In the Shadow of Sun Tzu - When to do Battle

If one considers the nuances of the buyer / seller opportunity lifecycle, it's a pretty safe bet that if a prospect organization is going to spend funds on a new business solution, they've already conducted to some degree their own analysis of the various vendors before going public with the vendor selection process. However, it’s important that the buying entity have multiple appropriate vendors respond to their proposal requests. It has long been whispered that some selection decisions are made prior to inviting in a group of qualified vendors to compete for the business.


This notion presents a serious dilemma for those who’d like to engage, but feel as if they’re not likely to get the chance to do so on a level field. Our thoughts are, if you commit yourself, your organization and reputation to combat, you’d better execute a plan that will ensure success. There is a high risk of failure in this scenario if one chooses to follow the rules as designated by the buyer, or the “unbiased” 3rd party consulting entity.  Here’s a thought for those who like to think tactically.  Change the rules of engagement, or don’t play.
Ask any salesperson who’s ever carried a bag if they’ve heard the seductive whisper in their ear, "We're looking to buy and we're going to give you serious consideration." The seller quickly runs this 'steaming hot" lead up the flag pole and the appropriate organizational response has been to marshal the necessary resources and react by putting their best team on it. However, by being “reactive” a seller can easily squander an opportunity to control the field.  Thus begins the slippery path to sales perdition, the vendor showing its willingness to serve as column fodder. When invited to participate, many salespeople (and/or their managers) completely lose their critical thinking skills, abdicating power in the pursuit of checking a selection criteria box.

If a seller hasn’t participated in the creation of a buyer's initial buying vision, then there can be a reasonable assumption that someone else did, or, the buying entity has researched the web and formed their own conclusions without benefit of your input. In either scenario, the seller is merely a comparative column in the evaluation process.

With happy ears in full extension, sellers fall over themselves to accommodate the whims of the buyer, who probably has already mentally selected something else.

Consider this: If as a sales organization, management decides to commit the internal resources necessary to win, then salespeople should insist that the prospect’s organization provide them the opportunity to properly present products and services to those stakeholders (decision makers)   most impacted by the proposed change. It is, after all, a fair thing to ask, a very valid quid pro quo. If denied this reasonable request, it’s time to disqualify the opportunity.

Most people would agree that in a sales situation, the selling entity incurs significant costs just to compete. If not given the opportunity to expand the prospect's existing vision to one biased by the seller’s offering, why compete? It’s time to apply the qualification / disqualification litmus test. Are the existing rules of engagement fair? Are rigid rules in place restricting who a sales person can speak with? Are these rules unfair?

Has your sales team found itself blocked from interacting with true stakeholders – unable to demonstrate what they do best? Have your resources and efforts been spent on presenting to a "designated representative?" Our guess is that the engagement rules have been designed this way for a purpose. It is futile for anyone to attempt to sell to someone who can't buy. But, oh, how we try! In the fog of battle, unless the sales manager possesses an acute insight into the seller’s behavior under duress, the risk factors will be very high. 


At the risk of being cynical, if a selling organization is invited to compete in a competitive situation but hasn’t participated in the creation of the buyer’s initial vision, then what has been purported to be a level playing field, is probably skewed towards a competitor.

Continuing with this scenario, it’d be interesting to know just how many competing vendors are forecasting the same opportunity. In situations like this, a savvy salesperson may still have a trump card. Think of the prospect diligently preparing the columns in his vendor spreadsheet. Column A represents the vendor of choice - the favorite. However, this prospect actually needs the participation of several vendors to represent additional evaluation columns. This makes good business sense. Internal requirements (and in some cases, the law) demand a record of due diligence in the selection process. They certainly want to enhance their own negotiating & pricing position with the true vendor of choice.

Through the power of suggestion - happy ears, and other more nefarious means, they keep all competing vendors hopeful. Without realizing it, you've been pre-designated as a "Bronze Medalist" or, in some cases, the more exalted, "Silver Medalist," but to become the “Gold Medalist,” it may require the seller to break (or change) the rules

So salespeople beware! If it smells bad, or feels as if the fix is in, challenge the status quo. Ask for an audience with those key players in the buying organization who would be most impacted by the scope of your offering. If denied this reasonable request, walk away. Better yet, run like the wind and be vocal about it.

Chances are the seller's time and the selling organization’s resources will be squandered on this boondoggle. Why participate? Why not pursue something you have a fair chance of winning? Interestingly, a formal withdrawal or refusal to participate on the basis of fairness (or lack thereof), may compel the buyer to grant the necessary face-time.


If this hardball tactic is successful, and the audience request is granted, the seller is now afforded the opportunity to reengineer the existing vision to one that is now biased by the sellers' differentiator(s). If the seller succeeds at redefining the buyer’s perspective with a capability unique to his/her product, try the following tactic for grins and giggles. After proving to the stakeholders your offering's unique capabilities, insist (no guts, no glory) that the buyer have your competitor(s) demonstrate that same capability.  Crash and burn.

Conquering Sales Burnout

 By Michael Kenney

 Fear and Stress Today

 Coping with years of economic instability and job uncertainty has resulted in workers being stretched physiologically and economically.  Fear of job loss has generated a culture of “do more with less”. In the beginning, this was accepted because it was necessary to make it over the hump. Over time, this culture has coupled burn-out with job protectionism, resulting in unhealthy and unsustainable behavior. Last year, about 57% of working Americans had unused vacation time at the end of 2011, and most of them left an average of 11 days unused - or nearly 70 percent of their allotted time off. The main reason for not using the time was “they felt there was too much work”.

 Direct Impacts on Sales People

 Narrowing the focus of this culture switch to sales shows continued assignment of larger revenue quotas with less help and more reporting demands. Mix in the 7/24 availability created by modern technology, and you have “do more with less on steroids”.

 Strategy to Help Cope

 As sales people go faster to do more, their sales pipelines become Boa Constrictors. As the pressure increases, the tendency is to add more deals, which just adds more pressure. In this state of increasing turmoil, it could be time to refresh the skill of disqualification. Not every deal is winnable, so the earlier we disqualify out of those opportunities, the more time we can spend on “real” opportunities.   

 Key Steps in Disqualification

A good starting point for disqualification is to consider the following:

   1. Do we have access to the power to buy – the key players in this project

   2. Does the prospect understand our solution and our differentiators, if any

   3. Has the prospect determined the money they will make or save with our solution

   4. Do we understand the prospect’s buying process

   5. Does the prospect understand the implementation path and services we offer

Into Action

A sanity test of “Is this a good use of my time!” If not, grab the Boa Constrictor and cut that part out.

Sales as Combat  

These words are dedicated to those of you who sell for a living.  I don't mean for the title to put you off, I just want to explore a sales theme with you.

Have you ever reflected on the notion that your chosen profession has led you into something akin to a combat zone? For those of you who haven’t served, this may be a stretch; but take a leap of faith with me.  I’m not talking body counts here; I’m just drawing parallels between two demanding environments. So please humor me for a few paragraphs, because I believe there is a valuable business lesson that can be learned from our brothers and sisters under arms. Direct correlations can be made that the proactive, strategic and tactical planning axioms used in combat, can be applied in business with the proper training and leadership. These concepts are global – applicable anywhere on the planet.

Think of the corporate landscape over the last few decades. Many well known businesses are no longer with us. Now envision these failed brands as a metaphor that represents the killing fields of business. These fields are strewn with the remains of high profile organizations beaten into submission. World events and innovation surely were the cause of some of the carnage, but I’m guessing leadership, or lack thereof had something to do with it, too. 

Proper operational planning is too often overlooked as a critical tool in the leadership war chest. How can a new product launch succeed, or a targeted strategic account be won without it? What are the over-the-horizon initiatives? What competitive product strategies are in play?   Some executive management groups or committees do attempt to develop viable battle plans – but often the planners aren’t operating in the realm of reality, and the results are dismal because they just don’t know what they’re doing. Hire a vet! 

It seems like many selling organizations tend to be reactive instead of proactive. Collaboration is an excellent way for a leader to gather ideas – but there should be only one commanding general at the top of the organizational chart – decision by committee has been a great crippler of sales organizations. Waiting for the smoke to settle and infighting to cease ties the hands of a leadership group. Consequently they lose their agility; simple initiatives are weighed down by sheer numbers and egos. Want a recommendation?  Have the committee members serve to develop and present thoughtful strategies in the planning sessions. Then it’s time to let the person in charge make the decision whether or not to execute. Boom! It takes a leader.

Consider those who lead subordinates into harm’s way. Whether in business or military, the professionals’ mandate is to keep their troops in a constant state of operational readiness. Maintaining situational awareness in either endeavor is critical. Business vigilance should consider the competitive landscape as a free-fire zone, 24 x 7.

Executive teams as well as small unit leaders must study their craft and maintain the manpower, expertise and resources necessary to execute the mission. Guess (may not be for the squeamish) what?  In sales, the job description is to crush the competition by providing an overwhelmingly superior solution coupled with a compelling customer centric selling process. Not looking for prisoners here, take ‘em out! 

In business as in life, expect the unexpected. In spite of your planning, sometimes the smelly stuff is going to hit the fan. Preparing your troops for contingencies requires unit discipline. Those that prepare for problems fare far better than those who don’t.  With that in mind, the military grooms its leaders – those on the upward promotion track, attend graduate school. They call it, no surprise, War College.

 In war and in business, winning combatants learn to improvise, adapt and overcome* in the face of adversity. Salespeople execute better because good training prepares them not to panic or succumb to baser instincts (discount, concessions, etc.) when the unexpected occurs. When considering professional development, consider the notion of constant vigilance. In order to maintain this high alert status the military seeks out high achieving candidates for selection and admission to the service academies. Even at the small unit in-the-field level, corporals and sergeants (first line managers), are continuously cycled through combat specialty training and leadership courses. It’s no small wonder that our military functions as our nation’s most effective unofficial business school. We could learn from their examples.

Enlightened business organizations have developed internal learning universities where participants are afforded the opportunity to absorb the tactical and strategic lessons learned from sales combat.  Professional development, usually administered from an HR training element, will help ensure optimized operational efficiency. Training, lot’s of it, is needed…repetitive, over and over again (war games), until it becomes second nature.  Doctors and lawyers do it, dentists do it, and police and firemen do it.  Marines do it. Salespeople, not so much.

Management should brainstorm programs that are patterned danger-close to real tactical selling situations. It’s important that in the heat of battle, the correct words and phrases will go racing down from the brain housing group and out of the lips of your sales person.

 “It’s far better to sweat in training, than to bleed in combat…. now get on your *#&!^@%$&@*!$ faces, and give me another fifty.”

I don’t know who first screamed those words, and one would certainly modify the phraseology for the business world – but think of the concept. Training ensures proper execution, which in turn helps shorten time to revenue, while strengthening market hold and sustaining profit cycles.

We hear it all; “we’re spending too much time out of the field, too expensive, not necessary, etc.” When times are tough, training programs are the first to go, or, are ignored far too often. This is counter intuitive, lack of preparation contributes heavily to the casualty count referred to earlier in this piece.

 

A thought - look at your existing training regimens. If they’re inadequate, fix them. That’s part of being a leader.

* Phrase used by Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway (Clint Eastwood) in the movie, Heartbreak Ridge.  Silly movie, but great lines used in context.