|
Attributes of CustomerCentric Selling
“As a Systemic Process for Sales Training”
by Dennis Michael Nulman Ph.D.
Restructuring, reengineering, and retraining have become the 3 R’s of corporate America as executives ponder the dynamic
competitive conditions of the new millennium. The R words echo in the hallways of business, emanate from the mouths of media commentators and are sprinkled in the titles of popular and academic
literature. In fact, the words are more than mantras. Yet, of the companies that undergo restructuring/reengineering, no more than forty percent may actually achieve the end objectives of their efforts.
And it’s been estimated that over 200 billion dollars are being spent annually for training in the workplace, with as little as ten percent having any significant effect. Under these circumstances, the
competitive advantage goes to the company that is able to foster continuous improvement in its employees. A review of research into the effectiveness of workplace training reveals that successful efforts
are characterized by shared factors. CustomerCentric Selling® incorporates many of these factors into its workshops. The most fundamental of the contributing factors are organizational commitment; a
behavior based training plan, reinforcement of implementation activities and demonstrable benefits to the employee.
Organizational Commitment
Two characteristics that determine whether training will result in improved performance are the individual’s intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. The intrinsic motivation is the salesperson’s feelings about his or her abilities and desire to improve. Of the extrinsic motivations to participate and benefit from training, none
are more powerful than the employee’s belief in organizational commitment and in the training program. The training experience becomes more meaningful to the sales person if he or she believes that the
company is going to support the post workshop implementation of a proven training program. Without this meaningfulness, the value of the training is reduced in status to a time consuming exercise.
Organizational commitment is a top-town systemic approach, from the CEO to the telephone receptionist; it can’t be isolated to only
the sales force. Ownership of the training skills and activities has to be assumed by a cross-functional team with overlapping responsibilities to be integrated and consistent. Sales managers need to
reinforce the skills and activities of the workshop rather than focusing only on sales outcome. Marketing needs to develop strategies that complement the sales tactics. Financial officers need to
understand and have confidence in sales projections. Service providers need to understand their role in the sales cycle. Everyone needs peer support. The result of these efforts will be a workplace with
a common purpose and employees with common skills benefiting from shared responsibilities in an explicit process. This is not just a restructured workplace but a collaborative environment.
Behavior Based Performance Process
A systemic process for selling that is behavior based provides several benefits to the company. Because it is cross functional,
ownership for the process is distributed beyond the sales manager’s office. The behaviors allow for observable and measurable documentation of the sales cycle. The cycle is not person dependent and
provides for benchmarks that become control points for the process. This is especially important in buyer qualification and establishing the true pipeline.
Implementation and Reinforcement of the Process
Ultimately, the goal for every sales training activity is the continuous improvement by the salesperson with a resultant increase
in net profits for the company. For over forty years, the evaluation of training activities has been influenced by the seminal work of Kirkpatrick’s four levels: the participant’s sense of satisfaction,
learning of the skills and knowledge, application in the workplace and evidence of results. The first two criteria are easily determined through surveys. The much more important issue is whether the
salespersons use the skills and knowledge to change their selling behaviors. To identify application and improvement, benchmarks have to be in place with documentation that provides objective
measurement. Consistency by the individual salesperson is more likely when there are written company application protocols and sample formats. The internal evaluation and reinforcement of the process
have to be viewed as a necessary part of the process. Without reinforcement, implementation will recede and the sales manager will become overly engaged in selling the product or service rather than
managing the sales force.
Personal Perspective
The personal relationship between the buyer and the seller is paramount. The emphasis on "honorable selling" is integral
to the successful scale. Only the most attractive of products can survive a poor sales presentation or a disreputable salesperson. Improving the relationship between the buyer and seller can have more
impact on sales than improving the product or service.
References
Blickstein, S. (1996). Does training pay off? Across the Board, 33, 16-20.
Bosworth, M.T., Holland, J. (2003)). CustomerCentric Selling.
Davenport, T.H., Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Beers, M.C. (1996). Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Management Review, 37, 53-66.
Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J.E. A, Ladd, R. T. and Kudisch, J.D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the
training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 1-25.
Grant, K. and Cravens, D.W. (1996). Examining sales force performance in organizations that use behavior-based sales management
processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 25, 361-371.
Haccoun, R.R., and Hamitaux, T. Optimizing knowledge tests for inferring learning acquisition levels in single group training
evaluation designs: The internal referencing strategy. Personnel Psychology, 47, 593-604.
Lynch, .J. (1996). It’s the process. Internal Auditor, 53, 94-69.
Majchrzak, A. and Wang, Q. (1996). Breaking the functional mind-set in process organizations. Harvard Business Review, 74, 92-99.
Mische, M.A. and Bennis, W. (1996). Reinventing through reengineering. Information Systems Management, 13, 58-65.
Dennis Nulman is a professor at Cal Poly. In addition to his university responsibilities, Dennis provides consulting services to
companies primarily in the technology sectors. His focus is the application of learning theories to business practices. IBM, AT&T, Pac Bell and GTE have been among his clients. He is also a frequent
presenter at professional conferences. Dr. Nulman can be contacted at (805) 489-2044 for voice mail, dnulman@calpoly.edu for e-mail or by FAX at (805) 489-6911.
|
