I am with you on the drill-down, too. I like to ask two questions: “Did you obtain a commitment to move this deal forward?” and “Are both of us (the salesperson’s company and the prospect) in the position to succeed in moving this deal forward by taking this next step?” Too often, we get weak answers to both questions, there is nothing to indicate a commitment to move forward, and we are either missing information as to be able to confidently progress or haven’t provided the client with enough value to gain commitment.

The salespeople in your original post are surely more at fault than the process, since the questions you asked were clearly based on well-designed and necessary outcomes. I only blame the process, in part, because process seems to have the tendency to reduce selling to checking boxes. And it ain’t about checking the boxes anymore (if it ever was).

I like your analogy to other disciplines. I practice Aikido, a Japanese martial art. We spend much time learning the basic techniques. Once the basic techniques are mastered, the practitioner can move freely and respond to attacks at a very different level. But the mastering of the basic techniques (process) is what later enables that creative response. In a real life situation, you almost certainly couldn’t respond with basic technique as practiced, but you could come up with something that works. I think the same is true for sales. Have a process, master the basics, and retain the ability to be creative and adaptable when your success or failure depends on it.

I’d also point out that in the other disciplines you mention, excellent performance also requires a full and total engagement. Are we all behaving like “great performers?”

Maybe we need to write a joint column? How about: In Defense of Not Checking the Boxes!

Thanks for your great thoughts. Your blog is one of my favorites, and I appreciate you responding to me here.

Anthony

First, let’s get the process and methodology issues separated. Dave Stein does a great job in defining the difference, so I’ll stick with his definition. I am relatively methodology agnostic, there are a lot of great one’s out there (and to be honest a lot that do more harm than help) I guess the only comment regarding methodology is “buyer beware.”

Process is critical to mastery of anything, including sales. Much of the discussion here and in the other venues where there has been a discussion of my original article is focused on “mindless checking of boxes,” or of our shared disdain for bad sales processes. (As a side note, I wrote a follow on drilling down a little more: A Great Sales Process–Elegant In Its Simplicity, Natural In Its Execution http://ow.ly/Jj6F)

Your analogies of how you get to your in-laws or how you drive from California to New York are great. There are many paths to both. Some people will choose one others will choose another, the choice depends on their objective (e.g. the scenic route, the fastest route).

Likewise, different organizations will have different sales processes (even selling similar solutions to the same customer). The differing processes will be driven by their goals and objectives. They will be driven by their views of how they want to work with the customer in facilitating their buying processes.

A well designed sales process should stimulate thought-fullness in the sales person, not blind execution and checking the boxes. Organizations that are trying to achieve the latter are better served by having robots do their selling. A well designed selling process enables tremendous creativity and flexibility. The various steps in the process provide guidance and thinking points based on what the organization has designed as their ideal selling process. Sometimes certain activities are irrelevant. If I am doing a review and a sales person tells me and can defend a certain set of steps and activities being not applicable, that’s fantastic. Again, the process provides a structure in which the sales person can think about their strategy and how they will best serve the customer in their process.

When the sales person cannot defend their thinking, this is where the manager needs to drill down—not because they have not followed the process, but because this may be an indicator they are going off track and may need some correction.

Processes are also important because the provide us a framework to establish metrics–both personal and overall organizational. Metrics are important to managing personal effectiveness, performance, and improvement. Having a process and related metrics increase accountability.

If we don’t have a process, how will we measure ourselves? We can’t measure ourselves just on wins, losses, and quota attainment. by the time we know those, there is little chance for improvement (within the deal) or the cycle for improvement is too long.

Without a process, it is impossible for a manager to manage their team. Today, too many managers manage tasks and transactions. This leads to failure. Managers must manage the process (they do a lot else, just focused on process here).

So process is important. I think a lot of the frustration and push back is correctly placed frustration with really bad processe, confusion with methodology, or people who have not internalized the process, so the execution of it is “unnatural.” Some of the resistance may be from those who don’t want to be held accountable.

It also intrigues me that sales is one of the few functions/disciplines in which people push back so much on process. This discussion does not occur when you talk to R&D, development, manufacturing, finance, etc.

It also intrigues me that we find process so constraining, limiting creativity and flexibility. Look at any great musician, artist, athlete, or scientist—some of the most creative disciplines around. Ask any great performer in those disciplines, and they have a process that guides their work and performance, but it also facilitates their creativity.

I sense we are more aligned than not. I think we share a common disdain for bad process or methodology. I think we share a disdain for mindless execution and the loss of thought-fullness in the sales process and in working with customers.

Thanks for a great post and keeping the discussion going!

I wonder how hard it is change the culture from Honk and Wave to something else when the purchasing department tighten their belts?

On style, my agnosticism isn’t really to allow for style; I believe you have to be authentic from beginning to end. It is more to your first point; there are a lot of ways to advance the sale, and salespeople need to be engaged in the outcomes enough to advance the sale as situations dictate. This requires an awareness, coupled with creativity and flexibility.

A

For products or services that are more mature and where there is more competition, the differentiators become the process and your subsequent level of understanding of the business/customer. The more the “process” uncovers the true business need, the internal politics of the customer environment and the financial prioritization (of your solution), the greater the chance of your proposal being selected. The process should also document all of the key findings so that they can be summarized for the client, with their own proof points (from your relentless discovery), with financial justification. Here is where the science/discipline meets the art. I believe this is where sales management needs to become more aware, test variants and adapt.

Metrics (quantified discovery info) + Application (how this will help the client) + Style (your personality and flair) will get one to the finish line. Oh yeah . . . and ask for the order throughout the process!

This post was mentioned on Twitter by iannarino: Sales Process Problems: What to do when Turn by Turn Guidance is Unavailable http://bit.ly/4xLErD #sales #salestip…

Sales process and methodology often fail due to the focus on activities instead of outcomes. Sales still requires a skill set that includes resourcefulness and adaptability. …