A thoughtful LinkedIn Post (I know, I know, it’s a rarity), addressed the tendency of managers to “over control” the way sellers work. Too often, we see rigid processes and managers demanding compliance, and constant/dysfunctional micromanagement. Yet every situation is different, in the best sellers agilely adapt what they do to achieve the goals.
But a number of commenters thought, “As long as the outcome is achieve, who cares about how you do it?” The focus was purely on the outcome. In essence, this argument is “The end justifies the means…..”
Setting aside any ethical other considerations, there are huge flaws in this thinking.
First, even if a seller consistently meets or exceeds their goals–they may be able to perform at even higher levels. When we put in processes in place, ideally we want to leverage the collective best practices of our highest performers. Most very high performers I deal with are constantly looking at what others do. They look at other high performers, see things they do, incorporating many into their own selling strategies.
If we have built our sales processes and supporting playbooks well, we will have collected the best practices of all our top performers, and which top performers can leverage to drive even higher levels of performance. Even those that are meeting/exceeding their goals should be able to perform at much higher levels.
There are other problems with the view of, “Who cares how you do it?” I’ve encountered many instances where “high performers” have made commitments that create great problems in fulfilling them. Often driving costs much higher, creating havoc in the parts of the organization that have to deliver on those commitments, and inevitably impacting customer confidence and trust.
Some of the things we put in place, that sellers may see as limiting or constraining, are critical to the effective and efficient operation of the rest of the organization. For example, I’ve seen in many very complex sales–highly configurable solutions, professional services–where we have to put things in place that “slow the seller down,” or “impact their ability to make a deal.” But if these things aren’t done, we may not be able to deliver on the commitments, the costs of meeting them is extraordinary, or we disrupt the operation of other parts of the organization.
Just as sellers have expectations of marketing, SDRs/BDRs, product management to meet their standards, others parts of the organization need sellers to meet their standards. We have endless examples of SDRs/BDRs meeting their goals but providing garbage to sellers. Likewise, with this philosophy, sellers can meet/exceed their goals, but create havoc in the organization.
The challenge we face is, how do we put in place processes and guidelines focused on maximizing the performance of every person in the organization, yet recognize that every selling situation is different and the best sellers adapt to the situation. We have to give them the skills and capabilities exercise that agility in very impactful ways.
We also have to put in place processes and guidelines that enable the rest of the organization to meet their goals in delivering on the commitments sellers make.
And, we have to make sure everyone understands the “WHY” we have these things in place, what it means to them, the impact of not adhering to them.
Micromanagement is never an answer.
Being overly prescriptive and controlling is never an answer.
And, “Who cares how you do it,” is never the answer for maximizing the performance of the individuals, sales, or the organization.
It’s a matter of achieving the right balance. Doing just enough, but not too much.
Afterword: Here is the link to the AI generated discussion of this post. They have an interesting twist on it! Enjoy!
Leave a Reply