Sales Leadership Training 

Gold Medal Top Sales & Marketing Blog 2011 Silver Medal Top Sales & Marketing Blog Post  2011 Finalist Top Sales & Marketing Thought Leader 2011 Finalist Top Sales & Marketing Thought Leader 2011

Your email:

Google

salesachievementgrader

          Baseline Selling 

Great Sites


topsalesworld
Sales Pro Central

Understanding the Sales Force

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Sales Experts Disagree on Right Way to Train Salespeople

  
  
  

Dave Kurlan is a top-rated speaker, best-selling author, sales thought leader and highly regarded sales development expert.

I was involved in a nearly week long, on line discussion with about a half dozen other sales experts in the Top Sales Experts Group at LinkedIn that to date has included about 41 volleys.  The original question, raised by the UK publisher of modernselling.com, asked whether there was a right way or a wrong way to train salespeople.  While there was some agreement on some points, there was much disagreement on many points.

Most of the agreement centered around secondary factors such as multiple sales roles in larger companies and the fact that some of those roles required that only certain steps of the selling process be utilized.  There was agreement around the importance of the right trainer, an adult learning model, alignment of systems, processes, strategies and selection, and the role of sales management.  But, when you look closely, the areas where there was agreement only support or influence the training of salespeople - but they are not the actual training.

The major area of disagreement were over methodology. What a surprise!

One faction supports consultative selling (my Book and popular methodology, Baseline Selling, is aligned with consultative selling), while the other supports a buyer facilitation model (they call it customer-centric) which is based on trust.  Now, I'm all for trust.  You must have trust!  Trust is an essential component of Baseline Selling.  But the buyer-facilitation fanatics (very few compared with supporters of the consultative model) insist that you can't develop trust/credibility when salespeople start asking questions to uncover compelling reasons.   If I had to describe the ineffective selling methods that most of my clients used before I was brought in to help, it would be so closely aligned with the buyer facilitation model that you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.  And if the buyer facilitation model was so effective, why does the significant change in pipeline and revenue come from the changeover to a more consultative model?

I'm sure we'll hear about it in the comments.

I respect others' opinions on methodology - these people are experts in selling and they believe in what they are doing and saying.  All good. It makes for interesting discussion. It's much like the nutrition community. One expert says low fat, low protein, lots of whole grains, fruits and vegetables is the way to healthy eating. Another expert says you are fat because you are eating grains and carbohydrates so you need to eat lots of healthy protein - grass fed red meat and avoid grains and carbs. And others still say a balanced diet of all the basic food groups, yada, yada, yada.

The other major area of disagreement was over sales assessments - an area where I am the established expert. When it comes to sales assessments, I can't believe how misinformed even some of the sales experts are about this subject.  Some believe they aren't accurate, others believe they are illegal, some believe that the choices in assessments are limited to $7 tests, and many have been fooled by the marketing of personality and behavioral styles assessments.  If you are among those who don't know, haven't cared, haven't looked or haven't used the right assessment for your sales force and for sales selection, simply read this series of articles. It isn't that complicated!  While personality and behavioral styles assessments are very much apples to apples, oranges don't have worm holes.  Evaluate your sales force with the orange of the assessment industry, Objective Management Group's sales force evaluation and hire salespeople using their proprietary process and Sales Candidate Assessment and you can't go wrong.



whitepaper-banner2

Posted by Dave Kurlan on Fri, May 15, 2009 @ 04:27 AM

COMMENTS

As a starting point, people seem to agree that trust is important albeit where and how it kicks in varies from person to person. The irony is that the "trust feeling" starts to develop, or not as the case maybe, the moment you see/speak to a person for the first time even before an attempt to get an appointment is made, if that is what the objective was. By asking questions you start to build trust not alienate yourself. Granted how those questions are asked is a key factor i.e. tone, pitch , inflection etc. By not asking questions and more importantly not asking the right questions then you are not truly engaging with your client.My experience tells me that great questions solicit a clearly visible "body language response" which shouts "thank God someone who knows what they are doing".If you are not asking them you are either telling or doing nothing neither of which is inspiring. 
 
 
 
Dave,another home run for you my friend

posted on Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 1:05 AM by Ray Bigger


Dave, 
 
Thanks for clarifying the key difference between consultative selling and buyer-facilitation (customer centric). It clears up way some companies seem to have a sales methodology installed....but, don't get the revenue production they need. Weak methodology.

posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 9:07 PM by Danita Bye


Hi Dave, 
 
 
 
Interested in your comments and concerned about RayBiggers responding comments. 
 
 
 
Can I say that trust is something a client establishes in you - not that you establish with the client and that this is perhaps why trust based (needs discovery based) selling is not as effective as consultative selling.  
 
 
 
I don't like to use the word trust myself - but rather "credibility" because a client first determines your credibility before they decide whether they can trust in you.  
 
 
 
How this is done is obviously based on a whole mass of nuances - spoken and non-spoken. My comment to Ray is that you don't need to be peeling the onion to establish credibility and the old adage of 90% listening, 10% talking should always apply as the sales person.  
 
 
 
Once you have established why you are there in your brief introduction, then you should be initially only asking supplemental clarification questions, rather than drilling down each point like an interrogation. The exception to this is where the client throws their hands up at the outset and tells you they desperately need a solution RIGHT NOW.  
 
Cautionary note though; those clients always start out being a dream prospect, but seldom do those type of prospects turn out to be a happy marriage and you can forget about any honeymoon. 
 
 
 
Getting back to the point - be credible first - and the best way to prove your credibility in that crucial first meeting is to let the client know that you are there to listen - both in sentiment and in deed.  
 
 
 
I think trust selling actually creates the inverse sentiment. That is that the client develops a feeling that you are there to uncover the best way to maximise your selling proposition of your solution rather than actually obsorbing and empathising with the challenge/issues the client has. 
 
 
 
That is my experienced based opinion of both techniques - consultative selling has much more sustainable merit. 
 
 
 
Sean smith 
 

posted on Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 11:13 PM by Sean Smith


Hi Sean,I actually think we are on the same page. I have always belived trust is and has to be a two way street. The client believes what we say will be delivered based on trust and we propose a solution based on what we have been told or learned is also honest and truthful. In my opinion it is all about not only the questions you do ask but the manner/tone in which they are asked. The Harvard Business Review about 2/3 years ago highlighted buyers ongoing concerns that sales people still fail to recognise they have to truly demonstrate a deep and genuine understanding of their issues/problems etc. 
 
 
 
My point was that as soon as you make contact with a potential client e.g. at a networking evening he is assessing albeit subconsciously whether to have a further discussion with you...and no onions have been peeled yet!!Cheers.Ray.

posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 at 3:36 AM by Ray Bigger


There are sales experts that aren't convinced that "asking probing questions" doesn't establish credibility and trust?  
 
I had a prospect say to me today, "I didn't expect you to ask such great questions. I just expected you to start selling." He bought from me 50 minutes later after I uncovered his true challenges, he shared the consequences of his inaction and we discussed what he'd need to do in order to achieve success with my company's solution.  
 
I only spent 5 minutes demo'ing my solution. He bought from me because he "trusted me and my company". His words. Not mine.  
 
I'm glad I hired DKA to learn sales and not someone who is afraid to ask tough questions.

posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 9:01 PM by peter caputa


hi dave: 
 
as the developer of the Buying Facilitation Method(R) (not buyer facilitation - i don't know what that means) i'd like to clear up a few misconceptions (in the event that your comments about Buying Facilitation(R) were meant for my model). 
 
 
 
Buying Facilitation(R) is a decision facilitation model that is not sales. 
 
 
 
it manages the off-line, behind-the-scenes issues that buyers must handle internally and privately before they can get the necessary buy-in to make a solution choice. 
 
 
 
sales does not handle this private decision making and internal relationship building. i've developed a wholly original model that actually gives sellers a whole new set of skills to help buyers walk through all of their internal relationship, initiative, and policital issues that they usually do alone (eventually).  
 
 
 
so the model is not sales. it's truly a different skill set, with Facilitative Questions, Presumptive Summaries, Decision Phasing, Change Management, and Listening for Systems. 
 
 
 
I've trained this model to many global corporations and we've had results like 200% at IBM, 600% at Kaiser, etc. 
 
 
 
The reason for the difference in results is that at the moment, sales models don't go into the off-line internal and private decision issues that buyers handle alone (when they say 'I'll call you back') and Buying FacilitationR(R) actually teaches buyers how to manage their internal buying decision. 
 
 
 
it all becomes murky when sellers think they do this already. they are not. one of the problem is that the sales model actually impedes this process. 
 
 
 
i do have a new book on this coming out shortly:www.dirtylittlesecretsbook.com 
 
 
 
sharon drew

posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 at 4:34 PM by sharon drew morgen


Comments have been closed for this article.