Processes are good, right? They capture what we do well, and allow average people to do better. The argument may be that they prevent exceptional people from being exceptional but we are looking to be an exceptional organization.
There are few disciplines that has seen more failed efforts to create a process than the sales arena. Most process creators blame it on that undisciplined sales crowd that just doesn’t know what is good for them. In fact, most process (Lean, Six Sigma) practitioners are firm believers that all we have to do is create a value stream map or process map for sales and it would create a more effective and efficient sales process. Worse, we sometimes think we can define the role so well that we attempt to be outright manipulative of our customers. Read my blog post, Value Stream Mapping Should be Left on The Shop Floor.
Speaking of failed attempts I have had my share of them. I am a process guy through and through and have tried more different types of processes and maps than you could ever imagine. So much that often I feel like I am talking about process more than what is important, sales. There is a reason that we do this, when we talk about processes it frees us from responsibility of mastering complexity of sales and allows us to simplify. We follow this process; improve on it and as a result sales get better. Or, so we think. Process coordinators would certainly justify this but can a sales and marketing person tell me they have seen a direct correlation between creating an efficient process and as a result, more sales?
The problem is that sales is more than a process. Sales is a system of interactions, different forms of communications, finding influencers, and events that are all part of a continuously changing ecosystem per se. When we limit ourselves to a certain process, we are limiting what makes our sales effective.
There are several ways sales interacts. We sometimes take an authority role such as expert in the area. Another time we may have to take a coaching role or an evaluative role or even a supportive role. As a result, each role can hardly fit one process and, therefore, every time we define a process we limit the role sales can play.
Sales is complex, and there is no one or no simple approach that always works. Sales may take on several different roles during a sales cycle and needs skills such as engagement, creativity, strategic thinking, patience, reassurance, cheerleading and a host of others. If we shoehorn our sales people fitting them into the process, we understate the complexity and value of what we can and should bring to our sales people.
Thought Provoker for this post: Beyond Neutrality: Confronting the Crisis in Conflict Resolution
Thanks Justin. I encourage others to listen. I will comment more when I listen to them.
Again, thanks Justin for the links. I would have appreciated a response from you versus just a few links that takes me a bit of time to listen and give a response. When I respond on blogs, I typically shy away from just promoting my interviews and attempt to keep the response within the bloggers structure. They have done the work to bring readers to the post and offered you a platform to respond and to be heard versus a platform to take readers to your site.
What you did say above is similar rhetoric that process engineers have been using for over twenty years every time that someone challenges a process approach.
Kirk’s description of what ARCA accomplished is quite impressive. However, I see little difference in his description than what I have proposed in these 2 info-graphics; https://business901.com/lean-sales-and-marketing-infographic/ and https://business901.com/implementation/lean-sales-methods/. Much of what he discussed, is sales process engineering or just taking a broken system and putting it into a context they understood. It is the act of doing and adjusting that is the important part, not the process. How important was Kirk’s leadership? Would this have happened without his leadership? Kirk seems like a great guy and may have achieved everything by following your system. But huge sales increases are seldom the result of better engineered systems. Typically, they are a result of recognizing previously unrecognized opportunity. Which most systems will gladly take credit for, heck, I would! ;)
On other side, how many times have people tried to implement a system and failed? What are the odds that if I would choose to do what Kirk did that it would work for me? Moving to more inbound sales people, project leaders, promotional and activities separated, and fewer outside sales people sounds a lot like Value Stream Managers and Lean Engagement Teams to me. I am just saying, I am familiar with the process that he describes. It is a common method of engagement these days, and it is not exclusive to sales process engineering.
Lets not confuse good business practices and good people with sales process engineering. Processes and systems are great. As Teemu Uusitalo said on twitter today, “I would say it’s common syndrome to unify everything to one unified unicorn process which solves all problems.
I agree with this piece wholeheartedly. Every new sales situation will inevitably be different than the last, and they should each be viewed as unique opportunities that require may unique approaches.
Justin, since you did not care to respond – I removed your self-service announcement.