sales management association research report … · also of the specific selling activities...
Post on 18-Jun-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Benchmarking Sales Readiness and Enablement
March 2020
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
This research made possible in part through the underwriting support of MindTickle.
SALES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RESEARCH REPORT
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
2
Author
Robert J. KellyChairman
Sales Management Association
First published March 2020.
Sales Management Association
1440 Dutch Valley Place NE
Suite 990
Atlanta, Georgia 30324 USA
+1 (404) 963-7992
www.salesmanagement.org
Copyright © 2020 The Sales Management Association, Inc.
All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Research Report: Benchmarking Sales Readiness and Enablement
This document has been prepared by The Sales Management
Association for use by its members. The Sales Management Association
has worked to ensure the accuracy of the information it provides to its
members. This report relies upon data obtained from many sources,
however, and The Sales Management Association is not engaged in
rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Its reports
should not be construed as professional advice on any particular set of
facts or circumstances. Members requiring such services are advised to
consult an appropriate professional. Neither The Sales Management
Association nor its programs are responsible for any claims or losses
that may arise from a) any errors or omissions in their reports, whether
caused by The Sales Management Association or its sources, or b)
reliance upon any recommendation made by The Sales Management
Association.
Descriptions or viewpoints contained herein regarding organizations
profiled in this material do not necessarily reflect the policies or
viewpoints of those organizations.
About The Sales Management Association
The Sales Management Association is a global, cross-industry
professional organization for sales operations, sales effectiveness, and
sales leadership professions. We provide our members with tools,
networking, research, training, and professional development.
Our research initiatives address topics relevant to practitioners across a
broad spectrum of sales effectiveness issues. Our research is available
to members on our site at http://salesmanagement.org.
In addition to research we publish best practice tools, archived
webcasts, and expert content. Visit our website at
http://salesmanagement.org to learn more.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
3
INTRODUCTION 4
WHERE SALESPERSON DEVELOPMENT GOES WRONG. A CLOSE LOOK AT SHORTFALLS IN SALES FORCE EFFECTIVENESS, TRAINING, AND RATES OF IMPROVEMENT
5
TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES 9
FOUNDATIONAL FLAWS THAT UNDERLIE SALES DEVELOPMENT SHORTFALLS
12
CONTENTS
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS23
INTRODUCTION
4
Sales organizations are reengineering sales learning and development, and streamlining
how they provision content and collateral to the sales force. Many now embrace the terms
“sales enablement” and “sales readiness” to describe these new approaches. These terms
don’t have fixed definitions, and are used variously by a growing set of vendors and
commercial offerings targeting sales organizations.
For our purposes, we consider sales readiness and enablement to involve the following
activities and practices: (1) more efficiently distributing sales content and collateral within
the sales organization, (2) delivering training, guidance, and content in situ - that is, in the
course of a salesperson’s day to day activities when its application is most relevant and
needed, (3) using purpose built technology platforms to accomplish the above, and (4)
using platform analytics to optimize content, training, and salesperson development.
These new approaches promise better outcomes and more flexible and adaptive
capabilities, and can not come too soon for sales organizations who have long recognized
the limitations of traditional classroom training approaches. In fact, they seem to be
arriving at the sales organization’s greatest hour of need. Reacting to shifts in demand
and buyer preferences, sales organizations are restructuring routes to market and selling
roles, retooling technology investments, and recasting the value salespeople provide to
customers. Traditional training approaches have struggled to keep pace in this operating
context of almost continuous change, and without better performing approaches to
salesperson development, sales organizations will be hobbled in their efforts to adapt to,
let alone to anticipate disruptive change (Cf. our research Managing Sales Force
Change).
Sales enablement and sales readiness initiatives point to better models for salesperson
development, but also to larger concerns of existential importance to sales leadership. Our
research shows clear links between sales organization effectiveness and firm
effectiveness in salesperson development, and firms with ineffectual salesperson
development pay a significant productivity penalty.
It should be of no small concern to those firms with underperforming training functions.
This report reveals a widening performance gap separating laggard firms from those
getting sales training and development right. Our research reveals characteristics of the
most successful sales development programs - they reward speed, adaptiveness, and
collaborative linkages between salespeople and management - capabilities that will
continue to strain traditional training, but which sales enablement and sales readiness
approaches are purpose built to deliver.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
5
Many sales forces aren’t effective, but even fewer are improving. Fewer still have
effective approaches to developing salespeople. Our research finds just 56% of firms
describe their sales forces as effective overall, and just 42% improved in effectiveness
over the prior 12 months. Among all sales organizations, just 18% have effective
salesperson development programs. Fig. 1.1.
WHERE SALESPERSON DEVELOPMENT GOES WRONG. A CLOSE LOOK AT SHORTFALLS IN SALES FORCE EFFECTIVENESS, TRAINING, AND RATES OF IMPROVEMENT
These results reflect concerns that extend beyond current effectiveness. Low rates of
sales force improvement and ineffectual salesperson development capabilities suggest
poor prospects for future improvement for low performing firms, and the fragile nature of
currently effective firms’ advantages in the face of future changes in market conditions.
Firms offer tepid assessments of their sales organizations’ overall effectiveness, and
also of the specific selling activities salespeople engage in. Half or fewer of firms’
salespeople effectively connect with important prospects, meaningfully engage buyers,
prioritize sales opportunities, or overcome difficult selling situations or buyers.
Salespeople are more effective in demonstrating value to buyers (as are 59% of firms),
and in retaining business (64% of firms) Fig. 1.2.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
6
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
Fewer firms are improving than are currently effective in these focus activities. Fig. 1.3.
A single exception: 53% of firms improved their effectiveness in overcoming difficult
situations and buyers, while just 39% are currently effective doing so. Fig. 1.4.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sales organizations’ training efforts underperform throughout the salesperson
talent development lifecycle, beginning with onboarding. Just 44% of firms
consider their structured onboarding programs successful, for example
(though onboarding was deemed more effective than other post-onboarding
training activities).
Just 33% of firms conduct one-on-one salesperson coaching effectively; 32%
utilize digital content effectively; 26% utilize micro learning effectively; 23%
utilize outside content effectively; and just 9% use social sharing, gamification,
or video enabled coaching effectively. These low rates of effectiveness stand
in contrast to the rated importance of these capabilities, six of which are
considered important by a majority of firms (the exceptions are outside
content, gamification, social sharing, and video coaching). Fig. 1.5.
7
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
S H O R T F A L L S I N S A L E S F O R C E E F F E C T I V E N E S S , T R A I N I N G , A N D R A T E S O F I M P R O V E M E N T
8
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
Sales organizations consider important a diverse set of topics when developing
salespeople. Considered most important is knowledge of core products and services
(considered important by 97% of firms). Other training topics researched are
considered just slightly less important; they are new products and services (considered
important by 87% of firms), selling skills (85%), company information and processes
(83%), and technology and tools (81%).
Most firms are effective in only the first two topics, training on core products and
services (62% of firms are effective), and newer products and services (55%).
Effectiveness lags considerably in the other three topic areas: selling skills (38% of
firms train effectively), company information and processes (45%), and technology and
tools (42%). Fig. 1.6.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
9
Our research examined multiple characteristics of salesperson learning and
development initiatives and the company level. These characteristics include the
amount of time spent in training activities, the training topics emphasized, the degree to
which training is customized to individual salespeople, the manner in which learning
objectives are determined, the modalities of training delivery, and the frequency of
training delivery.
TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES
Time Spent Learning
Salespeople spend 6.8
days per year in
classroom training, on
average (the median
number of days is 5);
25% of firms provide 2
or fewer days of
classroom training to
salespeople) 2.1
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
On average, salespeople spend 26% of their time in learning and development activities.
This includes internally led training (8.6% of total salesperson time), manager-led coaching
(7.0%), content consumption (4.4%), peer based learning (2.9%), online learning (2.6%),
and video based practice (0.5%). Fig. 2.2.
10
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
Manager Observation
On average, salespeople
are directly observed 3.2
hours per week by
management. But time
spent by managers directly
observing salespeople
varies widely by firm. Half of
firms observe salespeople
one hour or less per week.
Fig. 2.3.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
11
T R A I N I N G A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R A C T I C E S
Determining Developmental Objectives
In most firms (54%), salesperson
developmental objectives are determined
predominantly by management. In 17% of
firms, salespeople themselves determine
learning objectives, and in the rest (29% of
firms), developmental objectives are
determined collaboratively by both
salespeople and management. Fig. 2.4.
Training Customization
Sales training is customized to individual
salespeople only in one quarter of sales
organizations. Six percent customize all or a
majority of training; 17% customize half of
their training; and 78% of firms offer training
that is all or mostly the same for all
salespeople. Fig. 2.5.
About half of firms (52%) make sales training
a once-a-year event; 27% provide training
several times throughout the year; and 21%
deliver training more continuously. Fig. 2.6.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
12
Lack of Direction and Support
Most sales organizations do not consider management responsible for salesperson
development (just 46% do). Firms are more likely to embrace the notion that
salespeople must be self directed in their own development (60% of firms agree with
this premise). Fig. 3.1.
FOUNDATIONAL FLAWS THAT UNDERLIE SALES DEVELOPMENT SHORTFALLS
Traditionally among the firm’s most autonomous and independent workers,
salespeople may nevertheless need more than intrinsic motivation to improve. We
find many organizations falling short in providing salespeople the direction and
support needed even by salespeople expected to learn on their own.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
13
F O U N D A T I O N A L F L A W S T H A T U N D E R L I E S A L E S D E V E L O P M E N T S H O R T F A L L S
Consider:
• Just 45% of companies provide salespeople with a blueprint of skills
required to be successful, and just 34% of firms believe their salespeople
understand their own developmental needs.
• Only 40% of sales organizations believe their firms are making the right
technology investments for salesperson development.
• Just 25% effectively assess salespeople’s skill.
• Just 30% assess the effectiveness of their sales organization’s learning
activities.
• Managers observe how salespeople apply learning in just 44% of firms.
Insufficient Training Activity, Including Classroom Time
Firms in which salespeople spent 10 or more days of classroom training
enjoyed significant performance advantages over other firms. They were 16%
more productive in sales objective achievement (Fig. 3.2), had sales training
effectiveness ratings 12% higher than other firms (Fig. 3.3), and overall sales
force effectiveness ratings 18% higher than other firms’ (Fig. 3.4).
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
14
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
Despite its well known limitations, classroom training still represents the bulk of most
training activity. We find firms with the least amount of time spent in classroom training
also have the least amount of training and development activity of any kind, whereas
firms with higher amounts of classroom training activity are more likely to augment
classroom training with complimentary online content and technology enabled
reinforcement.
15
Management Observation
Time spent by managers directly observing salespeople correlates with higher sales
effectiveness. Firms in which salespeople are observed by managers four or more
hours per week are 8% more productive in achieving firm sales objectives (Fig. 3.5), 8%
more effective overall (Fig. 3.6), and realized rates of improvement in overall sales
effectiveness 10% higher than other firms (Fig. 3.7). Notably, firms with between one
and four hours of manager observation per salesperson per week approximated this
rate of sales effectiveness improvement, improving 9% overall compared to peer firms.
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
F O U N D A T I O N A L F L A W S T H A T U N D E R L I E S A L E S D E V E L O P M E N T S H O R T F A L L S
16
Collaboratively Established Learning Objectives
Firms in which salesperson learning objectives are predominately manager developed
(as opposed to developed with salesperson input) significantly underperform firms that
provide salespeople greater input in developing learning objectives.
Firms with manager-determined objectives were 16% less productive in achieving sales
goals (Fig. 3.8), improved 17% less over the past 12 months (Fig. 3.9), and were 9%
less effective in sales training (Fig. 3.10). Firms that set learning objectives
collaboratively between salespeople and management enjoyed the greatest advantages
over firms where objectives were set by management predominantly, or by salespeople
themselves without significant manager input. These advantages include 14% higher
sales objective achievement (fig. 3.8), 17% higher rates of improvement in overall sales
force effectiveness over the past 12 months (Fig. 3.9), and 8% higher sales training
effectiveness (Fig. 3.10).
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
17
F O U N D A T I O N A L F L A W S T H A T U N D E R L I E S A L E S D E V E L O P M E N T S H O R T F A L L S
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
18
Customized Training
Firms that rely on generic training content underperform companies that emphasize
training content customized to individual salespeople. Rates of sales objective
achievement are 9% lower in firms relying on sales training content that is all or mostly
the same for all salespeople.
Firms that customize half of their training content had the highest sales objective
achievement, 10% higher than other firms. Firms in which most or all training content is
customized enjoy sales objective achievement rates 4% higher than other firms’ (Fig.
3.11).
However, firms with the most customized training had substantially higher rates of both
sales training effectiveness and improvement in sales effectiveness over the past 12
months; sales training effectiveness in these firms is rated 19% higher than other firms’
(Fig. 3.12), and they enjoyed rates of improvement in firm sales effectiveness 30%
greater than those of other firms’ (Fig. 3.13).
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
19
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
F O U N D A T I O N A L F L A W S T H A T U N D E R L I E S A L E S D E V E L O P M E N T S H O R T F A L L S
20
Training Frequency
Firms that deliver sales training once annually underperform firms delivering
training more frequently. These once-a-year training firms have rates of firm
sales objective achievement 8% lower (Fig. 3.14), ratings of sales training
effectiveness 6% lower (Fig. 3.15), and rates of overall improvement in sales
force effectiveness 17% lower than peers’ (Fig. 3.16).
Firms that offered training several times throughout the year had the highest
levels of firm sales objective achievement and outperformed other firms by
11% in this metric. Offering training continuously throughout the year does not
correlate with increased sales productivity –firms doing so had rates of sales
objective achievement equal to the combined performance of all other firms
(Fig. 3.14), and have sales training effectiveness ratings roughly equal to
those of firms offering training several times a year, rather than continuously
(Fig. 3.15).
However, firms delivering training continuously enjoy substantially higher rates
of improvement in sales force effectiveness over the past 12 months,
improving 22% more than other firms (Fig. 3.16).
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
21
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
F O U N D A T I O N A L F L A W S T H A T U N D E R L I E S A L E S D E V E L O P M E N T S H O R T F A L L S
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
22
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
Firm Size
Participating firms totalled 123, and
ranged in size from US$1 million to more
than US$10 billion in annual revenue.
Sixty-one percent have annual revenue in
excess of US$100 million; 11% have
annual revenues in excess of US$10
billion (Fig. 4.1).
Job Role
Respondents are predominately sales
effectiveness leaders in their firms. Sales
operations, enablement, and related sales
effectiveness roles represent 70% of
respondents. Seven percent of
respondents are first-line sales managers
(i.e., they directly manage salespeople).
An additional 17% are senior sales
leaders, managing sales managers, 3%
are individual contributor salespeople, and
2% are in non-sales-related management
positions (Fig. 4.2).
Firm Performance
Sixty-eight percent of respondent firms
met or exceeded firm sales objectives in
the preceding 12 months (Fig. 4.3).
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
21
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
Respondents were asked to rate their
firm’s achievement of sales objective
based on a seven-point scale (“1” for far
underachieved objective; “4” for met
objective; “7” for far exceeded
objective).
We use this performance rating
approach in order to normalize
company performance across large and
small firms, and high and moderate
growth sectors. Twenty-five percent of
respondents rated sales objective
achievement in the highest two
categories (“6” or “7”).
Sales Force Size, Structure, and
Management Span of Control
Respondents firms have an average of
55 directly-employed sales managers,
and 580 salespeople; this represents an
average manager to salesperson span
of control of 10.5. Corresponding
median values are 70 salespeople per
firm, 10 managers per firm, and a
salesperson-to-sales manager ratio of
7.0:1 (Fig. 4.4).
© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
22
B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T
top related