‘Push, Push, Pull, Push’ – Adapting GROW for Sales Coaching

We ‘LOVE’ sales people, no genuinely…we ‘LOVE’ them, but they can be ‘slippery little critters’ when it comes to performance coaching them.

We’ll get to the topic of using GROW when coaching shortly, but first some context.

So why ‘slippery little critters’? We’re not being disingenuous…but when we see a manager ‘performance coaching’ a sales person we’re impressed at how well the sales person can ‘duck-and-dive’ and make excuses for why their performance isn’t where it should be. Here are some classics;

·        ‘It’s tough out there, competitor X is just buying the market right now’.

·        ‘If we had better / more competitive products / solutions / offers I’d be okay’.

·        ‘Talk to credit and risk, they haven’t got a clue how hard it is out there’.

·        ‘I blame the economy / exchange rates / the Chinese, Germans, Americans’.

·        ‘If I didn’t have such time consuming / awkward / complex accounts I’d be okay’.

·        ‘I’ve had no support from you / training / finance’.

·        ‘I’m just overloaded with admin…if there was less of this stuff I could see more customers’.

·        ‘The customer just can’t make up their mind’.

Sound familiar?

We’re NOT saying some of the reasons are untrue…selling isn’t easy, even if it’s done well.

Performance issues can stem from one of FOUR typical sources:

1.      Lack of KNOWLEDGE (I just don’t know it).

2.      Lack of SKILL (I know it…I just can’t do it).

3.      Lack of MOTIVATION (I know it…I can do it…I just don’t want to).

4.      BARRIERS / BLOCKS (I know it…can do it…want to…but can’t because of...).

Knowing the above can help the manager to diagnose the root-cause of the performance issue. If it’s a knowledge gap the solution might be different to one used to solve a skill gap.

Simple questions a manager could ask to identify the root-cause;

1.      Knowledge – ‘Tell me how you would’, ‘Describe x to me’, etc.

2.      Skill – ‘Show me how you would…’, ‘Demonstrate it to me’, ‘Do it so I can see’, etc.

3.      Motivation – ‘You know it, I’ve seen you do it, so why aren’t you?’

4.      Barriers / Blocks – ‘You know it, you do it, you seem to want to…so what’s stopping you?’

Once a manager knows the reason for the performance gap the coaching conversation can then become more effective…but here is where we have a problem with the GROW model.

We’re fans of GROW. A significant number of organisations use the; Goal, Reality, Options and Will / Wrap-up / Way Forward model. Let’s be clear, it’s a GREAT model. We use it and will continue to.

The issue is when it is used by unskilled managers (e.g. sales managers) and where they use it in a PURELY ‘pull’ style. This means they are being ‘pure’ in ‘seeking answers’ from the coachee (the sale person).

Here are some simple examples of a ‘pull’ style of use of the GROW model;

·        Goal – ‘What is your goal for this meeting / the client meeting / your learning needs?’ etc.

·        Reality – ‘What’s been happening?’, ‘What have you tried?’, ‘What’s working?’ etc.

·        Options – ‘What could you do differently?’, ‘What would the customer say?’ etc.

·        Will / Way Forward – ‘What are you going to do next?’, ‘What are your key actions?’. etc.

They’re all good, but it allows the sales person to immediately ‘DEBATE’ the Goal and Reality…and bring forward items from their ‘book of excuses’.

The result is a very ineffective coaching session. The essence of learning and development is lost. The manager ends up trying to persuade the sales person and rarely gets into the heart of coaching in the OPTIONS phase of GROW. It all becomes a massive waste of time.

Rather than be wedded to the PULL style, our strong advice is to use a PUSH, PUSH, PULL, PUSH approach. This removes the ambiguity and makes the GOAL and REALITY tight. There is no debate, it’s non-negotiable. It can happen quickly and allows for time to be spent on OPTIONS (where the magic happens). Here’s an example;

·        Goal (push); ‘You need to be seeing more problem owners, at least 3-4 to have influence in the account’ (this is not up for debate…especially if sales have been told / trained to do this)

·        Reality (push); ‘When reviewing your accounts, you only have 1-2 problem owners for each, this is insufficient’ (these must be facts…and are, again, not up for debate).

·        Options (pull); ‘What can you do to ensure you have the right number of problem owners for each account?’ (seeking ideas…this then becomes the heart of the discussion / coaching).

·        Will / Way Forward (Push); ‘So then, I want you to do x, then y by this date’ (specific and time-bound actions).

The Goal, Reality and Will / Way Forward should ideally be NO MORE than 1-2 sentences each. More than this and you end up overcomplicating the coaching session.

Get to the heart of the coaching. Ensure your set-up is tight and not open for discussion. By doing this the coaching will be 100’s of times more effective.

For more information or help on how we help sales organisations to be more effective – just contact us.

Sales Performance Management - Through 'Progressions'

Sales Performance Management:

Despite clever CRM systems, pipeline management software and forecasting models many sales organisations (and their Leaders) still seem to lack confidence in the validity of the pipeline or sales forecast. They have mountains of data at their fingertips yet still schedule ‘pipeline review’ calls to check on the progress of deals, when they will close, how much is going to come in etc. I’ve seen managers surprised when a ‘certainty’ falls out of the pipeline, or a deal unexpectedly comes in.

Senior leaders and shareholders HATE inconsistency in the sales forecast. Unexpected ‘ups’ and ‘downs’ are a sign the business isn’t in control of the sales process…or is unable to accurately monitor or control it. Investment decisions and staffing levels become difficult…’How can we plan effectively if we don’t know the true revenue forecast?’, I hear leader say.

To make matters worse, sales people are often measured on a common set of items;

·       Revenue

·       Contribution margin

·       Cross-selling

·       Up-selling

·       Retention

etc.

Many of these metrics fail to support the accuracy of the forecast. In fact, in one extreme case recently, a senior (and very experienced) sales person told me they had hit their numbers in the first four months of the year and were ‘holding off on any further sales until the following year’ because they would earn more by doing so (sales commission is another topic entirely!)…so they were manipulating the forecast accordingly.

So is there a better way? Perhaps.

I’m NOT suggesting the ideas below will work for everyone, or every type of sale…but some of these principles can help to bring more clarity to a sales forecast.

Let’s talk about ‘customer commitment’ first.

 If the sales person is doing all of the work (sending quotes to customers, setting up trials, sending samples, pushing for meetings etc.) to what extent is the customer DEMONSTRATING their commitment? Are they being asked to provide feedback on the proposal, connect the sales person to other key contacts, set up meetings or provide data and insights? If not they might not be fully committed, and if you ask for these simple commitments and don’t get them…then it tells you all you need to know.

Making a simple adjustment and asking for a ‘customer commitment’ suddenly changes the game…we are no longer being ‘busy fools’ – we are checking the customer still has some ‘skin-in-the-game’. It is the MINIMUM we should do. This is NOT the same as a sales meeting objective!

What if we then look at a typical sale or engagement process with a customer – from first contact to contract - it is highly likely at various stages of this process there are TYPICAL commitments you would need from the customer along the way. Each sales leader will know what these are…they could list the most crucial 6-10 commitments within 10-minutes.

When you obtain these commitments from the customer it is a sure sign you are making progress along the sales / buyer journey. When you don’t obtain these commitments you are stuck, stalled, stagnant – going nowhere.

So it stands to reason if we know there are certain ‘customer commitments’ along the path – these can be objectives for sales people to obtain. You can tie these to the progress of a sale and the more of these you obtain along the way…then the percentage chance of closing the deal increases.

It is also a process that can be refined, by looking at typical cycle-times between commitments…allowing you to see if a sale is ahead or behind of where it should be, or if certain sales people are better at others in obtaining them. This knowledge could help in setting standards or expectations…as another form of sales performance measurement linked directly to pipeline validity and forecasting.

When ‘progressions’ (with a customer…or indeed internally with support functions) are added to sales performance measurements, you suddenly have a new way to look at ‘salesforce effectiveness’.

For more information about salesforce effectiveness, how progressions work, or for examples – please get in touch!

Andy

When being SMART isn't smart enough...

Whilst working with managers and leaders I have often found capability gaps in their ability to write a robust set of performance objectives.

 Yes, most people are aware of the SMART acronym - and this does help to make the objective setting process a little more rigorous, but it only goes so far. 

More often than not the inclusion of ‘SMART’ within the process is poorly applied or used as a ‘throw-away’ comment to try and create the illusion of creating meaningful objectives…and ‘ticking-the-box’.

 I’d like to offer an alternative, perhaps used alongside SMART, to help make this important process more robust…and easier to assess performance against later on.

 This approach is adapted from the process of building objectives for a training programme or learning event…yet it struck me how easily it could be applied to performance objectives too.

• Objectives should include 4 distinct components: Action / Activity, Behaviour, Condition and Degree. The objective does not have to be written in this order (ABCD), but it should contain all of these elements
• Objectives must be observable AND measurable to be effective.
• The use of words like; ‘understand’ and ‘learn’ in written objectives are generally not acceptable as they are difficult to measure.
• Throughout the performance period (quarter, half-year, year etc.), a comparison of the outcome achieved should be made against the objectives set for the person. This process, called performance agreement, ensures the final achievement(s) meets the goals set.

Characteristics of objectives

• Observable and measurable.
• Unambiguous – often objectives ‘bundle’ more than one outcome…so where possible each objective should be discrete.
• Results oriented / clearly written / specific.
• Measurable by both quantitative and qualitative criteria.
• Communicate successful behavioural terms.
• Written in terms of performance.

Samples

• Given a standard sentence, the English 101 student should be able to identify the noun and verb without error.
• Given an assortment of EMS equipment to pick from, the paramedic should be able to identify all of the equipment necessary to perform rapid sequence intubation without error.
• The EMT-B participant should be able to identify at least 4 warning signs of possible child abuse from a family member’s interview that contains 5 warning signs.

 Action or Activity

• Describes the intended action or activity required.
• Describes what the outcome must, should or could ‘look-like’ (what would a successful outcome be?).
• Should ideally be aligned to the company AND functional goals.

Behaviour

• Describes the capability required / expected.
• Must be observable and measurable (you will define the measurement elsewhere in the goal).
• The “behaviour” can include demonstration of knowledge or skills in any of the following domains; cognitive, psychomotor, affective, or interpersonal, example;
  • … should be able to write a report…
  • …should be able to describe the steps…

Cognitive domain;

• Emphasizes remembering or reproducing something which has presumably been learned.
• Deal with what they should know, understand, comprehend, solve, spell, critique, etc.

Psychomotor domain;

• Emphasizes some muscular motor skill, some manipulation of material and objects, or some act that requires a neuromuscular coordination. Co n cerne d w ith how a person moves or controls his/her body.

Affective domain;

Composed of two different types of behaviours:

• reflexive (attitudes) and voluntary reactions and actions (values).
• Stages: perception, decision, action and evaluation.

Interpersonal domain;

• Emphasises skills (not attitude or knowledge) associated with interpersonal exchanges.
• How the person interacts with others in a variety of situations.

Condition

• Equipment or tools that may (or may not) be utilised in completion of the action or activity.
• Environmental conditions may also be included, example;
  • …given an oxygen wrench, regulator and D tank with oxygen…
  • …given the complete works of William Shakespeare…
  • …given the following environment: 10PM, snowing, temperature 0 degrees C…

Degree

• States the standard for acceptable performance (time, accuracy, proportion, quality, etc.), example;
  • … without error.
  • … 9 out of 10 times.
  • …within 60 seconds.
  • …within the range of (x) and (y).
  • …to an accuracy of 90%.

Reviewing ABCD Objectives

• What is the action or activity required?
• What observable performance is the person to exhibit?
• What conditions are provided for the person during activity execution?
• What constitutes a minimum acceptable outcome?

Performance Agreement

• Reiterative process where outcome is compared to objectives to determine if the outcome delivered actually meets the objectives.
  • By “reiterative” we mean that throughout the performance period the reviewed should check if performance is on track. It is much easier to make minor adjustments as you go along than it is to have a tough conversation if the expectations have not been met.
• If you cannot clearly see that performance (outcomes) is meeting the objectives, then you must decide the following:
  • Rewrite the objectives to meet the changing needs (if the needs have changed!) and if the changed objectives would still be acceptable.
  • Check for comprehension of the objectives, perhaps the issuer was unclear in their instruction!
  • Look at gaps in capability (attitude, knowledge or skill), and assess whether these can be closed – then use the best method to do so.
  • Reassign  the person to a role or activity within their capability.

...Because I have to, not because I want to!

Why do many change efforts fail to deliver on anticipated benefits? Is it because;

• the idea or change itself has been poorly thought through? Rarely.
• of insufficient budget? Rarely.
• of insufficient resources? Rarely.
• the project team is unskilled, or lacks the project management discipline? Rarely.

With more than 25 years involvement in almost all types of change programme we see overwhelming evidence of ONE consistent reason for a change to fail to deliver anticipated value or ourcomes;

A lack of buy-in from those impacted by (or able to impact the results of) the change.

Without buy-in the very best ideas lose 'oxygen'. People are apathetic to the change or, at worst, ignore or sabotage it. We have seen numerous examples where people are engaged in the change / new order because they have to be, not because they want to be. This can result in people appearing to be engaged but biding their time until a better offer comes along. When it does there is often a slow and painful exodus of top talent - people you want (and need) to keep jump ship.

So how can this be avoided? Should the company roll out the 'change adoption curve' and run mini sessions to explain the change and how they might be feeling as a result? Perhaps. It is certainly better than just crossing-your-fingers.

Where we have seen well-managed change initiatives we have seen the following 'best practices';

• A Change Leader (not a project manager) that keeps the change on their agenda for the long-haul. They mention it frequently. It is in their calendar. It is on their agenda for every meeting. They ask others about it. They do not move on to other topics or initiatives until well-after the change has been embedded.
• There are sustained communication messages, at all levels across the business, that do two things;
  • They communicate the NEED for the change...the burning platform...a PUSH message, often painting a negative picture of staying as they are.
  • They communicate a VISION for the change...a positive and desired future state, one that describes what people will be doing more of, or less of. It is translated into a language that resonates for all functions and levels. It is repeated often...with passion...many, many, many times.
• The company keeps the change on the agenda with planned / periodic 'events'. These are varied, engage the masses, they might be managed by advocates in the functions. These are held during; 'breakfast sessions', 'lunch-and-learns', 'skip-level meetings', competitions, Interview the CEO sessions, etc.
• The company looks at all of the 'systems & structures' that drive behaviour and explores whether these are the types of behaviour required in the new 'future-state'. If they are not they are adjusted to ensure they drive the desired behaviour. Typically this will involve a LOT of work to explore and realign the following;
  • Reward and recognition
  • Compensation and benefits
  • Recruitment, on-boarding and induction
  • Training and Development
  • Succession planning and promotion
  • Measurements and metrics
  • Organisational structure, levels and reporting lines
  • IT infrastructure
  • Communication methods and frequency.

The following formula really does make a huge impact on the way a successful change should be handled;

Results = Solution x Engagement

Most organisations invest heavily (cost and resource) in the 'solution' part of the equation, but often very little in the 'engagement' part. Ten x zero = zero! Far better to have a good solution and a lot of engagement rather than the best solution and little engagement.

We have a model, method and toolkit to help organisations better balance the above equation. We do not focus on project-management skills, but heavily on how to engage and align the PEOPLE to the project.

If you would like a sample of the toolkit please contact us. 

It's the little things...

---

I've been in the world of Leadership and Sales Development for over 20-years.

I'm constantly surprised by how much there is still to learn, yet shocked by how much great stuff I've absorbed over the years that lies covered in dust in a corner of my mind.

During a discussion or workshop I sometimes seem to drag them up from 'nowhere' if the conversation or discussion leads that way...and they prove to be 'news' to some people.

It's only when those 'golden nuggets' are polished up that I realise how useful they used to be, and I wonder why I've not been actively using them or helping other people to try them.

One such example happened this week in Washington, USA whilst working with a group of very senior business leaders. I was helping them to;

• Consolidate and simplify their overarching company goals.
• Align functional goals and activities to these. 
• Determine the knowledge, skills and standards required to perform these activities.
• Create a 'capability matrix' for their teams.
• Adopt the most effective development approach (training vs coaching etc.) to close any gaps.

Then one of the leaders said 'We just don't have enough hours in the day to get this all done'.

He's right.

Leaders are overwhelmed in the workplace today, so I spontaneously got onto the flipchart and shared with him the RAMMPP Matrix. A tool / technique to help teams 'de-clutter' their activities.

Over time the things we do become a habit...so we keep doing them and add more-and-more things on top until we are at breaking point. Rarely do we stop to challenge what we do and ask some serious questions about the things that are in our control to change.

The RAMMPP Matrix asks us to brainstorm all of the; reports, approvals, measures, meetings, processes and procedures we do in the team.

For each item we then look at which are in our control to change vs other people's, functions, regulators etc.

For each item (RAMMPP) that is within our control we then ask of it:

• Can we stop doing this?
• Can someone else do it?
• Can it be done less often?
• Do we need to do all of it?
• Can it be done in a different (technological) way?

Once we have done this we end up with a set of actions that should lead to a reduction in workload or things that steal time when they shouldn't.

I think I'll go and dust down a few other things people might want to know about...perhaps things they used to do that were effective and still could be!

---