Good Cop, Bad Cop

Okay, no, this isn't about policing, but it is about playing roles. Specifically, what a sales rep is (and isn't) and what a sales manager has to be when it comes to Customers.

If a Customer hasn't paid a bill, asks for terms that are above and beyond what the salesperson is permitted to offer, etc., who has to be the one to tell them that they're not going to get it?

If you said the salesperson, you're fired. (How did you even get this job, anyway?)

A salesperson never says no. Sales managers say no.  That's a major part of what they're paid to do - set and enforce goals and limits.

This does not mean that salespeople always say yes, but what they can and should say, in order, is this:

"I can ..." and offer an alternative or, if that doesn't fly, "Let me check with my manager".

Managers are the bad guys* in this scenario. They have to be, because the sales person always has to be the good guy*. If they're not, why would the Customer ever bother talking to them again?

I'm not saying that the sales manager has to actually talk to the Customer every time some point of contention comes up, but the salesperson has to be able to say, "We will do X, but we won't do Y..." and know that their manager will back them up. The sales manager has to hire salespeople that they can trust (or train) to deliver that message in a way that ultimately leads to acquisition, growth, and/or no further pushback.

This means that the salesperson has to always say things in such a way that the Customer doesn't just try to go over their head to the sales manager. Otherwise, what are you paying the salesperson for?

You do this by agreeing in advance what the terms/boundaries are for each transaction (if not each client) and sticking to them, no matter what.

Remember: Customers like predictability/consistency. The road to that country is paved with boundaries that everyone knows and sticking to them.

* Please feel free to insert the pronoun of your choice.

Why?

In nearly every company that I have been privileged to work for, it has amazed me how little forethought is given to the ripples caused by major decisions - something that I take for granted. At first, I thought that it must be a cultural thing - the best leaders are the most decisive ones, right? But over the years it's become clear that few business people have any idea how to think beyond the immediate consequences of an action. In fact, many find the idea so alien that it makes them physically uncomfortable. In short, they squirm like a worm under a magnifying glass.

Doesn't anyone play chess any more? Or Monopoly?

The formal process of the 5 Why's was developed by Sakichi Toyoda, founder of Toyota Motor Corporation, to find the root cause of product defects. A shortened version (the 3 Why's) was later all the rage for goal-setting and so on, but then seemed to disappear, even though the root idea is the foundation of any successful organization: constant self-examination.

However many you choose, the Why's lead you to the underlying truth of any process, issue, person, goal, and on and on. They require nothing more than a commitment to acting like the average 3-year-old. Here's an example:

• We need a new CRM program.
• Why?
• Because our old CRM program doesn't help us close enough sales.
• Why?
• Because our sales reps don't use it.
• Why?
• Because we don't hold them accountable for using it.
• Why?
• Because we're afraid that, if we hold them accountable, they might leave.
• Why?
• Because we don't know how to lead them properly, and it's hard to do, and we're afraid they'll stop liking us if we do.

The wonderful thing about the question 'Why?' is that it can and always should be asked until it meets bone, because doing anything else is throwing up your hands and admitting that you aren't ready to play at the pro level, and probably never will be. 'Why?' forces you to think as much about the Law of Unintended Consequences as it does about motivation (or the lack thereof).

Here's another:

• We're going to change this process.
• Why?
• Because the old process is inefficient.
• Why?
• Because no one has time to do it that way any more.
• Why?
• Because they are already spending too much time on another process that we recently changed, but which doesn't seem to be working as well as we'd hoped.
• Why?
• Probably because we didn't ask ourselves 'Why?' enough times before making that decision.

Besides telling you the truth, another nice thing about 'Why' is that it's inherently private; no one has to hear you talk yourself out of a bad idea. In fact, if you do it right, you're laying the ground work for rejecting other people's bad ideas by figuring out what's wrong with them (and what the real issue is) in advance.

Don't get me wrong - 'Why?' is not about finding excuses to shoot something down. Any change that is truly needed easily stands up to the scrutiny of 'Why?', plus builds its own framework on the way, no matter how departmentally locked-in things start out:

• We're going to create and launch an expensive new marketing campaign.
• Why?
• Because we have a new product.
• Why?
• Because our research indicates that there is room and a need for it in the market.
• Why?
• Because it will decrease the amount of time that people have to spend cleaning up pet poop.
• Why?
• Because our new product instantly turns any pet poop into biodegradable fertilizer.

Really? Spend away! We're all going to be millionaires!

Remember: Business is not a game. There are sharks everywhere, always, and if you don't learn how to see around the next 3 to 5 corners in advance, you end up as fish food.

Pin the Tail on the Donkey

"Hey, Dave, do me a favor - tell your team not to tell Customers that they can X if they have a Y."

"Who told a Customer that?"

"I don't want to say; I don't want to get anyone in trouble."

"Okay. Can you give me the Customer's name? I can work backwards from that."

"Can't you just send around an email or something?"

No. No, no, no.

First, because if that actually worked, they would have gotten it right to start with. Second, it's clear that only one person is getting it wrong. Why waste the time of team members who already get it right? Are we deliberately trying to kill their morale?

There are a lot of things wrong with our current Avoidance Culture, and one of the worst is not trying to correct a problem at its source. If anything less than the entire team is getting something wrong, it's an abdication of your responsibility as their manager if you don't sit them down, face to face, and say: "This is something that you need to correct."

"But it's hard!" you cry. "I don't want to hurt their feelings!"

How will they feel when their bad habits accumulate to the point that you have to let them go, when you've given them no indication that they were doing anything wrong? Is that fair? Is it right? And how will your HR staff feel when that dismissed employee turns around and litigates? As far as they knew, everything was peachy.

If there is an issue, it's your job to coach your employee regarding how to correct it. Yes, they still have to do the heavy lifting, but you're not doing your job if you don't even tell them where the log jam is.