We have all heard of the traditional conflict between sales and marketing. The sales team says the product is priced too high or not what the customer wants, or that the marketing programs are ineffective. Marketing may say the sales force is not well trained, too small, ineffective, or a myriad of other complaints. Sometimes these are valid complaints, and good management will identify and address them. But if they aren’t valid, or if they are merely excuses for poor performance, it is imperative that management recognize this situation. There is nothing worse than having the sales and marketing departments at each other’s throats. This is a formula for business failure, and powerful management will work to create collaboration and understanding between the two groups.
I was once employed to effect a business turnaround in an organization that had conflicted sales and marketing departments. Since the overall corporate sales results were lacking, both groups blamed the other for the failure. Prior management was unable to fix the situation, and the blame game expanded to serious interdepartmental conflict. To overcome this situation, we employed a consultant skilled in strategic planning processes and team-building. We conducted a two-day offsite meeting designed to bring the sales and marketing groups together and show them they must function as a team for success. As a result, the relationship evolved so that if marketing was late introducing a new product, sales management would pick up the slack with promotions on existing products. Conversely, if sales anticipated a tough quarter, marketing would work to release a new product ahead of schedule. Teamwork between sales and marketing isn’t a “sometimes” thing; it is critical to the success of a high-velocity organization.
Powerful investment groups don’t invest in companies; they invest in people. People are the most important ingredient in any organization. At the heart of high-performance organizations is management that obtains the willing cooperation of others to achieve its goals. To gain the willing cooperation of others, employees must see that management genuinely cares about them, that they can trust management’s word, and that management focuses on distinction in all aspect of the business.
Another common mistake is not acting on low performers fast enough. In every failed business a number of salespeople who should have been moved to another position. You do no favors by keeping a failing employee around, unless you are confident a correction can be effected. One word of caution, though: most failing businesses do not have metrics that effectively judge individual sales performance, so care should be taken when identifying low and high performers. Another error—the reverse of too few terminations—is aggressive termination. To avoid both extremes, remember that it isn’t who you fire that counts but who you hire. The proper hire will not need to be terminated. Always look for a track record of success in candidates. Hiring the proper people and creating a culture of mutual trust is a vital component of good people management.
Holding people accountable for their performance is a cornerstone of powerful organizations, but you would be surprised at the number of companies that don’t consistently do this. This is especially true during trying times, when management is inclined to lighten up on performance standards. During a downturn, it is better to reduce quota requirements than look the other way on non-performance. When we don’t consistently hold people accountable for their performance shortfalls, it sends a message that management is weak and not confident in the goals it sets. This will erode morale as well as confidence in management.
Award programs need to be seen as achievable and fair. Reps need to see that the playing field is level and that everyone has a shot at winning recognition. It is amazing how many companies have award programs that are slanted in favor of a few preferred individuals. This sends a morale-damaging message to all reps, including the favored ones: that some are valued over others.
The sales process includes all the steps and procedures a company puts in place on its way to having the product delivered and invoiced. When the sales process is changed or modified, expect the sales force to need time to adjust. For example, the sales team might be required to fill out new reports or obtain price quotes from the corporate office, even if they previously had the freedom to do this themselves. During a period of adjustment to a new process, expect sales to be impacted. When the sales process is changed, all of management should expect sales as well as sales forecasting to be affected and in a direct proportion to the degree and type of change, at least for the short term. Additionally, sales reps generally dislike change. They don’t want to spend time learning a new process; they realize that learning the new system will detract from their current efforts.
I was once employed to effect a business turnaround in an organization that had conflicted sales and marketing departments. Since the overall corporate sales results were lacking, both groups blamed the other for the failure. Prior management was unable to fix the situation, and the blame game expanded to serious interdepartmental conflict. To overcome this situation, we employed a consultant skilled in strategic planning processes and team-building. We conducted a two-day offsite meeting designed to bring the sales and marketing groups together and show them they must function as a team for success. As a result, the relationship evolved so that if marketing was late introducing a new product, sales management would pick up the slack with promotions on existing products. Conversely, if sales anticipated a tough quarter, marketing would work to release a new product ahead of schedule. Teamwork between sales and marketing isn’t a “sometimes” thing; it is critical to the success of a high-velocity organization.
Powerful investment groups don’t invest in companies; they invest in people. People are the most important ingredient in any organization. At the heart of high-performance organizations is management that obtains the willing cooperation of others to achieve its goals. To gain the willing cooperation of others, employees must see that management genuinely cares about them, that they can trust management’s word, and that management focuses on distinction in all aspect of the business.
Another common mistake is not acting on low performers fast enough. In every failed business a number of salespeople who should have been moved to another position. You do no favors by keeping a failing employee around, unless you are confident a correction can be effected. One word of caution, though: most failing businesses do not have metrics that effectively judge individual sales performance, so care should be taken when identifying low and high performers. Another error—the reverse of too few terminations—is aggressive termination. To avoid both extremes, remember that it isn’t who you fire that counts but who you hire. The proper hire will not need to be terminated. Always look for a track record of success in candidates. Hiring the proper people and creating a culture of mutual trust is a vital component of good people management.
Holding people accountable for their performance is a cornerstone of powerful organizations, but you would be surprised at the number of companies that don’t consistently do this. This is especially true during trying times, when management is inclined to lighten up on performance standards. During a downturn, it is better to reduce quota requirements than look the other way on non-performance. When we don’t consistently hold people accountable for their performance shortfalls, it sends a message that management is weak and not confident in the goals it sets. This will erode morale as well as confidence in management.
Award programs need to be seen as achievable and fair. Reps need to see that the playing field is level and that everyone has a shot at winning recognition. It is amazing how many companies have award programs that are slanted in favor of a few preferred individuals. This sends a morale-damaging message to all reps, including the favored ones: that some are valued over others.
The sales process includes all the steps and procedures a company puts in place on its way to having the product delivered and invoiced. When the sales process is changed or modified, expect the sales force to need time to adjust. For example, the sales team might be required to fill out new reports or obtain price quotes from the corporate office, even if they previously had the freedom to do this themselves. During a period of adjustment to a new process, expect sales to be impacted. When the sales process is changed, all of management should expect sales as well as sales forecasting to be affected and in a direct proportion to the degree and type of change, at least for the short term. Additionally, sales reps generally dislike change. They don’t want to spend time learning a new process; they realize that learning the new system will detract from their current efforts.