Barbra Gago

Jim Dickie on Sales Performance Management

Yesterday we hosted a webinar with Jim Dickie of CSO Insights as part of our Expert Webinar Series, called Winning the Second Half: Maximizing Sales Effectiveness and Forecast Accuracy. Jim shared some interesting insights gleaned from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study and answered some great questions many sales leaders are being faced with.
One of Jim’s main ideas for this webinar was what he calls the “Sales Performance / Process Matrix” which basically demonstrates the importance of managing your business on metrics rather than hunches, and how much your selling process impacts the bottom line.  As you can see here, the Matrix is defined by the level of process implementation and the levels of relationship.
The metrics used to define this matrix were: percent of annual revenue plan attained, percentage of reps meeting or beating quota, sales rep turnover, and forecast accuracy (won/lost/no decision).
All companies that have implemented a “dynamic” process have reached the level of “trusted advisor” with  their customers. To read more about this marix, see Sales Relationship Process Matrix - Part II on the CSO Insights blog.
Great Q&A from the Event:
1. What roll does training play in making Sales mangers more successful?
You need to make the money available for spend on Sales managers, most companies spend more on reps, but what you need to remember is that Sales managers have an opportunity to impact the success of a team of reps rather than one individual.  Also, the study shows that many times Sales managers are Sales reps that have been promote for being the highest producers, but different skills are needed to manage and mentor a team than to sell. Just because someone is good at selling doesn’t mean they have the skills or experience to manage a team successfully.
2. Sales tends to put opportunities into the pipeline that shouldn’t be there–simply because they think that’s what their manager’s want to see. How can you get Sales to stop doing this?
The biggest hurtle here is that sales forecast accuracy is usually not tied to compensation. Generally what happens is, if Sales makes their goal, than the inaccuracy of their forecast is overlooked or forgiven. This should not be the case, there should be a consequence for putting deals that are not going to close into the pipeline. One way to keep Sales from filling the pipe with opportunities they know will not close, is to tie their compensation to the accuracy of their forecast. It’s simple really.
3. How do I convince leadership that Sales in worth investing in even more that development, or other groups within the organization?
More and more people are getting involved in scrutinizing investments, the CEO, CFO and even the board. You need to build the business case around hard numbers to back it up. For example, how much money are you losing by not doing anything? How would a change in process or education affect the bottom line? Numbers are hard to deny, or refuse.
Compelling Stats: Tweeted
  • 2010 Outcome of Forecasted Deals… 44.8% of forecasted deals are WON!!?? @JimDickie says “better odds in Vegas”
  • In 2009 only 78.5% of overall Plan Attainment was accomplished! via @csoinsights
  • 2009 Performance review: % of Reps making Quota: 51.5% yet quotas were raised!
  • As you move up in performance and process the % of reps making quota goes up! Forecasted win rate goes up too–@JimDickie
This entry was posted in Sales Leadership, Sales Management, Sales Operations and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Jim Dickie on Sales Performance Management

  1. Pingback: Key Points from The Revenue Velocity Forum | Sales Effectiveness Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>