Firing | A Sales Guy

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 |

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 |