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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 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)

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?

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!

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!

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

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?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 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)

They way we hire people is to learn about them. We read their resume, we interview them, we check their references. Normally, we don’t know the people we hire. The hiring process is a learning process.

Social media is changing this. We are going to hire people we know. We’ll know them because we will follow them on Twitter. They will be fans of Facebook. They will be in our LinkedIn groups. We will engage the people we hire long before we need to hire them.

Learning about people is how we used to do it. We didn’t have a way to meet or engage them before. Today and in the future we will know the people we hire. Social Media allows us to interact with the people in our industry, our competitors, our customers and community experts. We’ll talk to them, read their links, and ask their opinions. When the time comes we’ll already know exactly who we want to hire and they’ll know us.

Would you hire someone you didn’t know if you didn’t have to?

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.

This post by Seth Godin rings true to me. I’ve experienced Trolls in every company I’ve worked.

Trolls

Lots of things about work are hard. Dealing with trolls is one of them. Trolls are critics who gain perverse pleasure in relentlessly tearing you and your ideas down. Here’s the thing(s):

“Can’t please everyone,” isn’t just an aphorism, it’s the secret of being remarkable.

Even as this post rings true the fact that Trolls exist at all has always been a mystery to me. They bring little value to an organization. They are almost always at the center of subversive efforts. Everyone knows who they are and can’t stand working with them. They are quick to say no, yet rarely say yes. Yet, despite this they thrive in every organization. Like weeds, the take root and are difficult to get rid of. I think the reason is because we do as Seth says and we ignore them. That’s the wrong approach.

Getting ridding of Trolls is a leadership issue. Trolls exist because they are fed. They’re fed because they are convenient when people need them. They’re fed, because they do our dirty work. They are fed, because most people don’t have the gumption to get them out. Trolls are crafty. They do their job to the letter of the law. They don’t give measurable, specific reason to let them go, yet their existence is almost always in conflict with getting things done.

Don’t ignore the Trolls. Stop feeding them. Then show some leadership and get them out . . . it is also a sign of being remarkable.

There is one thing I look for in a hire. It is non negotiable. I look for someone coachable.

No matter how much skill they have, no matter how talented, no matter how much experience, no matter the industry experience, no matter how many years of successful quota attainment, if they aren’t coachable I don’t hire them.

Coachable people recognize they have room to grow. Coachable people are more humble, secure and confident. The coachable look for alternative points of view. The coachable embrace personal development. Coachable people are better with other people. Coachable people are more flexible. Coachable people are always growing and improving. Coachable people rarely make the same mistake twice. The coachable make better employees.

No matter how talented, no matter how skilled all jobs require learning. It is a leaders job to assist in that learning through coaching, by providing guidance, insight, critique and assessment. If a person is not coachable they resist coaching and all the talent, skill and knowledge are lost.

I’ve never seen a job description that requires a coachable person. I have never been part of an HR department provided training on identifying coachable people, yet the most successful candidates are the coachable.

When you hire coachable people there is less drama and more gets done. With coachable people more creative ideas flow and innovation flourishes. When you hire coachable people there is less politics, bureaucracy and tension. When you hire the coachable more time is spent on the things that matter and less on the things that don’t.

Hire coachable people.