common disconnects between a sales organization’s expected outcomes and their sales force’s ability to execute.

The session is based on a study that she and her team conducted, so she covered the research approach, the key findings and the implications for coaching. More information can also be found in her book Crushing Quota.

Some of the key points from the intro were:

The first study looked at what type of coaching mattered most when it comes to salesperson performance – and coaching was categorized into Capabilities, Activities and Outcomes.

Coaching on actions and behaviors impacted performance at a 24% higher rate than the other coaching areas. Activity coaching was also found to have the least amount of training investment and was the least formalized.

The second study focused on the details of the coaching practices.

The study found that Sales Managers are the key:

She stressed the importance of reviewing the data to ensure that Sales Managers aren’t hitting their quotas on the “backs of their high performers;” that a large proportion of their sellers need to attain quota.

She also stressed that salespeople are not “coin-operated” and asked the group of the following, which has the biggest impact on seller motivation: A) Incentive Compensation, B) Achievement Drive or C) Task Clarity.

It’s C.

First she explained what she meant by Sales Coaching.

In the session, we covered Opportunity Coaching and Call Coaching, and she described what the Critical Mass did vs. the High Performing Few.

The Critical Mass:

The High Performing Few:

The High Performing Few recognize when a deal is important and will be in the field; they’re better at qualifying the deals and understanding the complexity of the deal

When it comes to Coaching Sessions:

The Critical Mass:

The High Performing Few:

A higher number of coaching sessions do not equate to higher performance. The High Performing few are able to go deeper into the conversations, and don’t sepd time scrubbing pipeline and/or forecasting.

Other differences of The High Performing Few are:

Other suggestions that came up in the Q&A:

Case Study – Sales Performance Management Solutions – Technology OVerview and Cox Automotive Case Study

In this session, Scott Werstlein (VP, NA Sales for OpenSymmetry) and Phillip Etefia (Senior Manager – Sales Incentives) shared their work together on Sales Performance Management systems and shared how Cox Automotive implemented one in their Sales Organization.

Sales Performance Mangement (SPM) is defined as the system by which seller performance is analyzed, planned, implemented and managed.

SPM systems automate, create actionable insights and enable seller performance, for example, when it comes to the time to payout commissions to sellers, payouts are faster than with Excel or Homegrown solutions. There are also fewer errors.

Forrester Research also shows better enablement:

After that intro on what SPMs are, Phillip shared what was implemented at Cox Automotive where inconsistent performance management was equally $63M in wasted revenue.

Some of the problems they were looking to solve for were:

Other insights:

Wow – that was all before lunch!!!

Keynote – The Changing Role of First Line Sales Managers

This was a fun panel format hosted by Bob Kelly and featured Jason Jordan (Management Consultant) and Noel Capon (R.C. Kopf Professor of International Marketing at Columbia Business School).

Dr. Capon kicked off the session with the results of research that he and his team did on the Front Line Sales Manager and the competencies needed because the role is distinct from Sales Managers. He kicked off the study because when he asked his students to find any written literature on the topic, there wasn’t any to be found.

The study centered on three questions:

He shared the research study design:

Before getting into what makes an effective FLSM, he explained that it all comes down to various types of acumen.

He closed by admitting that there “probably isn’t anything too special about this;” however, he asked the audience if we were hiring with these dimensions or are we hiring strong salespeople?

Jason Jordan then took to the podium to talk about what’s changed in sales management, and it’s not just the tech. The tech is more accessible, but it’s also more fragmented.

He shared that just like the evolution of no longer doing “big bang” tech deployments, we need to let go of the assumption that all great salespeople naturally will make great managers and teach managers how to manage.

He shared the various selling roles through the lifecycle and how new roles have been introduced over the last decade by showing the Google graph of searches of the various roles:

Bob Kelly then talked about the technology and the investment in CRMs – including the benefits that are being gained by those who are doing it right.

Then there was a Q&A session from the audience, and some notable questions were:

Panel – Understanding and Managing Sales Force Culture

This was a panel, also lead by Bob Kelly, with the following panelists:

Lots of great tidbits coming out of this session, although most of the discussion was focused on general culture topics, not necessarily sales org cultures.

After the culture session, I went back to the other ballroom, and caught the final minutes of the previous session in that room, and grabbed the below snippets:

Sales Enablement Case Studies – Learn How Sales Organizations are Rethinking Sales Learning and Development

Last session of the day! In this session, Larkin Madden (Sr. Manager, Customer Success at MindTickle) and Mike O’Dea (Manager, Sales Enablement at Automation Anywhere)

Larkin opened with a summary of the state of the state:

Some highlights:

Trends that MindTickle is seeing:

Then we got into various case studies related to onboarding new sellers:

Mike then shared the work that LinkedIn did with MindTickle:

And then how MindTickle was used to solve problems at Automation Anywhere (who hires 1,000 sales reps/year):

Other takeaways:

Wow, what a day! After this session, the cocktail hour started, and I had the chance to catch up with a few people who had participated in the sessions and I found the networking valuable.

Looking forward to tomorrow!

Exit mobile version