COMMENTS
DISC Profiles, Myers-Briggs Type Indicators, Strong Interest Inventory Profiles...We've been taking them for years, and at the end of every PhD-led seminar, my questions were always the same: So? Now what? The blank stares and/rigmarole answers told me all I needed to know: They couldn't tell us.
Your OMG tools have proven to help us analyze AND predict sales success, and well-answered the questions So? and Now What?
Your PhD critics remind me of Larry Kersten's definition of Consulting: If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.
Here's a question that speaks to context. It's Sunday and you are going to your in-laws for dinner. You tend to be a very direct person and like to speak your mind. Does the "context" of visiting family change what you are willing to say and not say, perhaps not the first time but quite likely after that. Context does matter, more that most of us realize, particularily when it comes to sales and salespeople.
I've worked at several companies over the years that have used Caliper - all had varying degrees of commitment to the instruments conclusion. One company would absolutely HALT the recruiting process if the candidate was not at least "Recommended". Done – finito.
Another organization used it only as a "tool", but you were pretty much going to be cross examined if you decided against the result ... which would tend have the same practical result. (And what’s the deal with “Recommended with Reservations” - if there weren’t reservations – why would there be a test?. There should be a deeply discounted rate for a conclusion of … “uh … maybe”)
What I have seen with the OMG sales assessment that I like the most is a confident conclusion ... followed by tons of reasons that support the reasoning - for specifically sales - OMG's is a better tool.
I've been a distributor of OMG assessments for 5-plus years. The predictability these tools offer in the way of hiring and effectively coaching salespeople is unmatched. I refer to the testing often in my work with clients.
A note to anyone with personality and / or behavior styles testing backgrounds: OMG or my company has never made a claim as to anything other than to predict whether a salesperson or manager will either succeed at selling or grow sales within a specific organization.
From time to time (twice in 5 years), I've seen a "hirable" candidate hired and fail. And failing means the hiring organization fired the person due to lack of performance.
More importantly: Based on past formal studies, OMG claims 25% of non-hirable candidates who are still hired will still be with their organizations and selling ar some level after one year.
Our own informal study within my company on non-hirable candidates who are hired staying employed and performing a sales role successfully shows that 0% succeed. We haven't seen it happen once. This works well for us because a 100% failure rate allows our study to remain informal.
That having been said, I've seen a few hireable salespeople get hired and turn out to be certifiably nuts. I'm guessing a personality test may have been able to smoke that out, considering my study of thier mental status is also quite informal. I'm not a PHD either, I just kind of call it when I see it.
... but those crazy, hirable solespeople (by OMG standards)? Boy can they sell!
My recommendation: Use the right tool for the right job and stop trying to chop down a tree with a sledgehammer. Now, that would just be crazy!
Dave Mantel
I met this morning with the CEO of a major Industry Representitive Group. We conducted the OMG Sales Assessments on their ten regional sales people in July last year. The results were that three of the team were suited to their roles and would improve with targeted training, one was borderline but with strong management could become a performer but six of the team were better suited to non sales roles.
The CEO did not act immediately but established new stretch KPI's for the team. Anything below 90% of target was considered a failure, 90-100% was considered underperforming, 100-110% was a good result while 110% and above was outstanding.
The CEO told me that the of the three that we indicated were suited to their roles, one achieved "outstanding" results and the other two achieved "Good". The borderline salesperson also achieved "Good" results. The six that we advised were not suited to sales all failed to hit 90% of target.
This removes any doubt that the OMG evaluation is the best indicator of future sales success.
I have a very good friend that has his degreees in engineering. Occassionaly after an adult beverage or two we get into a discussion about education, learning, degrees and commonsence. Eventually shawn will tell me that he first achieved his BS (we all know what bs stands for)in engineering. Then an MS (more - - it)and finally his PHD (Piled higher and deeper. I have a very healthy respect for education and higher learning but only to the extent that it is functional. If it doesn't make sense and doesn't apply it doesn't matter. I'm sure all of the talk around the validity of personality and behavior assessments make sense to someone but does it fit what people are looking for in a sales person? If not then move on and find something that does fit.
If content is king, context is queen.
While we don't often have the opportunity to influence the hiring decision as OMG does, we are frequently asked to evaluate why some sales teams/leaders/etc. perform better than others. In those analyses, context ALWAYS matters. Take a top performer from one context and put them in a different context and they may struggle or even fail. That's why we always conduct our analysis primarily by observing people on the job.
By the way, roughly 75% of the causes of lower-than-top performance are at the org level, not the individual level.
Best
Greg Long