I was interested in reading the Harvard Business Review post, The Dirty Secret Of Effective Sales Coaching. It’s an interesting article with many good point and you should read it.

However, I think the authors present a very narrow view of the manager’s job and the goals of effective coaching. Many of the conclusions are pretty obvious, eliciting almost a “Duhhh” response. If you think about it, “coaching the middle” has a huge return. It should be obvious, there are more people in the middle, so every percent of performance improvement you get from this population has a great impact (when taken from a macro view).

However, my problem with the article is that it implies management’s focus on coaching is primarily on producing shorter term results. They say the performance improvement from the middle may be the difference between hitting or missing this year’s goals. I’ve no argument with that point-if the job of management was to optimize performance for just this year.

This is too narrow a view of management’s job and the real importance of coaching. Manager’s are responsible for developing the highest levels of performance in the organization both this year and for future years. This means we must take a broader view of coaching and performance management.

Coaching the middle can improve performance in the current year, and sustaining this through continued coaching should drive continued performance improvement over the years.

What about coaching the top performers? The authors would claim the return on this effort is relatively small and suggest reducing time on these top performers. But that misses the point. What if we want to move those top performers into bigger contributions? What if we want to have them take much more responsibility, step into new roles-maybe moving from a territory manager, to a major account manager, to a global account manager, to a strategic alliance manager? What if we wanted to develop some of them to step into stronger leadership and management roles?

I don’t think I’m alone in this view-some of the leading companies in the world take the development of their current and future leaders very seriously-providing rich coaching and developmental opportunities-less focused on the performance of those top performers today, but more focused on preparing them to perform in future roles.

What about coaching the bottom performers? Clearly we want them to perform, we can’t afford to have them dragging down the organization. Here coaching may take a different perspective-the key coaching issue might be how we develop them and move them into roles where they can really contribute and perform. Aren’t we as managers supposed to move our people from jobs in which they are C performers into roles where the can be A performers (or at least B’s). Sometimes those are roles in our organizations and companies, sometimes it means moving them out of the company.

Coaching is about performance management and improvement. It is about getting each person to play to their full potential, in roles that maximize their contribution to the organization-now and in the future.

If this were a static world, if our people stayed in the same role forever, if the requirements for performance never changed, then I could buy the recommendations of the authors more easily. Fortunately, that’s not the way the world works.

I think it’s management’s responsibility to coach everyone in the organization. We need to get those in the middle to perform better, we need to grow those at the top to take greater responsibility and grow their contributions, we need to do something with our low performers, not just let them linger.

I do agree with the authors, coaching is not democratic. It’s naive to assume this. Not everyone needs the same “cookie cutter” approach coaching. We coach each person with different goals and objectives. With some we are looking to improve performance in their current roles, with others we are preparing them for future roles. In some we are preparing them to move into other roles or out of the company. We invest different amounts of time in coaching each person. Some need more time, some need less. What we coach and how we coach will vary by individual. Coaching will have different time dimensions for each person, perhaps in the middle we are looking for improvements for this year, but we also need to be worried about next year and the future.

So coaching is not a “democracy.”

So who do we coach? I firmly believe it’s our responsibility to coach everyone.

How do we coach? We are irresponsible if we focus only on one dimension-for example achieving this year’s goals. We have to coach for the objectives and goals we establish for each person?

When do we coach? All the time.

What do you think? Am I being naive?

Dave Brock is President and CEO of Partners In EXCELLENCE, a global management, leadership, sales, and marketing consulting company. Partners In EXCELLENCE helps clients achieve the highest levels of performance by focusing on the customer.

Read more at Dave’s blog: Making A Difference– http://partnersinexcellenceblog.com, or visit Partners In EXCELLENCE website: http://www.excellenc.com.

Dave can be reached directly at dabrock@excellenc.com.

We tend to think of sales coaching as being a tool used only for individual development. When we assemble the sales team, it is usually to have a meeting so that we can transfer information in one direction (from us to them), conduct training (us to them, again), or to collect reports (them to us).

There are occasions when assembling the sales force for coaching is extremely effective.

The After Action Review
In many sales organizations it is difficult-if not, impossible-to provide adequate training to cover every possible situation in which the salesperson may find their prospect or every available solution; sometimes, building and selling the right solution is a creative endeavor with lots of possible right answers, but where the optimal solution is difficult to discover.

You simply can’t train every scenario. Even though you cannot train for every possible scenario, through team coaching, you can help your sales force learn to think about these scenarios and to identify the best path forward.

Team coaching gives you the opportunity to assemble the sales force, using a real opportunity as a case study. The facts can be laid out for the entire team, and the salesperson that owns the opportunity can explain what they saw, what they heard, what they believed they understood, and what actions they believe were dictated by the facts.

As the sales manager, you can engage the team in asking questions to identify a greater range of possible choices that the salesperson might have taken. You can also ask questions that lead to more choices, and you can add some context to help show the sales force how some other choices might play out.

You can also conduct team coaching while the opportunity is still live, sharing the experience of making the choice of actions across the entire team, and thereby sharing the experience and the learning.

Informing Future Behaviors and Actions
The choice to coach the team instead of individuals allows you as the sales manager or sales leader to share the learning and development across the whole group. It provides the whole team the experience, and the lessons, that would have been confined to an individual.

The United States Military is extraordinary at conducting After Action Reviews, leading reviews after every single engagement, forcing their soldiers to think about what happened, why it happened, and most importantly, how they should act in future engagements. The goals of team coaching are the same.

The goal of all coaching is to apply the lessons learned to future activities. This is why we believe that coaching is the highest leverage activity that a sales manager can take: it informs the sales force’s future behaviors and actions.

Questions
When does it make sense to coach teams instead of individuals?
How do share lessons across the sales force efficiently and effectively?
How can you codify these lessons in a way that they can be continually shared and used a resource for future salespeople?
What is the best way to affect the future behavior of the sales force?

Dave Brock is President and CEO of Partners In EXCELLENCE, a global management, leadership, sales, and marketing consulting company. Partners In EXCELLENCE helps clients achieve the highest levels of performance by focusing on the customer.

Read more at Dave’s blog: Making A Difference– http://partnersinexcellenceblog.com, or visit Partners In EXCELLENCE website: http://www.excellenc.com

Dave can be reached directly at dabrock@excellenc.com

When asked which management activity is most critical to sales team success, 97% of Executive Sales Managers from across the country indicate the Identification and Acquisition of Talent as “extremely important” or “important”. No big surprise.

During my daily conversations with Executive Sales Managers, the discussions and debates inevitably turn to talent. The people on our sales teams dominate our time and attention, and for all the right reasons. My intent is not to recommend that this would change; it is in fact quite the opposite. We need to continue to find ways to get more from our human capital. That is what extraordinary sales coaching is all about- incremental gains in performance. However, when referring to the identification of talent, Executive Sales Managers need to recognize these gains can be hindered by an individual’s capacity, or in other words, their talent. As Sales Managers we need to help all members of our teams improve, but you will get greater results if you begin with those that already have the “right stuff”. A sales team’s production potential is determined by the base line talent, for which Executive Sales Managers are accountable.

Here are a few best practices I’ve used and observed others using with significant success. Success is here defined as a constant flow of the right sales talent, with minimal time during which open positions are not filled. I will defer quoting statistics of what it costs to turn a sales department employee or the cost of an open sales territory, acknowledging you already have a keen understanding of the value of long term, high performing associates on your sales team.

ABR (Always Be Recruiting) Although 97% of Sales Managers agree on the importance of talent, very few sales departments have what I would say is a “talent identification and acquisition culture”. I am in contact with Executive Sales Managers every day, and I witness firsthand that identifying and acquiring sales talent has not been proactive, but most often a reactive response to a termination and/or a need to expand. The preponderance of those in sales management roles haven’t identified, nor do they consistently have recruiting lines in the water at the best fishing holes. Ask your sales management team the question “If you have a termination tomorrow, do you have a candidate or list of candidates identified whom you could contact to immediately begin the recruiting process?” It is not until we lose someone on our sales team that calls go out to recruiters, Linked-In is accessed, internal company emails are sent, and so on. But every Sales Manager should make it their duty to have several prospects already identified and to some degree pre-screened. Something to shoot for is that every Sales Manager has lunch, coffee, or drinks once a month with a prospect who might be a fit for your team. Right now, measure the average time a territory stays open, and see if you can reduce it by 50%. If done, how much would you save in lost revenue?

Understand the type of talent you can acquire Whether you know it or not, you may be limiting the quality of the talent you attract. Many factors are at work here. Compensation, market competition, your company reputation, and the quality of your existing sales coaches/managers can all impact your ability to attract and acquire the best. I once worked with an organization that said they wanted only the best talent– period. However, they didn’t seem to obtain what I would consider top-notch sales and sales coaching talent. Further investigation showed they didn’t have a new hire training program that allowed them to bring on board the best talent. Because of this limitation, they instead had to bring on “people in their business” and they sought “industry experience” over sales, coaching, and leadership talent. They settled for mid-age sales folks who were content with a $70,000/year plan. I have not encountered many mid-age sales people with spotlight talent that are satisfied with $70K/year. Our recommendation was to change the model and look for a sales person who was in their first sales job, someone who already had sales skills training in that job and would love a chance to take a bump in earnings. Or to create an internal training program that taught the skills needed so “industry experience” was not a hiring requirement. Or to be really cutting-edge and do both! Be realistic, and understand the demographic you need.

To illustrate this “experience” factor, consider Terry Pettit, the retired NCAA volleyball coach with the highest all-time winning percentage, and former Sales Coaching Summit Instructor. When he started coaching at Nebraska, he was told he could never win a NCAA championship because the best talent went to places such as UCLA, Stanford, California, and Hawaii. He was told there was not enough available talent in the market. Rather than settle and not compete for national championships, Pettit instead redefined talent for the Nebraska program. He quickly determined that talents such as speed, instinct, urgency, coordination, and competitiveness were not teachable, but that volleyball skills could be taught. So at one time early in his coaching career, in his starting rotation, five of the six were high school high jump champs in their respective states, with little volleyball experience. He took raw talent over experience and created a dynasty.

Understand your sales department talent limitations and look for ways to remove or raise your lid. By the way, I’ll take talent over experience every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Take control of your identification and acquisition process This is not an HR responsibility; it is your responsibility, and the responsibility of every Sales Manager on your team. HR doesn’t likely have goals and bonuses tied to the sales department having all spots filled with the greatest talent, but Executive Sales Managers certainly do. When I recently asked an executive sales manager if HR was a big help, his response was “they are when they want to be, but too often they are too busy planning for other things such as the company holiday party.” This is not to suggest you don’t partner with HR for assistance in the process, but their role is administrative in nature and managed by the Executive Sales Manager. Some HR departments may serve as exceptions, but not many.

Another point of importance that should be obvious, but that few think about or act upon is that the person who is your lead recruiter is the face of your company, and certainly the face of the sales department. Make sure the “face” will attract talent. This person needs to be able to sell (assess for the qualities of a great recruiter), should dress well, and must possess a strong executive presence. We can all relate to meeting those people with an “aura” that is attractive, not just physically but in a way that make us want to learn more about that person. This aura should be exemplified in your lead recruiter.

Science-based assessments work Don’t be naïve and think you can select better without an assessment. In a related newsletter article this month Danita Bye references a University of Michigan study which reveals that interviews account for almost 90% of hiring decisions, but were found to be only 14% accurate in predicting success. 14% stinks! Dr. Susan Hirt from Talent Plus shows that the highest correlation to predicting job success is the use of structured interview science-based assessments. Like most everything else in our world today, research is causing us to look hard at ways to make assessments more accurate and predictable of success. Sales Managers need to constantly refine their approach to the selection of sales department talent. And don’t think for a minute that assessment tools should be used only to identify top sales performers; utilize them for all roles on your sales team. These tools are certainly not the sole determinant of selection, but should account for approximately 33% of the decision. The other two thirds split between personal interviews and reference checks.

Put these pieces together and, speaking from experience, your offer-to-acceptance ratio should be over 90%. Whether or not your new sales talent stays and performs then becomes up to you and your team’s ability to coach, which is another critical component of maximizing sales team.

Bill Eckstrom
President and Founder, EcSELL Institute
3119 South 33rd Street, Lincoln, NE 69506
402-805-4238
http://www.ecsellinstitute.com