Clients frequently ask about the percentage of candidates recommended by Objective Management Group's (OMG) Sales Candidate Assessment and why it is so low.  When clients are feeling the urgency to hire salespeople and too many candidates are not getting recommended, their knee-jerk reaction is to change the customized criteria on the role configuration so that more candidates can be recommended.  In this case, "more" would mean more like the ones they already have instead of more like the stronger ones they said they wanted to hire...

There are many possible reasons why a large percentage of candidates are not being recommended.  Here are some to consider:

1. Expectations - Clients expect at least half of the candidates to be recommended so the actual percentage is low compared to expectations.  The actual percentage depends on the level of difficulty for the role and the custom requirements specified by the client.  See the normal range of recommended sales candidates.
2. Compensation - Clients often set the difficulty level of the job really high, hoping to get an extremely strong salesperson.  But they fail to change the compensation, keeping it the same as what they were paying mediocre salespeople.  The result is that only mediocre salespeople apply for the position and when the strong ones don't apply, they can't take the assessment or get recommended!
3. Customization - Clients go crazy specifying custom criteria and then they don't include the criteria in the job posting.  Then mediocre salespeople apply for the job and don't meet the criteria in the assessment.  The requirements should be included in the job posting!
4. Contradictions - Criteria that only a strong, experienced salesperson could possibly possess is included in the job posting.  But so is compensation consistent with a mediocre salesperson.  Result?  A reduction in the overall number of candidates because the pool of candidates who meet both the criteria AND can live with the limited compensation is very small.
5. Industry-Specific - Many executives still believe that their next salesperson must come from their industry.  For some reason, the very people who feel that way, tend to be from the industries that have the worst salespeople.  Nobody gets recommended!
6. Profiling - (I know the title said "Top 5", but it sounds better than "Top 7".)  Clients create an image of the salesperson they want that makes it sound like profiling.  They want someone young (not EEOC compliant, of course), with a degree, 5 years experience, motivated, energetic, memorable, attractive, well-dressed, professional, trustworthy, and polished.  What does all that have to do with selling effectiveness?  The only one of those 11 items that will impact sales is whether or not they are trustworthy.  Of course, the posting attracts the very candidates that are like this and the wrong salespeople send their resumes and most aren't recommended!
7. Bad Memory - Clients quickly forget why they chose this assessment in the first place.  They were sick and tired of hiring salespeople who don't work out.  Better to identify the right salespeople in the first place rather than roll the dice.  That good, confident feeling lasts about a month and when the position isn't filled, they long for the good old days when they could fool themselves for a few months while they hope that their latest gamble pans out.

If you want better salespeople, you need to do the work to make sure you attract better salespeople.  You must also exhibit patience while waiting for the right strong salespeople to come along.  They may not be in your first or second round of candidates.

Don't forget to register for Wednesday's Webinar, Leading the Ideal Sales Force Part 2.  I'll be hosting along with my panel of sales experts.  We start at 11 AM Eastern and it will run no longer than 1-hour.

We'll be discussing the following 3 topics:

Blindspots - When Salespeople Finally Have Better Conversations
Blindspots - Fighting for The Candidate You Love 
Blindspots - We Finally Have a Working Pipeline

I wrote an article for the March 2013 issue of Top Sales World Magazine that debriefs an actual sales call.  I've written more than 1,000 articles and I believe this one is the best yet!  The article effectively details an actual value-added consultative sales call which, because of a single incorrect question, quickly became a transactional, commodity-based, price-driven call.  The example is really striking because it so clearly shows that you can do everything correctly but asking even one question the wrong way can cause a salesperson to lose the opportunity to be a trusted advisor, and fall into the abyss of commodity sellers.  

You'll have to get this month's issue (existing subscriber link) or sign up to read it.  It's on page 7.  The bonus is that there are 12 additional articles you can read after you download the issue.  The magazine will open in a separate tab or window so that you can return here and contribute your comments.  There should be a lot to share!

[Update - For the sales management side to this story, I wrote a coaching piece for EcSELL Institute and that article is available here.  In this article you'll discover the proper way to debrief this call and make sure that something like this doesn't happen again.]

I'm hosting a fast-paced, 45-minute webinar and will share some of the findings and statistics that make Objective Management Group's Sales Candidate Assessments so magically predictive.  Please join me:

Tuesday, March 12, 2013
10 AM Eastern Time
Register

I'll also be hosting our annual fall Sales Leadership Intensive in Boston.  It is simply the finest two days of sales leadership training for CEO's, Presidents, GM's, Sales Directors, Sales VP's and Sales Managers.  What makes it so special?  Click here for two videoclips (scroll to the bottom of the page) featuring some of the attendees from the fall 2012 Sales Leadership Intensive and hear what they have to say.   Please join me:

November 14-15, 2013
Westin Copley Hotel, Boston
More Information 

Got you on that title, didn't I?

Did you ever find yourself in a position where you needed to hire salespeople?  Of course you did.

Did you use Objective Management Group's (OMG) incredibly accurate and predictive sales candidate assessments as part of your filtering and selection process?  Perhaps you did.

Did you decide to augment the candidates whom you were finding and hire a recruiter?  Perhaps you did that too.

That's when all the fun starts!

Recruiters think that all of their candidates walk on water.  Clients think that because of our assessment, quality advice and guidance that we walk on water.

So the recruiter sends 5 of the best candidates ever to the client, who has them assessed, and 3 are not recommended.  The recruiter is upset, "Why are you using that stupid assessment? You don't need that! I know these candidates and they're awesome."  

We simply explain to our client why the recruiter has such a high opinion of the candidate (they represent a commission) and why we don't share that opinion.  There are always excellent reasons why a candidate may not be recommended for a particular client, and in some cases, for any client.  

The client feels stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It's just like the title of this article.

You hurt your back and feel tremendous pain.  Your doctor tells you that you'll require surgery to repair a bulging disc.  He suggests bed rest until the following month's surgery.  A friend introduces you to his brother-in-law's, girlfriend's, cousin's nutritionist, who has a yellow pill that will make all of your pain go away.  Today.  Right now.  Decisions, decisions.  Do you listen to your doctor who knows what's best or go for the drug dealer's quick fix? 

To complete this sales analogy, OMG is the doctor, the recruiter is the drug dealer and the client is the user.  It's so easy to get and take the drug for temporary relief.  It's only money.  But the surgery provides the proper long-term solution.  If you take the drug (recruiter's candidate) which wasn't recommended by the doctor (OMG), you'll be back for more when the euphoria wears off, realizing that you still have the disc problem (ineffective salesperson) and ultimately need the surgery (be selective and listen to the expert advice).

I don't mean to upset recruiters, but let's face it.  They don't go nearly as wide and deep on their candidates as we do.  Most aren't sales experts, and really don't know if the salesperson who succeeded at XYZ can succeed at ABC.  We, on the other hand, do know and can show you why, explain the science and provide accurate advice 95% of the time.

The doctor or the drug dealer?  The choice is always yours!

Use this free tool to calculate the cost of your sales hiring mistakes.  If you aren't already an OMG client, you can get a free 72-hour trial of our award-winning sales candidate assesment.  OMG was awarded the Gold Medal for Top Sales Assessment Tool in 2011 and 2012.  And if you'd like to see what hiring salespeople looks like when you work with us, compared with doing it the traditional way, check out this infographic.

He has been a client of Objective Management Group (OMG) for over 20 years.  He had a license to use OMG's Sales Candidate Assessments and, as most clients do, had renewed it each year.  When we met for breakfast recently, he told me that he had a new VP of Sales and would not be renewing his license this year.  I was surprised for two reasons:  

1. OMG clients nearly ALWAYS renew their candidate assessment licenses unless they are hiring just one or two salespeople, after which time they are done - they find who they are looking for and then they are finished hiring.  Companies that hire salespeople on an ongoing basis always renew their licenses because the salespeople they hire with our assessments are much more effective.
2. He told me that the reason for not renewing was that the assessment did not correlate with their performance.  Seriously?  Our top-rated, highly-predictive assessment didn't predict success and failure?  "Send me the names and the outcomes".

Face value correlation alone isn't enough. At OMG we have a mantra that we expect our clients to follow.  A candidate that is "Not Recommended" should never be hired.  A "Recommended" candidate can easily become a "No" based on their phone interview, whether their experience meets your requirements, and how well they perform during a face-to-face interview.  "Recommended" is not a license to automatically hire without further due diligence.  It is simply a recommendation that the candidate belongs in the pool of candidates that move to the next step.  This client was hiring candidates that were not recommended!

I reviewed the seven assessments that did not correlate at face value.  Two of the five met performance expectations and four were recommended by the OMG assessment, but with warnings and conditions.  In the table below, the scores in columns two and three are how the client conducted the scoring, not how OMG scores its assessments.  The client's scale is beneath the table.  Here are the findings:

3 - Exceeded    2 - Meets    1 - Failed

Conclusions: Inclusive of our recommendations not to hire, and the warnings and skill gaps associated with recommended candidates, the assessments accurately predicted the results in 16 of 17 cases between 2006 and 2010 - a batting average of 96%.  In the 17th case, Salesperson #6, the client failed to follow his own hiring process and would not have hired the individual based on his non-OMG scores.

The client assessed 2,500 candidates over this time period.  As a result, they were saved from having to speak with at least 2,300 candidates.  If they spent just five minutes reviewing 2300 resumes (191 hours) and ten minutes on the phone with one third of the candidates (126 hours), the assessment saved them 317 hours (two business months) of manual filtering.  If they value their time at $100 an hour, the license more than paid for itself in the value of time saved over five years ($41,700).

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy if you take the time to do it.  I chose to take the time.  This client is probably similar to many clients who either don't read the warnings, or don't factor the warnings into the decision-making process for bringing a salesperson on board. The warnings were certainly incorporated into the development plan or accountability requirements for success.

Message to Clients and Would-Be Clients of OMG:  Our assessments are incredibly predictive, but you need to pay attention to more than a single finding, recommendation or score!  Every assessment tells a story and if you take the time to read the story on the candidates who are recommended, you'll be able to determine whether your current sales management resources are up to the task at hand for borderline candidates:

• How much hand-holding will they need?
• Will they fill the pipeline on their own?
• Will they be able to move opportunities through the process?
• Will they be able to generate urgency?
• Will they qualify thoroughly?
• Will they be able to close?
• Will they self-start?
• Can they work independently?
• Will they take short cuts?
• Will they be ineffective because of weaknesses?
• How long will it take them to ramp up?
• Will they stick?

There are many keys to making the the sales hiring process work effectively yet most companies fail to get these keys right.  Some of them are obvious, while some are more subtle.  And most of all, the integrity, or in this case, the outcome of the process is only as strong as the weakest link.  Ignore or fail to complete any one step the way it is designed and the entire outcome will be in jeopardy, as in, another salesperson that fails to launch, doesn't meet expectations, or succeeds at being utterly mediocre.

Here are some keys and comments:

1. You must identify what experiences the new salespeople must have in order to succeed at your company, in this position, calling into your market.
2. You have to nail the posting - get it wrong and the wrong people will apply for the position.  When the wrong people apply, you have a pool that's green and unsuitable for diving in.
3. You must use a customized, sales specific, predictive assessment to identify the candidates who will succeed in your positions and roles.  If the assessment isn't predictive and you can't rely on it, you'll end up wasting your time with the wrong candidates.
4. You must be able to determine, in less than 5 minutes by phone, which of the recommended candidates have the desired experience, sound great, and should be interviewed.
5. You must be able to firmly but nicely cross-examine your candidates in a face-to-face interview to determine whether they are the person described on their resume or an imposter, meaning the resume was a work of fiction.
6. You must have realistic expectations on your timeline.  30-60 days to fill an ordinary territory sales position, 90 days or more to fill a niche sales position, and even longer for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
7. You must be patient enough to do it all over again if you don't find the candidate(s) that make you happy.  Once you have reached the interview stage, candidates will come in 6 and possibly 12 flavors: 

• Strong sales skills, perfect background and you like them;
• Strong sales skills, a background that is close and you like them;
• Strong sales skills, wrong background and you like them;
• Strong sales skills, perfect background and you don't like them;
• Strong sales skills, a background that is close and you don't like them;
• Strong sales skills, wrong background and you don't like them;

Hiring salespeople is not for the faint of heart, should not be performed without the right tools, and cannot be conducted without the right process.  Most importantly, gut instinct is not a part of this process!

If you're a regular reader, you know I have sometimes written about other assessments and how they fare when they go head to head with Objective Management Group's Industry Leading Sales Force Evaluation tool and Sales Candidate Assessments.  Today, another one of those attractively packaged, inexpenisve behavioral styles assessments challenges OMG's highly predictive, insightful, sales specific champion.  How will this newcomer fare? 

Well, the marketing and graphics on the cover are great.  After all, how can you beat a report title like "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful Salespeople"?  But from there?  Pretty standard behavioral styles findings.  Let's compare a few, shall we?

First, the 7 areas they look at don't even differentiate successful salespeople from unsuccessful salespeople.  I'll give you an example:

Their #1 is what they call Being Your Own Ally - It's very similar to what we call Record Collection or one's collection of Self-Limiting Beliefs.  Objective Management Group's data on 1831616 salespeople assessed to date shows that 77% of the top 5% of the sales population have a supportive Record Collection while none of the bottom 5% do.  The problem is that while we are measuring sales specific beliefs, they are measuring general positive thinking, more closely aligned with what we call Outlook.  Not only is there little difference in the Outlook of strong and weak salespeople, MOST sales candidates (possibly in between jobs) have a Poor Outlook.

Their #4 is the Ability to Develop a Compelling Story - This IS a differentiator between good and bad salespeople - only they have it backwards!  The bottom 74% have perfected the ability to present capabilities, value proposition, the brand promise and other pitches.  The top 26% have perfected the ability to ask good, tough, timely quesitons.  What good is the story unless you can tie it to the problems uncovered by effective questioning?

Their #3 is Prospecting but even 31% of the bottom 5% of the sales population prospect consisently!

Their #2 is something called Maximizing Return on Energy or the ability to stay focused.  This is mostly about being organized and realizing the importance of prospecting.  Our data shows that the best salespeople have this attribute - but that data also shows that the worst salespeople have it too!

Their #5 is Becoming a Master of Communications which is understanding the importance of communications and being prepared.  This is actually one of the few things one can observe from simply interviewing a candidate!  It is not a differentiator between the top and bottom performers, just a differentiator between those who are prepared versus not prepared.  There is only a one-way correlation between performance and preparation.  While those who are successful are always prepared, those who are prepared are not always successful!

More important than the difference between the skimpy findings in their assessment is what's missing from their assessment.  Motivation, Real-World Sales Challenges, Skill Sets, and Predictions.  Salespeople can have the skills yet have weaknesses that won't allow them to execute their skills.  Salespeople can have skill gaps galore but strengths that allow them to consistently achieve favorable outcomes on pure determination alone.  We see strong salespeople - skills and strengths - that lack the desire and commitment to use their skills and strengths.  And we see motivated salespeople who have neither the strengths or the skills to succeed.

In a nutshell, this assessment is cute, but like every other behavioral styles assessment disguised as a sales assessment, it is not predictive and therefore, has little value as a sales selection tool or a sales development tool.  This is a great example of an assessment whose relative cost is as low as the value provided.

Regular readers know that I like to talk about the science of selling.  I don't mean the science of the sales process, strategy and tactics, as much as the science of research, data and proof.  There is a science to selling but a more appropriate name for it would be the rules of selling.  In Baseball, the rules dictate what you do, when you do it and how it should be done.  In Selling, the rules accomplish the same thing. 

The true science in selling is the research and data that explain performance.  In Baseball, a good or bad year, by a team or player, is not explained so much by whether the rules were followed - they probably were - but by the statistics that explain why a good or bad year occurred. We have the same thing in sales and Objective Management Group may have the mother load of that data.  OMG has assessment data on nearly 500,000 salespeople and sales managers within nearly 8,500 companies. Whether we look at teams, industries or individuals, we can explain performance as well as what should change (people, systems, processes, strategies, skills sets, competencies, selection criteria, etc.) in order to change the relative performance. In other words, we've simplified the complex analysis required to find answers.  We're the sabermaticians of sales! Over the last few years I have written enough articles on the science, data and research of sales to put them into a series.  This information is also used to accurately predict whether a sales candidate will succeed in a specific role, at a particular company, in a given industry, and with the unique set of sales challenges they would face selling into their market at this point in time.

One guy who embraces the science of sales team performance as much, or maybe even more than me is Bill Eckstrom, founder of EcSell Institute. Bill was my guest on yesterday's edition of Meet the Sales Experts and we talked about science and whined for nearly an hour about sales managers who turn a blind eye to it!  Bill shared some great analogies, talked about the importance of improving leadership and coaching skills, and shared a great discovery.

He used a new application which increased outbound conversations at EcSell Institute from 5/hour to 22/hour!

Bill also shared that his members said their #1 most important issue was the ability to identify and acquire talent.

Click here to listen to the show.  Click here to contact Bill.