Hiring/Firing | A Sales Guy

When It’s Time for a Startup to Hire a Sales Guy (Gal)

Hiring a professional sales person can be a stressful event for a start up. Hire too early and waste lots of money on a sales person who is unable to drive any revenue, hire too late and risk leaving money on the table or worse losing to the competition.

To figure out if a start-up is ready for a sales person or team depends on 3 simple questions.

1) Is the product or service ready for prime time, can it create a market or can it create demand for itself?

2) Is there market demand? Does the market want the product or service?

3) Does the organization have the sales expertise to execute on the above?

Determining if it’s time to hire a sales person or team is a simple if/then.

If the product is ready and can create demand for itself and you don’t have the sales expertise, It’s time to hire sales.

If the market demand is there, if the market wants what you sell and you don’t have the expertise in house, then it’s time to hire sales.

If there is market demand AND the product or service is ready for prime time and can create demand for itself, then hire a shit load of sales people and fast.

If the product is not ready for primetime yet there is market demand then try to develop the expertise in house, use the CEO, founders etc. It’s a business development process until the product is ready.

If the product is ready and can create demand for itself, but the market demand isn’t there then hire a REALLY, REALLY good Maverick.

If the product or service isn’t there, and the market doesn’t know it wants your product or service yet then don’t hire anyone. Get the product out the door.

There are only 3 things that can sell a product or service, the product itself, market demand or sales. That’s it. Nothing else can move the needle.

To determine if its time to hire a sales person figure out what if/then statement fits, then go.

August 24, 2010 | Filed under: Entrepreneur,Hiring/Firing,Sales Leadership | View Comments |

4 Keys to Proactive Sales Management

I see this far too often. Sales managers and sales leaders reactively manage their people. They reactively manage because they to manage to results. Results are a trailing indicator in sales. If you manage to results your too late.

It’s a common approach in sales. The sales rep misses quota. The manager says that’s not good, don’t miss quota again. The rep misses quota again, the manager puts him on a PIP (performance improvement plan), which in essence lays out goals the rep must meet in the next 30 to 60 days or be fired. In the less agressive scenerios like this, the manager works with the rep to figure out what is wrong but even then it’s still being reactive.

I have always felt this is a bad way to manage and lead sales teams, yet it has staying power and seems to be the course of action for most organziations.

Being reactive does little for anyone. The key is to be proactive. Like most things in life getting ahead of the problems or preventing them entirely is far better than trying to fix them. The key is find the leading indicators of failure.

To find the leading indicators I break down sales management into 4 integrated categories; planning, execution, results and talent.

Failure and poor performance can and will be seen early in any and all of these categories. They are a barometer for failure or success.

If a poor plan is put in place, failure is imminent even if it’s executed well by a talented sales person. – Manage the plan.

If a great plan is in place but is executed poorly by a talented person, failure is just around the corner. – Manage execution.

If the sales person lacks the skill or talent a good plan won’t make a difference. – Manage talent

If it’s a poor plan, executed poorly by someone with out the talent you’re screwed. – Manage all three.

If it’s a great plan, executed brilliantly, by a talented sales rep and the results aren’t there, you’ve messed up somewhere. – See 1, 2, or 3. The problem is there.

Proactive management requires a process that embraces and monitors all the critical elements to sales delivery.

My management process works like this;

1) Everyone on my team builds a yearly plan. They share it with the entire team, peers and all. We cut it up, attack it, challenge it, and rework it until its a solid plan. Plans go through a rigorous evaluation process to ensure they’re sound.

2) I focus on execution. Plans are reviewed every quarter asking the following questions: what did you say you would do, what did you do, what did you learn, what are you going to do next quarter. The process ensures proper execution by evaluating WHAT a rep is doing and HOW they are executing to the plan. This allows problems to be identified early and changes made on the front end.

3) I hire for talent, and coach. The most important aspect of proactive management is talent. I hire for talent and I coach them. I have standing one on one meetings every 6 weeks with all of my direct reports. During these sessions we talk about what they do well, what they need to improve on and what they need to stop doing. These are not performance reviews. They are coaching sessions, designed to help them grow as a sales person and as a leader.

A process that embraces all of these elements is proactive. Problems are seen early and symptoms are separated from root cause.

Getting poor results with proactive management is almost impossible. You see it coming long before the boat sinks. It gives you time to course correct, limit the damage or turn things around.

If your results aren’t there, if the numbers are off, if quota is in jeopardy it’s one of 3 things; a bad plan, poor execution or lack of talent. Quick can you tell me which it is? How do you know?

Guest Post: Why Are 50% of Sales Reps Missing Their Sales Quota? (thecustomercollective.com)
Hoover’s Webinar to Reveal Top Tips for Hiring and Managing Sales Teams – “Prospecting and Territory Development Best Practices” (eon.businesswire.com)
CEO Guide to Sales Management – Introduction (frontofficebox.com)

August 10, 2010 | Filed under: Business Performance,Career Development,Hiring/Firing,Leadership,Personal Development | View Comments |

When to Fire a Sales Guy

I’ve only had to let go a few sales people in my day. Considering I’ve managed 100′s of sales people and sales leaders throughout my career I feel quite lucky. I chalk it up to hiring good people, coaching and as I said, luck. Letting someone go, regardless of the fact they aren’t a good fit or aren’t performing is a bad thing. It is never good if you get to a place where someone isn’t working out. When you have to fire someone for performance issues it represents a failure on everyones part. Theirs, the companies and mine.

Determining when you’ve reached that point is hard. It can be emotional and stressful.

To limit the stress and emotional impact I do two things, one is I coach. I talked about this in yesterdays post. Coaching doesn’t allow a problem to pop up. Coaching gives you visibility into whether or not a person is in trouble or struggling long before the big problems arise. Being able to see this early limits the fallout of surprises. It surfaces problems long before they can get too big. Coaching employees on a regular basis is the most important thing you can do to limit the impact of poor performance.

The bigger problem and more difficult challenge is to know WHEN it’s time. I am a big fan of the behaviors, results, matrix. It is one of most accurate and effective tools to determine when it’s time to part ways. Combined with coaching, it is almost bullet-proof.

Conventional wisdom says, if a sales person isn’t making their number, hit the streets. I don’t agree with that. There is more in determining whether you’ve got the right people than just results. I’ve never agreed with the old school sales approach of two quarters and your out, especially in complex selling environments. There may be some high-pressure, low complexity sales environments where a person not making their number after 6 months is doing something wrong and needs to go, but these are anomalies. In most cases there is more to determining whether someone should be fired than just results. You have to measure their behaviors too.

I want to know what someone is doing. Are they doing all the right things? Are they getting in front of the right people. Have they developed a strong plan. Do they know the industry, the customers strategic initiatives, their buyers objectives etc? Is the person exhibiting the behaviors the company values? I want to know this because if they are doing all the right things they will get there.

For me, I break it down like this, if they aren’t demonstrating the right behaviors and aren’t getting the results, they are out. I’ve only had this situation a couple of times. It’s an easy one. Don’t waste time with people who are in this quadrant. Get them out as fast as possible.

The people who demonstrate the behaviors but not the results, I work with. I look for measurable growth. I work closely with them. I expect them to be coachable and we work a plan. As long as they continue to demonstrate the behaviors and make continual progress, I stay with them. Not everyone agrees with me on this, but I found it works well. These people can be some of the most valuable team members. They have a tendency to bring positive energy, promote the cultural norms, provide informal leadership etc. Although the results aren’t coming as fast as I’d like they are bringing value to the team.

I don’t think I need to address the people who demonstrate both, treat them like gold and get out of their way.

It’s the sales person who is getting the results but isn’t demonstrating the behaviors that is the hardest. They are making their numbers, in some cases they are killing it, but they are a pain in the ass. The don’t demonstrate the cultural norms. They rub other team members wrong. They suck at following even the most unobtrusive processes. They leave a wake in their path. Despite their revenue value, I don’t have a long rope for folks in this quadrant. I coach them up or get them out. If they aren’t coachable, I cut them loose right away. Yes they are making their numbers, but there is a cost to it. I’ve found this cost is usually higher in the long run than their loss and replacement with someone who does both.

To summarize, because this post is getting long. If they demonstrate the behaviors and are getting the results, treat em like gold, and get them around the rest of the team. If they demonstrate behaviors but not the results; give them some rope, coach them and look for consistent, incremental improvement. They will get there. If they are getting the results, but aren’t demonstrating the behaviors, give them a short rope, coach and get them doing both as soon as possible or cut em lose. Don’t wast too much time. The longer they are in the organization and not embracing the cultural behaviors the longer they can undermine any value their revenue creates. If they aren’t doing either, get them out now. They won’t make it.

This methodology has served me well. Despite old school lore, it’s not just about the numbers when it comes to sales people. It’s more complicated than that.

How Do We Find The Time To Coach Our Sales People? (customerthink.com)
1-Minute Mastery: How to Rate a Winning Sales Manager (marketingpr.suite101.com)
When the Sales Goals Change but the Behavior and Results Don’t (customerthink.com)

July 15, 2010 | Filed under: Hiring/Firing | View Comments |

Coachability

Everyone has their own philosophy on hiring and what they determine to be the key skills in an employee. The one that is most important to me is coachability.

Coachability is how flexible someone is. It’s how well they respond to criticism, critique, new ways of doing things, and fresh ideas. Coachability is a persons ability to grow through others leadership, direction, and insight.

Only 50% of sales people met their quota in 2009. (source: Bridge Group’s 2010 inside sales metrics survey) I have to believe that many non sales people also missed their objectives and goals in 09. I’m sure some of this can be attributed to the economy, but I also believe much of it is a leadership and people issue.

The only way to turn around an underperforming company, team or organization is through the people. We only have two options when it comes to people; get new ones, or bring up the existing. I prefer the second and that’s why I put so much emphasis on finding and hiring coachable people.

Coachable people embrace new ideas. They are open and actively seek out criticism and critique. They are often focused on personal development and growth. Coachable people tend to be more secure. They are less attached to the status-quo and see change as necessary and good.

Relationships with coachable employees are different too. They are rooted in discussion, assessment and evaluation. Relationships with coachable people are less hierarchical in nature. I’ve found them to look and feel more like partners rather than supervisor, subordinate. I’ve found when managing less coachable empolyees the conversations tend to be more combative, data driven, and defensive, as less coachable employees are very sensitive to criticism, and change. They are often insecure and look to defend their position rather than explore new opportunities for growth. Less coachable relationships are more hierarchical. They are more top down. I find it hard to work with less coachable people.

Coachabilty is a softskill. It’s hard to measure. But I know it when I see it. Coachability is at the core of change. It is at the core of growth. It is at the core of personal interaction. It is critical to development. Coachable people bring a flexibility and openness to situations that enhances success. I like to look at it like being a coach for a tennis or golf pro. Imagine how difficult it would be to get Andre Agassi or Tiger Woods to win if they weren’t coachable. Imagine every time you suggested a change in Tiger’s swing he argued or pushed back. Imagine letting Andre know his performance in the first round of Wimbledon was awful and that he wasn’t playing well, and he’d complain to “HR”.

The coachable get that being pushed, challenged, and coached is the key to their success. They actively seek it out and surround themselves with coaches that don’t let them get complacent. I believe the same thing holds true in the business world.

There are a lot of brilliant, talented, experienced, people out there. People with amazing skills who can get things done. But for me, more important than experience, talent, and brilliance is their ability to adapt and grow and the coachable are far more capable of growing and adapting.

Business changes faster than it ever did. Companies are no longer entitled to a 100 year span on top. Microsoft, less than 30 years old is now loosing to Apple. Google, only 10 years old is being challenged by Facebook. Adaptability is the new success trait. To be adaptable you have to be flexible and a team of coachable engineers, sales people, product people, marketers and more is at the core of that flexibility.

For me, hiring coachable people has been the difference between success and failure. What do you think?

July 7, 2010 | Filed under: Business Performance,Hiring/Firing,Leadership | View Comments |

Looking for Courage

I have never hired for courage before. I have looked back at my past job descriptions and the word courage is no where to be found. This bothers me.

I’m going to start hiring for courage. I’m also going to start looking for more of it in my relationships and the people I commit to.

Courage is a powerful trait. Courage is the fuel that enables a lot of things. It takes courage to:

Say no to a customer
Not to come down on price
Disagree with your boss
Suggest a new product
Show your weaknesses
Start something new
Start over
Try a different approach
Fire a customer
Take risks
Hold your ground when you believe you are right
Admit your wrong
Not go with the crowd
Highlight errors and mistakes
Express unpopular opinions
Call out the elephant in the room
Be accountable for your mistakes (it’s easy to be accountable for your successes)
Put others first
Try new things
Accept criticism
Start a business
Be different
Be uncomfortable
Try
Fail

Courage is at the heart of all great efforts. Courage allows us to do the hard stuff. It allows us to be OK with being uncomfortable.

All the great successes I have witnessed have come about because someone had the courage to do something different, to challenge the status quo, to take a risk, to be willing to fail.

Change and growth can not take root without courage. Knowing this why aren’t we all looking for the courageous?

I know I’m going to start!

May 5, 2010 | Filed under: Business Performance,Hiring/Firing,Leadership | View Comments |

Union Square Ventures Proving-Online Presence IS the Asset of the Future

Twitter and Foursquare investor Union Square Ventures is hiring two associates and by doing so are proving the point that an online presence is the most valuable asset we can own. I’ve been making this point a lot over the last year. Our online presence will become the most valuable asset we own, even more valuable than our home.

To find candidates USV blogged about the openings on their website and Fred Wilson a partner in the firm posted about them on his blog. No recruiter, no Monster.com postings, no 3rd party sourcing. Just two blog posts. USV and Fred have built a huge following. They already had an audience.

I have no visibility into how many applications were submitted, but if the number of comments is any indication, it’s over 100.

What really makes this interesting is that USV asked candidates for just 3 things: a link to their LinkedIn profile, a way to be contacted and a cover letter. They asked the cover letter contain nothing more than links to the candidates online presence. That’s it. No resume required.

USV is using online presence as the key criteria to identify the ideal candidates for their next associates. I love this idea. It’s a heck of a filter. Anyone who hasn’t taken the time to build their online presence is automatically filtered out. No need to reply. Harsh, but it’s where things are going.

What I like about this approach is it focuses on what what the candidates do, not what they say. It’s hard to B.S. your way around an empty Twitter and Facebook profile. You can’t “hide” the fact that you don’t have a blog or haven’t posted in 6 months. By focusing on applicants online presence, USV will have amazing insight into how candidates, think, write, interact, engage, and collaborate. An online presence is a living resume that doesn’t lie.

I think USV is going about this the right way. You can learn a lot about someone by following, reading and engaging with their online presence. An online presence isn’t a polished document with an agenda like a resume and that is exactly the problem with resumes. They hide as much as they share. Watching and engaging with someones online presence is the closest thing to be a fly on the wall. You get to see the real person.

If you don’t have an online presence, you’re not going to a job with one of the most prestigious venture capital firms in the country and that is too bad, because you could be a wonderful fit for them. If you are one of the lucky ones who is hired, your online presence catapulted you into the exciting and lucrative world of venture capital and that is worth something.

How much is an online presence worth? In this case it’s worth 2 years at Union Square Ventures; investors in Twitter, FourSquare, Disqus and more of the Internets hottest properties. That’s worth a lot.

USV will not be the last company to hire this way. More and more companies will use an online presence in their hiring decisions.

An online presence will be the most valuable asset you will own. Start investing!

April 13, 2010 | Filed under: Asset of The Future,Hiring/Firing,Web 2.0/Social Networking | View Comments |

Need A Killer UI/UX Designer

We’re (2Wire) looking for a killer user interface designer. We need someone who can make the user workflow and user experience sing. This person would be working on social networking, TV, Video Sharing, Photo Album, and Forum, applications.

The person we are looking for is energetic, fun, driven and makes a team better with their presence.

If you have a strong portfolio of UI/UX work for web, TV, and mobile, if you have a strong working knowledge of Axure RP Pro, and if you get and leverage User Centered Design process and techniques we want to talk to you.

If you are interested visit the 2Wire website here or send me and email, reference Sr. Staff UI/UX Designer

April 6, 2010 | Filed under: Hiring/Firing | View Comments |

Would You Fire Jay Leno?

Jay Leno’s new show isn’t working. They want to move him back to his 11:30 time slot. Maybe they should just fire him. He’s not making his numbers after all.

But wait, Conan O’Brien is in Jay’s old slot and his audience is smaller than Jay’s was. Jay had twice as many viewers when he was host of The Tonight Show. Maybe they should fire Conan. I think that’s what they are going to do. Unless Conan agrees to give Jay his spot back. Conan’s not making his numbers either. Maybe NBC should fire them both.

Is Jay Leno bad goods? Is Conan not worth having around?

Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien are good. They are valuable assets and NBC understands this. They made a mistake putting Jay into a prime time slot and got themselves in a bit of pickle, but if they play their cards right they will keep two very valuable people.

Just because Jay couldn’t make his numbers in prime time doesn’t mean you don’t want him on the team. Just because Conan couldn’t match Jay’s Tonight Show numbers doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the team either.

Firing people because they don’t make their numbers is a weak, lazy way to manage a sales team. I’ve watched and listened to more than my share of weak sales leaders berate and threaten sales people who weren’t making their numbers. I’ve watched sales leaders stack rank sales people solely on their number. I’ve watched top performers get promoted into roles they couldn’t handle. I’ve seen good, solid sales people get fired after not making their number in the first 6 months.

It’s easy to use the number. Either they did or the didn’t make their goal. You don’t have to focus on the environment. You don’t have to evaluate what the sales person is doing. You don’t have understand how they are doing it. You just focus on the number. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

Watch the number. Then dig deep. Why is the number missed? Are poor decisions being made? Does the sales person lack product knowledge? Are they not asking for the close? Are they incapable of crafting solutions, uncovering customer needs or overcoming objections? If so, you’ve got a problem. If not, dig deeper and don’t be so quick to get rid of what could be a great rep in the wrong spot.

Jay Leno isn’t making the his number. But, I’m not firing him, are you?

Conan addresses NBC rumors (pbpulse.com)
Leno loses his prime-time spot (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
Conan O’Brien Ready to Ditch NBC over Late Night Flap (blippitt.com)
No Laughing Matter: Seinfeld Defends NBC’s Failed Leno Experiment (abcnews.go.com)

January 12, 2010 | Filed under: Hiring/Firing,Sales Leadership,Uncategorized,What I Think! | View Comments |

When Is Enough, Enough?

College football and sales follow a similar track. In most cases they end their year at the same time. And like sales, the end of the year is the time of reckoning, when everyone asks how many games did you win? A lot of coaches jobs are in real jeopardy this year, most notably Notre Dame’s Charlie Weis and my alma mater University of Colorado’s, Dan Hawkins.

How do you decide when it’s time to send a coach packing? Is it their record that year, or several years? Do you take into consideration other factors, such as schedule strength or years as the head coach? When is it time to kick your coach to the curb?

Letting go a sales person is a similar challenge. How do you decide to let go of a sales person?

Some organizations give sales people one quarter and if they’re not performing, they’re out. Others give a year. Some make the decision on a person by person basis. Determining when it’s time move on is a critical decision of sales leaders.

For me it starts with the circumstances. I want to know what the market is doing. Is it shrinking or growing? I want to understand the track record of the rep. Have they consistently made their number in the past? However the biggest factor for me is their plan and their execution. I pay close attention to what the rep or manager is doing and how they are doing it. I know months in advance if a rep is going to make it, because I will see it in the decisions they make. I watch how they develop their account and sales plans. I focus on their strategy, initiatives and tactics. I evaluate their environmental assessments. I monitor their contingency plans and how they respond to unforeseen changes. I focus more on what they are doing to get results, not just the results.

Determining when enough is enough, is an ongoing process. I will normally know long before the end of the year. Making your number is being deliberate. It’s about execution, and planning. All of which can be observed long before the results are in.

If you’re waiting till the end of the year to decide when enough is enough, you’ve waited too long. The signs are present long before the results are in. You just have to be looking.

November 25, 2009 | Filed under: Business Performance,Hiring/Firing,Sales Leadership | View Comments |