Shifting the Performance Curve - TBA Resources

Sales Executive Council

Executive Briefing

Shifting the Performance Curve

Exporting High-Performance Sales Disciplines to the Core

Low High

© 2003 Corporate Executive Board

Sales Executive Council Sales Executive Council Staff
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006 Contributing Consultants
Telephone: 202-777-5000 Mina Bagherzadeh
Facsimile: 202-777-5100 Darcey Bennett
Stephen Herz
166 Piccadilly Timur Hicyilmaz
London, W1J 9EF Alana McMahon
United Kingdom Brett Shoemaker
Telephone: +44-(0)20-7499-8700 Research Director
Facsimile: +44-(0)20-7499-9700 Barry M. Winer
Executive Director
www.salesexecutivecouncil.com Pope Ward

Creative Solutions Group

Graphic Design Specialist
Jennifer J. Hunter

Publications Editor
Debra Berkowitz

Note to Members on Confidentiality of Findings

This document has been prepared by the Corporate Executive Board for the exclusive use of its members. It contains valuable proprietary
information belonging to the Corporate Executive Board and each member should make it available only to those employees and agents
who require such access in order to learn from the material provided herein, and who undertake not to disclose it to third parties. In
the event that you are unwilling to assume this confidentiality obligation, please return this document and all copies in your possession
promptly to the Corporate Executive Board.

© 2003 Corporate Executive Board Catalog no.: SEC11L2EVH

Executive Briefing 1

Table of Contents for This Briefing

Overview of the Executive Briefing • 2

Closing the Performance Gap • 4

Defining High Performance
I. Modeling Star-Performer Behaviors • 14

Portrait of a Star Performer • 14
A quantitative analysis of the “time signatures” and activities of top sales performers.

II. Isolating Deal Success Factors • 18
Mini Case: Third-Party Win–Loss Analysis • 20
Third-party interviews of customers (and non-customers) provide
objective basis for modifying sales approach to improve win rate.

Exporting Successful Sales Disciplines
III. Certifying Higher Order Skill Acquisition • 22

Mini Case: Job-Embedded Skills Certification • 24
Account manager accreditation to serve high-value accounts
is dependent on proven ability to execute on skills learned in training.

IV. Enforcing Winning Sales Approaches • 26
Case: Dynamic Opportunity Scorecards • 28
Scorecard of customer attributes that influence deal success enables evaluation
(and reassessment) of deal potential as the sales cycle progresses.

Diagnostic Exercise • 38

2 Shifting the Performance Curve

Overview of the

Background on the Research

Each year, the Sales Executive Council conducts research on
issues of urgent importance to our member companies. In
2003, the membership asked us how progressive organizations
are increasing the productivity of the sales force without the
investment of significant new resources. The best companies,
we found, are intensely focused on closing the gap between
average and star performers by identifying and systematizing
winning sales behaviors, then exporting them to the entire
sales force.

This executive briefing summarizes the key findings from
our research and provides “thumbnail” sketches of several
important practices profiled in the full study. In addition,
we explore one especially potent practice at greater length.
We hope that this overview contributes to your thinking on
the subject and would be delighted to interpret our findings
to help solve productivity issues currently on your plate.

Pope Ward Barry Winer
Executive Director Research Director

Executive Briefing 3

Executive Briefing

Key Findings on Shifting the Performance Curve

#1 A Widening Gap Between Core and Star—As the complexity of the sales environment
increases, the gap between the performance of average (core) sales people and star
performers is getting wider. A top-quartile rep might sell 50 percent more than an average
rep in a low-complexity environment, while a top-quartile rep in a high-complexity
(solutions) environment may sell three times as much (or more) than an average rep.

#2 A Growing Opportunity—This widening gap presents significant opportunity for sales
organizations. The increasing variance in performance suggests that there will be a larger
pay back on efforts in closing the gap—i.e., a bigger performance gap suggests that more
room now exists to improve.

#3 The Risk of Falling Behind—At the same time, the growing rift between core and star
performers heightens the urgency for closing the gap. Sales organizations that are
not capable of shifting core sales force performance will find that they lose ground
to competitors (rather than simply holding their own). Customers will gravitate to
organizations that prove capable of executing on their complex needs.

#4 Closing the Performance Gap—The best companies attack the performance gap between
core and star performers in two ways—first, by carefully defining the systems, processes,
and behaviors of their top performers that are most likely to lead to sales success across the
board, and, second, by embedding those disciplines into the jobs of core performers (i.e., not
simply conducting training).

#5 Beyond Sales Training—Specifically, progressive organizations require that sales training
participants successfully execute classroom-taught high-performance disciplines in the real
world before qualifying for more-complex (and higher-paying) sales jobs. The side benefit
to this, of course, is that the metrics for training success are exactly the same as metrics for
business success.

#6 Embedding Winning Sales Processes—The single most powerful performance lever that
sales organizations can pull is to deconstruct the disciplines that stars use to navigate
deals successfully in order to build a performance management tool for core performers.
Organizations adopting this approach have 1) significantly improved their opportunity-
identification process, 2) increased deal size, profitability, and conversion rates, and 3)
dramatically upgraded the quality of coaching discussions between sales managers and their
staffs.

4 Shifting the Performance Curve

Closing the Performance Gap

The Backdrop of Economic Uncertainty
Any discussion of sales force performance must occur within the context of the difficult economic
environment of the past three years. While the recession officially ended in 2001, the stagnation since has
taken its toll on sales organizations.

Lack of certainty about the economy has placed many sales on indefinite hold, and as a result, the CFO’s knife
has cut into the sales organization—deeply in some cases. As a result, the sales unemployment rate continues
its upward climb.

Exhausting the Easy Wins
Despite these cuts, the sales force is still on the hook to hit the numbers, and, as a result, sales executives are
intently focused on how to squeeze more performance out of the sales engine.

For most of us, the easy gains have already been won. As the illustrative sales force distribution curve on the
opposite page suggests, we have done everything in our power to lock in our top performers (at the right-hand
tail), and we have successfully cut the laggards (at the left-hand tail) who consume significant management
time for little gain.

Furthermore, we have adjusted compensation, refined territory alignment, and conducted training for the
core of the sales force in the middle of the distribution curve in an effort to notch up overall performance.

Unfortunately, many of the options open to us in a strong economy—consultant-led reengineering, large
CRM investments, etc.—are not currently available. So the question, then, is “Where do we go for the next
generation of sales force productivity improvement?”

Executive Briefing 5

Third Year of Pain

After three years of economic turbulence…

Economic Growth, United States

GDP Percentage Change Based on Real 1996 Dollars

6.0 While statistical trough Fif“tTstyahhlaeLetsoloafsoypeorecfJrfeoastbaoionscdnca…uptro”rGseiEdtioaCnmasoptnhigtaattlhsIeunpdfpoirorermctteadtion Cutting Muscle
of recession occurs in
3.0 Q2, 2001, economic Job Unemployment Rate
Percentage growth has been in Sales and Related Occupations
unstable ever since
Change United States, 2000–2003
7.0
0.0
Percent 5.0
Unemployed

s“raTelechesenFfcotoulrytrcsaeVnfrbdooylrmvleeodst,suhGcetehosaatonhlede1s0Ncsotpeamefwfrpcswae,nenByrt’e…sadnm”aNatdioeenwasl 3.0

2000
2000
2000
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003

Jan.
May
Sept.
Jan.
May
Sept.
Jan.
May
Sept.
Jan
May

–3.0 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1
Q1 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003

2000

…organizations have already availed themselves of many
of the most straightforward approaches for boosting performance

Illustration of Common Interventions for Increasing Sales Force Performance
Number of Performers

Number of 2 3
Performers The Traditional Tweaks RReetteennttioionneefffoorrttssfcoocnutsinoune
lotockfoincguisnohnighhigpherpfeorrfmoremrsers
1 • Territory/quota alignment
Low performers cut
from the sales force • Compensation plan
adjustment
Low
• Broad-based sales training

High

Source: www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm; The Cincinnati Post (20 July 2000); The Globe and Mail (16 January
1999); Greensboro News & Record (2 June 2001); Associated Press Newswires (30 May 2001);
www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm; Sales Executive Council research.

6 Shifting the Performance Curve

The Answer Is in the Numbers
The question of where to go for the next generation of performance improvements is hinted at in the
distribution graphic on the opposite page. The graphic portrays the revenue performance of 625 sales reps
across 11 sales organizations, presented by centile of performance from lowest to highest (so, the farthest left
bar is the average revenue brought in by the least successful centile of reps).

The most striking insight from the graph is that, while high performers achieve much higher sales
individually, the middle 60 percent of core performers account for the vast majority of total revenue. In other
words (looking to the box above the graphic), a sales organization that is able to achieve a 5 percent increase in
performance from core performers will more than double the revenue increase of an equivalent boost in high-
performer productivity.

Higher Return on Investments in the Core
In addition to the fact that the sheer numbers of core performers suggest that they be a primary source of
investment, it is also true that gains in core performance are likely to be easier to achieve than they will be
for already high-performing stars. While it’s certainly true that not every core performer can become a star
performer (or even improve their performance at all), it is equally true that boosting to the performance of
core performers who clearly have room to improve is (in general) likely to be a more fruitful pursuit than
inflecting the performance of those who are already executing flawlessly.

Using High Performers as Role Models
While squeezing more performance out of top talent may not yield much gain, using their sales disciplines as a
model for core performers is clearly the right answer. The fact that these individuals are performing at a higher
level is what gives us proof that it is possible for others to improve. As a result, modeling high-performer
behaviors as a blueprint for improving the core is logical.

Executive Briefing 7

Drawn to the Center

For Most Companies, the Core of the Sales Force
Represents the Best Opportunity for Boosting Performance

Sales Revenue Distribution of Sales Force by Centile1
$18 625 Sales Reps

Annual 1 DDootthheeMMaatthh22
Revenue $9
(Millions of While HiPers individually VVaalulueeooff55ppeerrcceennttppeerrffoorrmmaanncceeggaaininffrroomm::
U.S. Dollars) outperform core performers, a HHiPiPeerrss 55%%xx$$115588,,223399,1,15522== $$77,9,91111,9,95588
5-percent shift in productivity CCoorree 55%%xx$$227711,4,47788,1,16600==$$1133,,557733,9,90088
across the core yields over 70
percent more revenue than
a 5-percent shift in HiPer
productivity

$0 Core HiPers
LoPers 60% 20 %
20 %
3
2 “SSeeccrreettSSaauuccee”

As a practical WWhhilieletthheeoorrggaannizizaattioionnmmaayynnoottbbee
matter, boosting aabblelettoobboooosstttthheeppeerrffoorrmmaanncceeooff
the performance HHiPiPeerrssssigignnifiificcaannttlyly,,tthheeiriraaccttivivititieiess,,
of core performers ccoommppeetteennccieiess,,aannddbbeehhaavvioiorrsshhooldldtthhee
is relatively easier, kkeeyyttoouunnlolocckkininggppeerrffoorrmmaanncceeinintthhee
as more room to cCoorereoof fthtehesaslaelsesfoforcrece
improve exists

Hitting the Ceiling Latent Opportunity

“In many cases, high performers are approaching “We’d be a world-class organization if we only
the ceiling in their own territories; so having knew what we knew.”
them help out in territories that have not yet
been fully exploited is really driving increased Sales Director,
revenue performance.” European Leisure and Hospitality Company

Vice President, Sales and Marketing,
Boston Scientific

1 Data comes from SEC Solutions team analysis of performance data Source: Sales Executive Council and SEC Solutions research.
from 625 sales reps across 11 sales forces.

2 Assumptions: 100 rep sales force; median annual sales revenue of $4,500,000.

8 Shifting the Performance Curve

The Stresses of Migrating to Solution Sales
The urgency around investments in core productivity is heightened in a solutions sales environment. Surely,
the migration within many organizations toward “solution selling” is placing a major strain on sales forces.
The graphic on the opposite page highlights some of the sales force attributes that must change (sometimes
radically) in order to support a solutions environment. Although a few companies are trying to move entirely to
the right-hand side of this graphic, most are trying to move further to the right than they are today.

The implication of this migration for the incumbent sales force is that core performers who could have “gotten
by” in a product-oriented sales setting are finding that their weaknesses are exacerbated in a more-complex
environment. And at the same time, top talent capable of selling in this environment will thrive as the rewards
associated with bigger, more-complex sales grow.

A Widening Gap Between Core and Star Performers
In other words, the gap between what average performers and top performers are able to achieve is getting
bigger. The graphic at the bottom of the opposite page demonstrates this conclusion vividly. As the complexity
of a sales organization increases, the gap between the performance of star and core performers grows.

Viewed from a “half-full” perspective, as companies move toward more-complex solution selling, the
opportunity for upgrading the performance of core staff increases. With more room for improvement comes
more opportunity to upgrade. Closing the gap is worth a lot more than it used to be.

The flip side of this, of course, is that the urgency to improve the performance of the core increases as this gap
widens. Left unattended, the core will fall further behind until eventually it is unable to execute on the sales
model at all.

Executive Briefing 9

The Economic Answer

As companies migrate toward more solutions-oriented selling environments…

Sales Organizations’ Characteristics Across the Product–Solutions Spectrum

Product Silo-Based Product Advice and Needs-Based Customer Fully Solutions
Selling Product Bundling Integrated Selling
Sales Service Product Process Partnership

Wraparound Customization Enhancement

Nature of • Supplier reacts to • Products/services • Product/service • Supplier viewed as
Relationship purchase orders packaged intelligently customization to specific trusted advisor
for specific segments customer needs

Selling Skills • Strong knowledge • Ability to match products/ • In-depth understanding • Boardroom-level
engagement with
of product services to needs of customer business customer

portfolio

Customer • Quality product/ • Business case for product/ • Customized assessment • Provision of strategic
Expectations service at good insight regarding the
price service value (e.g., total of solution’s impact on customer’s business

cost of ownership) customer’s supply chain

and brand

…the gap in performance between average and high performers widens

Comparison of Core and HiPer Productivity in Comparison of Core and HiPer Productivity in
Low-Complexity, Transactional-Selling Environments High-Complexity, Solution-Selling Environments

Core HiPer Core HiPer
100% 159% 100% 289%

IInnhhigighhlyly
ccoommpplelexxssaaleless
eennvviriroonnmmeennttss,,
HHiPiPeerrssaarreenneeaarrlyly
tthhrreeeettimimeess
aasspprroodduuccttivivee Number of
Number of aassaavveerraaggee
People People

ppeerrffoorrmmeerrss,,aa
mmuucchhbbigigggeerr
ggaapptthhaanninin
loloww--ccoommpplelexxitityy
eennvviriroonnmmeennttss

100% 200% 300% 400% 100% 200% 300% 400%
Effectiveness Effectiveness

n = 76. Source: Sales Executive Council Member poll 2003;
Sales Executive Council research.

10 Shifting the Performance Curve

Converging on the Middle
So, regardless of whether one’s starting point is current economic pressures or the longer-term shifts
toward more-complex, solutions-oriented sales models, the conclusion is the same:

• In order to boost effectiveness, an investment in the core of the sales force is warranted.
• The right-hand tail of top performers represents the best place to look for the content

of our investment in the core.

Harder Than It Sounds
While the concept sounds straightforward, two challenges make execution especially difficult. First,
identifying emmulatable skills, traits, behaviors, and processes of high performers is difficult. Second, getting
the sales force at large to adopt those disciplines is very hard.

“High-Performer” Versus “Core” Productivity Investments:
Resolving the Conflict Between Two Theories of Sales Force Management

Many sales organizations focus their systems and practices on building a high-performance
culture that rewards and develops stars disproportionately. The idea is that stars sell much
more than core performers and, as a result, are more deserving of retention and development
focus. Salespeople desiring reward and development must first show they warrant attention
through top-level performance.
To proponents of this view, investment in the core is, at best, money poorly spent and at
worst, counterproductive to the maintenance of a high-performance culture. The Sales
Executive Council agrees with a high-performer-focused sales force management strategy. An
organization that does not first lock its stars and remove obstacles to their success is making
poor investment decisions.
But doesn’t our argument here fly in the face of a high-performer-focused strategy? We don’t
think so. Our argument for “core” investment is simply an extension of the overall high-
performance management model. By designing investments in the core based on the proven
sales disciplines of high performers, sales organizations are simply lighting the path for
core performers to achieve sales levels warranting greater reward and investment. For sales
organizations that have already locked in their top performers, star-modeled investments in
the core represent the logical next generation of productivity focus.

Executive Briefing 11

Rob from the Rich, Give to the Poor

Implications of the New Sales Force Distribution Curve

Illustration of Performance Distribution in a Complex Sales Environment

Number 11 22
of People The core represents Top performers represent
the best focus for the best source of ideas
initiatives to boost sales and practices for boosting
-force effectiveness core performance

LoPers Core HiPers
Effectiveness

33
The Challenges of Exporting

For a variety of reasons, exporting winning sales
disciplines from high performers to the core is very difficult

Defining High Performance
• Hard to isolate drivers of success
• Hard to define “exportable” activities

Exporting Winning Sales Disciplines
• Knowledge acquisition degrades quickly post training
• No accountability for idea adoption

Source: Sales Executive Council research.

12 Shifting the Performance Curve

Lessons from Progressive Companies
The good news is that a few motivated sales organizations have made substantial strides in overcoming the
substantial obstacles to boosting the performance of the core. The visual table of contents—or “flow chart”—
on the opposite page gives an indication of the nature of solutions that progressive companies have adopted to
meaningfully raise the performance level of the broad sales force.

A Note on Interpreting the Flow Chart

Sales Executive Council studies are typically preceded by a flow chart like the one on the
opposite page. At one level, the flow chart can be read as a table of contents for the study,
listing the chapters (i.e., columns) and the ordering of cases in the book. At another level,
however, the flow chart outlines the organizing premise for the study. In constructing a flow
chart, the Council thinks in terms of the actions that members should take to overcome
a given challenge. In many cases, members comment that the way we have organized the
material is as useful to them as the specific practices that we present.
Finally, the definitions that we write for each practice are intended to underscore the
exportable lesson of the practice for the membership at large. We understand that much of the
activity that members undertake to address challenges is company specific. In our work, we
take special care to identify and write about cases that have broadly applicable lessons for all
members.

Shifting the Performance Curve
On the following page, we outline the key activities that members should undertake to shift the performance
of the core toward the performance of their top talent.

At a high level, members must carefully analyze the activities, behaviors, and competencies of their top
performers in order to identify the high-performance disciplines that are transferable to the sales force
at large (i.e., not those activities that are only executable by someone with top skill levels).

Second, members must embed those disciplines into performance management systems (e.g., sales process,
hiring criteria, training, MBOs) used by the entire sales force.

Scope of This Executive Briefing
This briefing covers only highlights of the large Shifting the Performance Curve research initiative. The pages
that follow will 1) distill our quantitative work regarding the top-performer time spend, 2) outline two
important case companies, and 3) dive deeply into one practice (from McKesson) that has relevance—and the
potential to transform sales performance—for many companies. The cases covered in this briefing are gray-
shaded on the opposite page. We will cover one practice from each chapter or column.

Understanding the Differentiating Traits of Star Performers
The obvious starting place for any initiative on exporting star-performer sales disciplines is an in-depth
understanding of the way that these individuals differ from core performers.

Executive Briefing 13

Shifting the Performance Curve

Exporting High-Performance Sales Disciplines to the Core

Defining High Performance Exporting Successful Sales Disciplines

I II III IV
Modeling Isolating Certifying Enforcing
Winning
Star - Deal Higher
Performer Success Order Skill Sales
Behaviors Factors Acquisition Approaches

Portrait of #2 Third-Party #4 Complex-Sales #6 Manager
a Star Performer Win–Loss Analysis Specialist Coaching Roadmap

A quantitative Third-party interviews Select high performers Codified coaching guidelines
analysis of the “time of customers (and carve out time to assist improve quality of sales
signatures” and non-customers) provide core performers with managers’ interactions with
activities of top sales objective basis for complex sales in return for their staff, and sales managers
performers. modifying sales approach adjustment in their own in turn are held accountable
to improve win rate. sales goals. for deeper territory
#1 Role-Specific knowledge.
Competency Model #3 Winning-Proposal #5 Job-Embedded Skills
Diagnostic Tool Certification #7 Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards

Traits identified in sales Ongoing quantitative Account manager Scorecard of customer
competency model analysis of factors accreditation to serve attributes that influence deal
receive different emphasis contributing to creation high-value accounts is success enables evaluation
depending on the unique of successful proposals dependent on proven (and reassessment) of deal
demands of specific sales enables continuous ability to execute on skills potential as the sales cycle
roles. improvement of proposal learned in training. progresses.
quality.

Coda

Institutionalizing Best Practices

Sales Best-Practice Exchanges Strategic Sales-Capability Audit

In-person or electronic forum World-class benchmarks
enables widespread dissemination of desired sales performance used
of tactical best practices. to audit business unit performance
and assign accountability for closing
gaps.

14 Shifting the Performance Curve

I. Modeling Star-Performer Behaviors
Portrait of a Star Performer

Understanding the Differentiating Traits of Star Performers
The obvious starting place for any initiative on exporting star-performer sales disciplines is an in-depth
understanding of the way that stars differ from core performers. In 2003, the Sales Executive Council Solutions
Group* undertook a comparative analysis of the time spend of top versus average performers, surveying
thousands of sales reps across a dozen companies.

The graphic on the opposite page shows the results of that analysis—how top performers spend their time
differently from core performers. The activities that are darkly shaded represent areas where star performers
spend more time than do core performers. Lightly shaded activities represent areas where core performers
spend more of their time than do high performers.

Lessons from a Look at Time Spend
The lessons from this analysis are straightforward, but powerful. First, star performers spend more time in
sales-preparation activity (1), and core performers spend more time on non-sales-related administrative
activities (4). Stars appear to control their own time, not let others control their time.

Second, when interacting with the customer, top performers spend more time in late-stage relationship-
building activities (2). They are proactively building the foundation for future sales rather than conducting
routine follow-up work. It is clear that not all customer-facing time is created equal.

A Visual Aid to Reading This Document

Because this briefing condenses Defining High Performance Exporting Successful Sales Disciplines
a much larger document, we
move quickly between sections I II III IV
that would ordinarily be Modeling Isolating Certifying Enforcing
accompanied by much more Winning
transitional description. To Star Deal Higher
aid readers with this shortened Sales Success Order Skill Sales
format, whenever we reach a Behaviors Factors Acquisition Approaches
chapter transition, we have
placed a small icon of the flow Portrait of #2 Third-Party #4 Complex-Sales #6 Manager
chart in the top left corner of a Star Performer Win–Loss Analysis Specialist Coaching Roadmap
the graphic page. The practice
under discussion is gray- A quantitative Third-party interviews Select high performers Codified coaching guidelines
shaded on the icon. analysis of the of customers (and non- carve out time to assist improve quality of sales
“time signatures” customers) provides core performers with managers’ interactions with
and activities of top objective basis for complex sales in return for their staff, and sales managers
sales performers. modifying sales approach adjustment in their own in turn are held accountable
to improve win rate. sales goals. for deeper territory
#1 Role-Specific knowledge.
Competency Model #3 Winning-Proposal #5 Job-Embedded Skills
Diagnostic Tool Certification #7 Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards

Traits identified in sales Ongoing quantitative Account manager Scorecard of customer
competency model analysis of factors accreditation to serve attributes that influence deal
receive different emphasis contributing to creation high-value accounts is success enables evaluation
depending on the unique of successful proposals dependent on proven (and reassessment) of deal
demands of specific sales enables continuous ability to execute on skills potential as the sales cycle
roles. improvement of proposal learned in training. progresses.
quality.

* The Sales Executive Council Solutions Group (SECS) assists sales organizations with implementation of initiatives,
including time audit and productivity analysis. Its services and contribution structure are separate from Sales Executive
Council membership.

Defining High Performance Exporting Successful Sales Disciplines

I II III IV Executive Briefing 15
Modeling Isolating Certifying Enforcing
Winning Portrait of a Star Performer
Star Deal Higher
Sales Success Order Skill Sales Mapping Out Rep Time Allocation Reveals Which
Behaviors Factors Acquisition Approaches Activities Distinguish High Performers from the Core

Portrait of #2 Third-Party #4 Complex-Sales #6 Manager
a Star Performer Win–Loss Analysis Specialist Coaching Roadmap

A quantitative Third-party interviews Select high performers Codified coaching guidelines
analysis of the of customers (and non- carve out time to assist improve quality of sales
“time signatures” customers) provides core performers with managers’ interactions with
and activities of top objective basis for complex sales in return for their staff, and sales managers
sales performers. modifying sales approach adjustment in their own in turn are held accountable
to improve win rate. sales goals. for deeper territory
#1 Role-Specific knowledge.
Competency Model #3 Winning-Proposal #5 Job-Embedded Skills
Diagnostic Tool Certification #7 Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards

Traits identified in sales Ongoing quantitative Account manager Scorecard of customer
competency model analysis of factors accreditation to serve attributes that influence deal
receive different emphasis contributing to creation high-value accounts is success enables evaluation
depending on the unique of successful proposals dependent on proven (and reassessment) of deal
demands of specific sales enables continuous ability to execute on skills potential as the sales cycle
roles. improvement of proposal learned in training. progresses.
quality.

CCuussttoommeerr- FFaacciinngg NNoonn- -CCuussttoommeerr- FFaacciinngg

InIintiitaial lCCuussttoommeerr PPrroossppeecctt/ C/ Cuussttoommeerr/ S/ Saaleless- RReellaatteedd InIntteerrnnaal /lN/ Noonn- -SSaaleless- RReellaatteedd
CoCnotnatcactt//CCoolldd CCaallllss
LeLaeaddIIdnednetnitfiificcaattiioonn// 1 Prospect/Customer SSaalelessTTrraainininingg
ProsIpdeecnttiIfidceanttioifincation
PPrree--SSaaleless QQuaulailfiificcaattiioonn PPrree--SSaaleless PRrPeorsodeudacurtcc/htC/RAuesnstaeolaymrsceishr/// ATcrcaoiunnintgs/RLeeacrenivinabgle/ PPrroodduuccttTTrraainininingg
AcAtcitviivtiiteys MMeeeteintigngScShcehdeudluinleg AcAtcitviivtiiteys Dispute Issues Technology/Tools
CrCeraetaintigngSSaalleess PPllaannss RAenvaileywsis
SSaaleless SSaaleless Competitor/Industry OthTerraiMnienegtings
AcAtcitviivtiiteys with Customers AcAtcitviivtiiteys OOtthheerrTTrraainininingg
ComRpeetsiteoarrRchesearch
2 Sales Calls/Meetings/ PCrordeuacttinRgesCeaarlcl h/ InternIanlteMreneatl ings SaleOs/tTheearmTMraeineitnigngs
SalePsrCeaslelsn/tParetisoenntsation StArnaatleysgiys Meetings Meetings with Direct
PPoosstt--SSaaleless NegNoetigaotitoiantiaonndaFnodllow-
AcAtcitviivtiiteys CCreraetaitnigngPMreeseetnitnagt/ion SalMesanMaegeertings
FolloUwpUp PresentMataitoenriMalsaterial Marketing Meetings/
ClosiOngr/dOerrdTearkTinagking
InfIonfromrmaal lRReellaattiioonnsshhipip PPrrooppoossaall/cPrreiactiniogn/ OtLhaeurnMcheeestings
BuildingB/uNiledtinwgorking CrPeraictiinogn OOtthheerrMMeeeettininggss

PPrroodduucctt//SSeerrvvicicee CCoonnttrraaccttGGeenneerraattioionn//
ImImpplelemmeennttaattioionn MMooddifiificcaattioionn
CCusutsotmomereSreSrevrivciceeand
CLoinntinrgacUt pGIennteerrantaiol n/
andSuSpuppoprotrt MReosdoifiucracteison
JoinJotiMntaMrkaertkinegtintog End
3 AccoAucnctouSenttup InternTalraRienpinogrting SFaolersmRael pToraritniningg
to EnUdseUrser SetUp InTfoimrmeaalntdraEinxipnegn(sPeeer
GGaatthheerrininggCCuussttoommeerr PPoosstt--SSaaleless 4
AcAtcitviivtiiteys OrdeOr Trdraecrking Retopopreteinrg)
FFeeeeddbbaacckk Tracking AAddmmininisisttrraattiviveeAAccttivivititieiess Other/Ad Hoc
GatCheornintginCuuesdtomer MentRoerpinogr/tCinogaching
RelatioFnesehdipbaBckuilding Handling Customer
SeCrvuicsteIos(msBueiellrsinBgi/llAinRg) InIntteerrnnaall
CCoommmmuunnicicaattioionnss
FFFouutrtueurcreaesStSaianlelges/s ComInpteenrsnaatlion
Win–FoLroescsaAstninalgysis
RTreapcokrintigng
Overweighted by Stars OOtthheerrAAddmmininisisttrraattivivee
Overweighted by Core
AAccttivivititieiess

Learning from the Stars Avoiding the Time Sinks

1 An emphasis on pre-sales activity—call 3 While the core is spending time on internal
planning and preparation—allows HiPers to problem resolution or billing issues, HiPers are
approach opportunities better armed than the able to focus on deal development.
core.
4 HiPers have learned ways to reduce the
2 HiPers focus customer-facing time on administrative time sinks that are the curse
relationship building, not on logistics or low- of every sales rep.
value service details.

Source: Sales Executive Council and SEC Solutions research.

16 Shifting the Performance Curve

What Would You Do with an Extra Hour?
While important, the graphic on the previous page is incomplete. Just because individuals do spend their
time in a certain way does not mean that they should spend it that way. While the previous page provides an
accurate snap shot of time spend, this page shows where reps would like to be spending more or less time than
they are currently. In other words, given another hour in the day, where would reps spend it?

Trading Administration for Preparation
The vertical axis on this chart depicts time spend on various activities and the horizontal axis represents
the importance of those activities in the opinion of sales people. And the size of each bubble represents the
amount of time currently spent on it.

So, in a perfect world, the graphic would look like the “ideal” at the top left of the page. Low-importance
activities would have little time spent on them (i.e., small circles), high-importance activities would have more
time spent on them, and no one would feel as though they spent too much or too little time on any
given activity.

Of course, reality disappoints. The activities to the bottom left of this chart are those that reps feel are
unimportant and too much time is spent on them. Activities at the top right are important, but reps feel they
spend too little time on them.

Not surprisingly, reps feel they spend too much on the usual suspects—administrative activities and meetings.
At the top right, reps feel like they would like to spend more time on pre-sales activities. This finding is in line
with where top talent actually does spend its time relative to core performers.

Only Part of the Story
Before moving on, two points are worth making. First, while the patterns exhibited on these two pages are
likely to bear out across organizations, each company’s time analysis will yield different insights as to where
reps are and should be spending time. The larger lesson is that organizations should find a way to answer these
questions for their own sales forces.

Second, time allocation is only part of the story. What star performers do with that time—in terms of the
skills, behaviors, and competencies that they bring to the table—is equally worthy of study. While this
executive briefing does not address these issues, the Sales Executive Council’s full study examines them
in depth.

Executive Briefing 17

An Ounce of Preparation

Given Another Hour, Reps Would Spend It on Pre-Sales Activities

Ideal Time Map

Opinion

Importance Comparison of Rep Opinion of Activity Importance and Time Spend

Too Little Actual Time Spend Increase
Focus
Opinion of
Time Spend High (>2 Hours per Week) Important/Not Spending

Medium (1–2 Hours per Week) Enough Time

Low (<1 Hour per week) Lead Generation/ Continued 21
Relationship

Customer Building
Qualification
Prospect/Customer Identification Initial Customer Contact
Industry/Competitor Research
Sales Calls/Meeting Presentation
Gathering Customer Feedback
Informal Relationship Building/Networking Creating Sales Plans

Sales/Meetings with End Customers

Future Sales Forecasting Training

Creating Call Strategy

Prospect/Customer Research, Analysis, Review Meeting Schedule

Product/Service

Closing/Order Taking Implementation Negotiation/Follow Up

Create Meeting/Presentation Materials

Unimpor tant / Spending Contract Generation/

Too Much Time Modification

11 Account Set Up

Internal Meeting Order Tracking Proposal/Pricing Creation

Administrative Activities Customer Service
Reporting
and Support Lining Up Internal Resources

Customer Service (NCF) High

Reduce
Too Much Focus

Low
Importance

AAccttivivititieiessttaarrggeetteeddffoorrininccrreeaasseeddffooccuuss
aarreeddoommininaatteeddbbyypprree--ssaalelessaaccttivivititieiess

11 The Usual Time Sinks 2 Ripe for the Picking

• Administrative activities Pre - Sales Sales
• Internal meetings
• Reporting • Initial customer contact • Sales meetings
• Sales planning • Creating sales materials
• Meeting scheduling
• Customer qualification Post-Sales
• Call strategy
• Continued relationship building

n = 1,680. Source: Sales Executive Council and SEC Solutions research.
Note: These data are for the entire sales force, not just top performers.

18 Shifting the Performance Curve

II. Isolating Deal Success Factors

Understanding the Attributes of a Winning Deal
While one aspect of defining high performance involves understanding the skills and behaviors of star
performers, equally important is understanding attributes of winning (and losing) deals. Increasingly, as
complex sales necessitate coordination across sales teams and organizational silos, X-raying the systems and
processes that lead to deal success is as important as defining the differentiating disciplines of top performers.

Hidden Beneath Our Noses
Ironically, few companies spend significant resources learning from their past wins and losses. As the graphic
at the top of the opposite page illustrates, once a deal is lost, most organizations simply move on, trusting their
guts as to the root causes of failure or simply becoming interested in getting on to the next deal.

Of those that decide to act, most conduct an internal postmortem. Of course, the information collected is
suspect because either the rep does not want to reveal the true reason for deal loss or customers do not reveal
their motives.

Rarely, companies actually ask lost customers why they chose someone else. This is a vast improvement on the
other two options, but still is subject to customer bias. In order to avoid burning bridges for later deals, they
may not want to be honest.

The Value of a Middle Man
A small number of progressive companies are employing third parties to interview prospects regarding lost
deals in order to find out what went wrong and how they can improve their performance in the future. An
illustration of how this works is shown at the bottom of the page. The sales organization pursues deals—some
are won and some are lost. At this point, an industry-experienced third party steps in to dig deep with the
customer to find out what happened. Lessons are learned and incorporated into future sales efforts.

While the concept is straightforward, challenges exist. The customers could be turned off by the interviewer,
or the sales force could feel threatened, for example. On the next page, we briefly show how one company
ironed out the wrinkles effectively.

Defining High Performance Exporting Successful Sales Disciplines

I II III IV Executive Briefing 19
Modeling Isolating Certifying Enforcing
Winning Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Star Deal Higher
Sales Success Order Skill Sales
Behaviors Factors Acquisition Approaches

Portrait of #2 Third-Party #4 Complex-Sales #6 Manager
a Star Performer Win–Loss Analysis Specialist Coaching Roadmap

A quantitative Third-party interviews Select high performers Codified coaching guidelines
analysis of the “time of customers (and non- carve out time to assist improve quality of sales
signatures” and customers) provides core performers with managers’ interactions with
activities of top sales objective basis for complex sales in return for their staff, and sales managers
performers. modifying sales approach adjustment in their own in turn are held accountable
to improve win rate. sales goals. for deeper territory
#1 Role-Specific knowledge.
Competency Model #3 Winning-Proposal #5 Job-Embedded Skills
Diagnostic Tool Certification #7 Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards

Traits identified in sales Ongoing quantitative Account manager Scorecard of customer
competency model analysis of factors accreditation to serve attributes that influence deal
receive different emphasis contributing to creation high-value accounts is success enables evaluation
depending on the unique of successful proposals dependent on proven (and reassessment) of deal
demands of specific sales enables continuous ability to execute on skills potential as the sales cycle
roles. improvement of proposal learned in training. progresses.
quality.

Attempts to learn from failures encounter a variety of roadblocks…

Illustration of Roadblocks to Learning from Lost Deals

Option #1: You don’t know Roadblock
Do Nothing anything about my
Reps hide reasons for
Lost Deals business. losses to conceal skill
deficiencies
Proposal Customer Sales Rep
ACME Company
What It was price,
REJECTED happened? boss.

Option #2: Sorry, but you Roadblock
Internal Postmortem cost too much.
Customers conceal true
Customer decision drivers to avoid
“hard” conversations
Roadblock
Sorry, I’m Customers perceive interview
too busy. as additional sales effort,
resist participation
I’d like some
information…

What he
really wants is
another chance

Option #3: at the deal.

Supplier Interviews Customer

…prompting some organizations to hire a third party to get the real story

Illustration of Third-Party Win–Loss Analysis

1
Win Deals

Lose Deals

4 2 Third Party Profile:
UUnnddeerrttaakkee APPoPPneafeaTWraarCWrrtlnhfytfoyodioiysnririnnArdmsL–Amd–noLoPnuLaTsoafTacolsrshylWtehsytssissrsieyirsediissdns-os-f • Smart, experienced interviewers
GNeenweral • Knowledgeable about industry
SSaalelessEEfffoorrttss • Objective/non-threatening

3 Source: Symantec Corporation; Sales Executive Council research.
RReefifinnee
SSaaleless
PPrraacctticiceess

20 Shifting the Performance Curve

Mini Case: Third-Party Win–Loss Analysis

Partnership, Not Policing
The graphic at the right provides an overview of the win–loss review process that Symantec (a technology
company famous for the Norton antivirus software) has developed to uncover the drivers of sales success
and failure.

The key to the process is the involvement of multiple internal constituencies to prepare the third-party
interviewer for talking to current and lost customers. This involvement makes the third party much more
effective in divining the root causes of deal success or failure, while at the same time enfranchising the sales
force (rather than alienating it).

Examples of sales force enfranchisement throughout the process are presented here:

• In Step 11 , a cross-functional team comes together to develop the customer interview guide. This
improves the quality of interview questions as well as the likelihood that these functions will believe
the results when they hear them.

• Reps have the opportunity in Step 21 , to veto potential customer interviews if they have a good reason.
This reduces the likelihood that reps will blame third parties for botching future deals.

• In Step 13 , the third party interviews the sales rep who won or lost the deal. At one level, this focuses
the third party on issues likely to be most fruitful in the interview, and at the same time it causes the
rep to reflect more deeply (and be more forthcoming) on why the deal was actually lost.

• Finally, in Step 61 , the third party provides feedback to the rep that is purely developmental (i.e., is not
tied to performance evaluation).

Discussions with members regarding this practice has yielded some good advice regarding how to increase the
success of this process.

• Tip #1: Tell the customer at the beginning of the deal that you will contact them at the end of the deal
to discuss it, regardless of outcome. This will increase the likelihood of them agreeing to have
a conversation and signal at the outset of the deal that you care.

• Tip #2: Offer anonymity to participants. It is unlikely that they will take you up on it, but the offer
communicates that you are truly using the feedback to learn (rather than trying to recover the deal).

Executive Briefing 21

Running to Criticism

Partnership Between Third Party and Sales Force Boosts both Quality and Buy-In

Symantec’s Third-Party Win–Loss Review Process

1
Develop/Refine Interview Guide

VP, Technical
Support

SVP, Win–Loss
Sales Champion

VP, Product VP,
Development Marketing

• Cross-functional input produces targeted
questions and establishes buy-in across
the organization

6 2
Distribute Reports
Refine Interview List

VP, Technical

Support Win–Loss

Champion
SVP,

Sales Benefits of Involving Sales Rep
the Sales Force
VP, Sales Win–Loss
Marketing Rep • Rep involvement in selection of Champion
customers reduces defensiveness • Rep is given right of veto over prospective
VP, Product interviewees
Development • Rep and cross-functional • Reps must provide alternative interview
involvement in interview guide targets for vetoed interviewees
• Aggregate reports establish foundation creation encourages internal
for improvement initiatives buy-in and improves subsequent 3
information gathering Interview Sales Reps
• Rep-level reports provide actionable data
unlinked to performance evaluation • Providing reps with feedback Sales Rep
for development (but not for
5 reward or punishment) drives Third Party
performance improvement while • Sales rep interviews point to key areas
Create and Edit Reports minimizing rep resistance
to probe in prospect interviews
Reasons Behind Losses 4 • Participating in win–loss review prompts
Interview Won and Lost Prospects
Illustrative reps to reflect on completed selling efforts

Service Product
Logistics Functionality

Rep Pricing
Knowledge
Customer
Sales Support
Strategy

Needs
Matching

Presentation
Quality

• Analysis uncovers data for sales and other
functions

• Internal editing of third-party findings
ensures correct interpretation

To increase participation rates, Prospect
companies may:
Third Party
• Inform prospects of win–loss analysis • Use of third party increases participation
at the beginning of the sales process
rates and improves quality of feedback
• Offer the option of anonymous
participation Source: Symantec Corporation; Sales Executive Council research.

22 Shifting the Performance Curve

III. Certifying Higher-Order Skill Acquisition

Embedding Winning Sales Disciplines in the Core
We now move from the terrain of defining winning sales disciplines (e.g., analyzing the activities of top
performers, isolating the drivers of won and lost deals) to the terrain of embedding those disciplines into
the core sales force. There are two principle levers that sales forces can pull here—1) upgrading sales force
capabilities and 2) rolling out standardized processes that are proven to lead to sales success.

“Solutions” and the Growing Gap Between the Core and Stars
Starting with the first of these two levers, nearly all sales organizations are devoting resources to upgrading
the capabilities of the sales force. As a migration toward “solutions”-oriented activity continues, companies
feel more acutely the gap between the capabilities of the core versus the top quartile.

The Insufficiency of Traditional Training to Close the Gap
As organizations struggle to close the gap, the weaknesses of traditional training are exacerbated. On the
right-hand page, you can see the root of the problem—without reinforcement and accountability, knowledge
acquired during training decays incredibly quickly.

What is needed is a means of embedding the learning from training into the day-to-day workflow of
participants and holding them accountable for their ability to apply it.

Defining High Performance Exporting Successful Sales Disciplines

I II III IV Executive Briefing 23
Modeling Isolating Certifying Enforcing
Winning Butts in Seats and Smile Sheets
Star Deal Higher
Sales Success Order Skill Sales Training knowledge degrades notoriously quickly…
Behaviors Factors Acquisition Approaches

Portrait of #2 Third-Party #4 Complex-Sales #6 Manager
a Star Performer Win–Loss Analysis Specialist Coaching Roadmap

A quantitative Third-party interviews Select high performers Codified coaching guidelines
analysis of the “time of customers (and non- carve out time to assist improve quality of sales
signatures” and customers) provides core performers with managers’ interactions with
activities of top sales objective basis for complex sales in return for their staff, and sales managers
performers. modifying sales approach adjustment in their own in turn are held accountable
to improve win rate. sales goals. for deeper territory
#1 Role-Specific knowledge.
Competency Model #3 Winning-Proposal #5 Job-Embedded Skills
Diagnostic Tool Certification #7 Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards

Traits identified in sales Ongoing quantitative Account manager Scorecard of customer
competency model analysis of factors accreditation to serve attributes that influence deal
receive different emphasis contributing to creation high-value accounts is success enables evaluation
depending on the unique of successful proposals dependent on proven (and reassessment) of deal
demands of specific sales enables continuous ability to execute on skills potential as the sales cycle
roles. improvement of proposal learned in training. progresses.
quality.

Retention of Sales Training
Without On-the-Job Reinforcement

10 0 % Case Example:
No Accountability (or Relevance)

8877ppeerrcceennttooffttrraainininingg
lolossttwwitithhininoonneemmoonntthh

50%

13% A major airline flies sales managers from around
the world to New York for two days of training.
Managers view the trip as a job perk and, rather
than attend training, spend the days shopping

0% Day 15 Day 30
Day 1

…in large part because it is not tied to important outcomes

Usage of Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation, by Prevalence

92%

Companies 34%
Employing

Metric
(Percentage)

Level One Level Two 11% 2%
Satisfaction with Post-Training
Level Three Level Four
Program Testing Behavioral Impact on
Changes Outcomes

Hope You All Enjoyed the Show

“Most training curriculums are judged by butts in seats and smile sheets, but it doesn’t matter
how much fun reps had if it didn’t move the performance dial.”

Vice President
High-Tech Company

Source: Evaluating Sales Training Programs, OnTarget Research; Kirkpatrick, Donald, L.,
Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publications, Inc., 1998; Sales Executive Council research.

24 Shifting the Performance Curve

Mini Case: Job-Embedded Skills Certification

A Marked Improvement on Traditional Training
This page shows an overview of Electrolux’s ($15 billion Swedish household appliance manufacturer) sales
training and certification program for key account managers. The most important element of the training,
and the insight that differentiates it from other training, is that participants leave the program with a
demonstrated ability to apply what they’ve learned, not just an intellectual understanding of what they’ve been
taught.

Two Critical Stages of Training
If you look at the brackets going down the left side of the opposite page, you can see that the training is divided
into two stages. The first stage is traditional training—the imparting of skills and knowledge to account
managers for strategic accounts—but with a twist. The culmination of Stage One is the creation of an account
plan for an actual customer. Only those whose account plans are approved by peers and senior management
may proceed to Stage Two.

In Stage Two, the key account manager must execute on the plan. Participants don’t graduate for attending the
classes or even writing a good plan. They graduate only when they have executed successfully against the plan
for a year with customers and achieve the financial and strategic goals laid out in the plan.

Raising the Stakes on Training
In essence, what Electrolux has done in this practice is to raise the stakes for skill acquisition. Three major
elements of the practice accomplish this:

1) High Potential for Washout—As you can see going down the right-hand side of the right-hand page,
five opportunities exist for participants to wash out of the certification training. Aside from the stigma
associated with failure, any hope of promotion is gone for individuals unable to pass certification.

2) Executive Scrutiny—A panel of senior executives from across the firm (Sales, Marketing, HR, Finance,
and European Commercial Team Leaders) reviews and certifies both the quality of participant
account plans and their performance in executing against them. This is not a good venue to make a
poor showing.

3) Alignment with Business Objectives—Electrolux’s performance management systems are built around
maximizing profitable sales (value) within accounts. By aligning the metrics for training with this
preexisting business objective, Electrolux ensures that account managers are highly incented to apply
their training.

At the end of the day, the process helps Electrolux ensure that people serving its key accounts have the
skills necessary to execute well. And individuals who do not meet the bar are exited after a fair shot at both
acquiring and demonstrating capability.

Executive Briefing 25

Woven into the Fabric

Certification Process Intended to Prove the Ability to Apply Higher-Order Skills

Overview of Electrolux’s Account Manager Certification Program

1 Wash Out #1:

Participant Selection • Candidate not selected
• Current Key Account Managers
• Potential High-Performers

2 Wash Out #2:

Attend Skills Development Modules • Participant fails to attend
• Coursework directly supports ability 50 percent or more of modules
or complete coursework
to create world-class account plans

Stage One 3 2020030M3 yTneashco* Account Plan Creation Wash Out #3:
Certification AAccccoouunnt tPPlalann • Participants draw on multiple resources
Performance Review 1.1U. Upptiteierr • Participant does not submit
Stage One rerelaltaitoionnshshipiptoto to develop account plan complete account plan
Stage Two LLeveevel 2l 2
22. _. _________________
Stage Two 33. _. _________________
Certification
Wash Out #4:
* Pseudonym.
4 Exec Review • Account Plan CPCPaearrettrriittcfiiiicficpicapatataetiteooionofnf
not approved
Account Plan Review and
• Receive certificate
2003 Mynah* Approval Process
AAP2cP0APc0RlcoaP3OcnuloaTnVnuetEnsDct o • Peer and executive evaluation of “participation”

based on objective criteria • Implications for
employment discussed
Peer Review (i.e., potential demotion)

5 Ongoing Development
Resources
Account Plan Approved:
Receive Stage One Certification • HR Shadow • Channel Expert
• Participant receives Stage One certification; Coaches

proceeds to Stage Two • Previous Year’s
Graduates • Tools
6 1203 Account Plan Execute Against Account Plan
Mynah* • Skills, tools, and networks developed during • “Book-End”
360 - Degree
Plan Element Goal Actual Passed? Stage One are used to manage key account Reviews

Growth in Value 15% 15% Y Wash Out #5:
Creation Index
• Execution failure unrelated
Product Mix ## Y to external factors

Strategic Growth of # # Y • Implications for employment
Customer discussed

Relationship 85% 87% Y

Depth: Customer

Satisfaction

Relationship Depth: 3 Y
Number of CXO
Relationships

Vendor Quality 2 Y
Awards

Migration up value Level 3 Level 3 Y
pyramid

7 Year-End Results Reviewed
by Certification Board

Stage Two Senior • Review board assesses whether
Review Board account plan objectives are met

8

Receive Stage Two Certification
• Successful achievement of the objectives

outlined in the account plan
• Participant certified as account manager

Source: The Electrolux Group; Sales Executive Council research.

26 Shifting the Performance Curve

IV. Enforcing Winning Sales Approaches

Pursuing Every Deal with Equal Effort
While training is a necessary foundation, training alone is unlikely to direct sales force behavior toward the
right sales activities on an ongoing basis. While star performers naturally prioritize activities to focus on those
most likely to lead to successful deals, core performers on their own typically lack the knowledge and instincts
to make these judgment calls.
The graphic at the top of the right-hand page enumerates the bad decisions that core performers make about
where to focus their attention. As a result, they overpursue business that is unlikely to yield value for the firm,
and they underpursue other deals with enormous potential impact.

Establishing Guardrails for Core Performers
So the question is, “How do you get core performers to make trade-offs that look more like those that your
top performers make?” For many organizations, the answer is, “Do a lot of the thinking for them in advance
through strong customer segmentation.”
As an example, the customer value scorecard at the bottom of the right-hand page is an excellent tool for
focusing the sales force on customer microsegments that are likely to yield the greatest value. Square D
($9 billion electrical equipment manufacturer) uses this tool to model the revenue and profit potential
of prospective customers, as well as their “fit” with Square D’s differentiating capabilities. By segmenting
customers with this tool, Square D can focus the sales force on companies that it has the greatest potential
for serving well with its strategy.”*

The Problem with Segmentation Models
While incredibly useful for targeting microsegments, these models are not especially helpful in identifying
specific companies for pursuit. The most important reason for this is that, at the beginning of a deal, account
managers simply don’t know all the information they need to know in order to understand the potential value
that a customer brings to the table. Because they are static, segmentation models leave no room for filling in
missing information over time or adjusting focus as circumstances change.

Taking It a Step Further
The Council this year found an organization employing an ingenious tool for assessing deal potential
dynamically over the course of a deal and using it to guide the nature and vigor of deal pursuit.

* For more information about Square D’s segmentation tool, please see “Practice #1: Opportunity Fit
Matrix” from the Sales Executive Council study entitled Deepening Customer Relationships.

Defining High Performance Exporting Successful Sales Disciplines

I II III IV Executive Briefing 27
Modeling Isolating Certifying Enforcing
Winning
Star Deal Higher
Sales Success Order Skill Sales
Behaviors Factors Acquisition Approaches

Portrait of #2 Third-Party #4 Complex-Sales #6 Manager
a Star Performer Win–Loss Analysis Specialist Coaching Roadmap

A quantitative Third-party interviews Select high performers Codified coaching guidelines
analysis of the of customers (and non- carve out time to assist improve quality of sales
“time signatures” customers) provides core performers with managers’ interactions with
and activities of top objective basis for complex sales in return for their staff, and sales managers
sales performers. modifying sales approach adjustment in their own in turn are held accountable
to improve win rate. sales goals. for deeper territory
#1 Role-Specific knowledge.
Competency Model #3 Winning-Proposal #5 Job-Embedded Skills
Diagnostic Tool Certification #7 Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards

Traits identified in sales Ongoing quantitative Account manager Scorecard of customer Trivial Pursuits
competency model analysis of factors accreditation to serve attributes that influence deal
receive different emphasis contributing to creation high-value accounts is success enables evaluation
depending on the unique of successful proposals dependent on proven (and reassessment) of deal
demands of specific sales enables continuous ability to execute on skills potential as the sales cycle
roles. improvement of proposal learned in training. progresses.
quality.

Core Reps’ inability to discriminate between specific opportunities…

“Core” Underperformance

“Core” Incompetencies PPootteennttiaiallylyloloww- PPootteennttiaiallylyhhigighh-
vvaalulueeooppppoorrttuunnititieiess vvaalulueeooppppoorrttuunnititieiess
1. Reps don’t understand drivers aarreeppuurrssuueeddttootthhee aarreeuunnddeerrpuprusruseuded
of deal success ppooininttooffddisisttrraaccttioionn oorruunnddeerrrerseosourucrecded

2. Reps don’t ask the right questions It’s a Dog’s Life
or obtain the correct information
from customers “I wish I could stop my guys from
chasing garbage trucks.”
3. Reps are unable or unwilling to
invest in call- or deal-preparation Vice President
Conglomerate
4. Reps are reluctant to walk away
from any deal once in motion

Result: Reps are unable to distinguish
between opportunities

Indiscriminate

“The problem with my sales reps is
that they’ve never met a customer
they didn’t like.”

Vice President
Manufacturing Company

…is a problem even the best customer segmentation models are unable to solve

Square D’s Opportunity Fit Matrix
Illustrative

Major Account Name: Wenger Company1 “FIT” ASSESSMENT

Criteria1 Rating Interpretation2 Rating Rating Weight Total Rationale/Explanation
Applied 7 7 At procurement manager
1. Current Relationship at Account • Account Relationship with Single Function at One Level 1 6 0 level WWhhilielevvititaal,l,tthheemmaattrrixixisis
• Relationship with Two Functions at Two Levels 2 1 6 6 ddififfificcuultltttooaapppplylyaatttthheeddeeaall
2. Primary Market Segment for the • Relationship with > Two Functions and > Two Levels 3 0 6 Trend is slight profit lelevveell::
OEM • Thorough Relationship with Executive Contacts 4 1 6 erosion
11.. CNoemwpfaanctiessmmaayyenmoetrhgaevaes
3. Account Profitability • Not a Target OEM Segment for Square D 0 1 0 Chicago plant ssauleffiscpiernotgrinefsosr, mchaatniogninognthe
(Contribution Margin Rate at the • Target Segment for Square D OEM 3 5 pcootreenaticaclovuanlutes otof ecarcehatseaale
Account) 0 Primarily switches
• < 30 percent 0 4 Mainly driven by HVAC 2. Crobmupsatnsiceosrme ay not have
4. Multiple Location Activity • 30–40 percent 1 provider 2. sNueffiwcifeancttsinmfoarymeamtieorngeonas
• 40–50 percent 2 Currently on third
5. OEM Business Type • > 50 percent 3 supplier reduction effort sspaelecsifipcroopgrpeosrst,ucnhitainegsintog the
in four years mpoakteenitnifaolrvmaleude goof /enaochgosale
6. Potential for Lead Product Sales • One Location for All Functions 1 decisions
• Two Locations for Manufacturing 2
7. Specification Influence • Design Engineering and Manufacturing Different Locations 3
• More Than Two Manufacturing/Engineering Locations 4
8. Supplier Initiatives
(Openness to a Partnership) • Project Job = > 50 percent of OEMs Base Business 0 5
• Project Job = 30–50 percent of OEMs Business
• Repetitive Manufacturer 10

• One Main Product Line 2
• Two to Three Main Product Lines
• Four to Six Main Product Lines 1 1 5
2 5
• OEM Has 30 Percent or Less Influence in the Specification 4
• OEM Has Some Influence Over Spec. (50–70 percent) 3
• OEM Has Total Control Over the Specification
0 0
• No Programs 2
• Supplier Reduction Is a Goal
• Supplier Reduction Program with Vendor Qualifications 4
• Actively Pursuing a Supplier Partnership
0

11

2
3

Source: Square D; Schneider Electric; Sales Executive Council research.

28 Shifting the Performance Curve

Case: Dynamic Opportunity Scorecards

Selling by the Numbers
To help account managers direct sales activities toward the highest potential opportunities, McKesson
($60 billion pharmaceutical distributor) has created a scorecard that allows it to assign a “score” to each deal.
The score changes over time as more information about the customer is learned. In order to progress a deal,
the rep must obtain the right information about the customer. If not, the deal stalls and the rep must walk
away. The beauty of the scorecard is that it subjects every deal to ongoing evaluation in order to ensure that
resources are being appropriately deployed.

Keeping Score
The graphic at the right provides an overview of how McKesson uses the scorecard throughout the sales
process to make resource allocation decisions.

Box 1—Like most sales organizations, McKesson prescreens opportunities for potential fit. From
this initial screen, the account manager creates an initial score for the customer by completing the
scorecard to the extent possible in advance of engaging the customer. While at many companies, the
formal evaluation process stops here, it represents only the starting place for McKesson.

Box 2—In order for the rep to progress the deal to the next stage (and commit serious sales-
organization resources to deal pursuit), the score must continue to improve. On the other hand, in
typical sales processes, account managers can continue to pursue all deals indefinitely until they run
out of gas.

Box 3—In order to get the score to improve, account managers must obtain critical information
from the customer. McKesson determines the information it wants account managers to collect
by analyzing past deal successes. So for example, if an account manager finds that the prospective
customer is dissatisfied with its current supplier, the score can go up. If either, 1) the account manager
doesn’t know whether the customer is happy with its current supplier or 2) the customer is pleased
with the current supplier, then the customer score cannot go up based on that attribute.

Box 4—As sales progress through the pipeline, account managers can make decisions about how best
to allocate resources. Scores that are low despite the existence of a great deal of customer information
can be shot or back-burnered, while high-scoring opportunities can be pursued more vigorously.
Unlike systems intended to monitor sales force performance, this system is intended to improve
outcomes based on proven success factors, thus increasing the motivation of account managers to
enter key data.

Box 5—Finally, the scorecard provides a tool for managers to coach their staff. Given greater visibility
into the potential value of deals in the pipeline (and likelihood of fruition), managers can give better
guidance regarding deal pursuit.

Executive Briefing 29

Journey of Discovery

McKesson’s Dynamic Opportunity Scorecard Provides Continuing
Assessment of Customer Fit as Deals Progress through the Sales Process

Overview of Dynamic Opportunity Scorecard Use
Illustrative

1 2 3
The decision to pursue each deal • Opportunity score reflects the
Segmented and pre-screened (and commit resources) is conditional likelihood that a sale will be
opportunities enter pipeline on the customer opportunity score achieved
maintaining an acceptable level for that
Major Account Name: Wenger Company1 “FIT” ASSESSMENT stage in the process • Score is based on the presence
of positive deal factors that are
Criteria1 Rating Interpretation2 Rating Rating Weight Total Rationale/Explanation uncovered as the sale progresses
Applied 7 At procurement manager
1. Current Relationship at Account • Account Relationship with Single Function at One Level 1 6 7 level
• Relationship with Two Functions at Two Levels 2 1 6 0
2. Primary Market Segment for the • Relationship with > Two Functions and > Two Levels 3 0 6 6 Trend is slight profit
OEM • Thorough Relationship with Executive Contacts 4 1 erosion
6 Chicago plant
3. Account Profitability • Not a Target OEM Segment for Square D 0 1
(Contribution Margin Rate at the • Target Segment for Square D OEM 3 0 Primarily switches
Account) 5 Mainly driven by HVAC
• < 30 percent 0 0 provider
4. Multiple Location Activity • 30–40 percent 1 4 Currently on third
• 40–50 percent 2 8 supplier reduction effort
• > 50 percent 3 8 in four years
3 Historical trend
• One Location for All Functions 1
• Two Locations for Manufacturing 2 2 Tends to offer
• Design Engineering and Manufacturing Different Locations 3 4 customized configurations
• More Than Two Manufacturing/Engineering Locations 4
10 percent to Europe
5. OEM Business Type • Project Job = > 50 percent of OEMs Base Business 0 0 5 I II III IV V Example
6. Potential for Lead Product Sales • Project Job = 30–50 percent of OEMs Business 1 1 5
7. Specification Influence • Repetitive Manufacturer 2 0 5 Prospect A ✗Prospect C Prospect E ✗Prospect G Customer’s CEO = 10 Points
8. Supplier Initiatives 1 4 COP score: 46 COP score: 82 supports deal
• One Main Product Line 1 4 Factors Cap score: 24 Factors COP score: 44
(Openness to a Partnership) • Two to Three Main Product Lines 2 2 4 Unknown: 8 Factors Unknown: 1 Factors
9. Support Requirements Versus • Four to Six Main Product Lines 3 2 3 Unknown: 4 Unknown: 2
1 2 Prospect B Focus Efforts
Square D Resources/Capabilities • OEM Has 30 Percent or Less Influence in the Specification 0 2 COP score: 28 Prospect D Prospect H
10. Decision Making/Purchasing • OEM Has Some Influence Over Spec. (50–70 percent) 2 1 Factors COP score: 74 ✗Prospect F COP score: 88
• OEM Has Total Control Over the Specification 4 2 Unknown: 12 Factors Factors
11. Product Development Needs Unknown: 4 COP score: 34 Unknown: 1
• No Programs 0 Factors
12. International Scope • Supplier Reduction Is a Goal 1 Focus Efforts Unknown: 0 Focus Efforts
• Supplier Reduction Program with Vendor Qualifications 2
13. Accounts Organization Stability • Actively Pursuing a Supplier Partnership 3

• Customer Expects Square D to Engineer Solution and Options 0
• Expects Ongoing Technical Support and Problem Resolution 1
• Customer Expects Limited Technical Support 2
• Customer Expects Little or No Technical Support 3

• Decentralized Decision Making and Purchasing 0
• Centralized Technical or Purchasing Decisions 2
• Centralized Decision Making, Purchasing, and Control 3

• Requires New Products to Be Developed 1
• Multiple Product Modifications Needed 2
• Requires One Product Modification 3
• Requires No New Product Development 4

• More Than Two Manufacturing/Engineering Locations 0
• OEM Sells < 50 Percent Outside the United States 1
• OEM Does Not Sell Outside the United States 2

• Ownership Change Expected 1
• No Change in Ownership/Organization Changed Expected 2
• No Change in Ownership/No Organization Changes 3

Anticipated

Total Possible Potential: 191 Total Fit Score = 53 Customer’s CEO does

not support deal = 0 Points

Stage 1 Stage 1I Stage 1II Stage IV Stage V
Closing
Opportunity Opportunity Strategy Proposal
Qualification Analysis Development Generation

Ideal COP* Ideal COP* Ideal COP* Ideal COP*
Score: 24 Score: 44 Score: 54 Score: 64

4 5
• Increasing score indicates that sales Opportunity scores serve as a tool
rep should continue to pursue the for managers to direct field reps
deal effectively and steward resources
• Flat score casts doubt on optimally
viability of the sale and triggers
discussion of whether to walk away ✗Deal Deal
AB
Stage 2
Score: 60 and rising
Reaction: Onward and upward

Stage 2
Score: 30 and holding

Sales Rep Reaction: Heading South

* COP = Client Opportunity Parameter. Source: McKesson Corporation; Sales Executive Council research.

30 Shifting the Performance Curve

Twenty Questions
Of course, the ability of this process to function with predictably successful outcomes relies upon the integrity
of the scorecard itself, illustrated on the opposite page. The scorecard includes 20 customer attributes that
McKesson has found to be linked to the increased likelihood of sales success.

Attributes represent a wide range of information about the customer, including financial attractiveness (#1, #5),
nature of buying process (#15, #16), and degree of alignment with McKesson’s strategy and capabilities (#10,
#14). Each attribute is weighted according to its estimated effect on sales outcomes. (The weightings presented
here are illustrative).

Building Back from the Experience of High Performers
To determine the attributes included on the scorecard, McKesson facilitated discussions among its highest-
performing sales veterans to uncover customer attributes that commonly present in successful deals. Sales
leaders then vetted the list to settle on the final set of attributes.

McKesson understands that, as market conditions, corporate strategy, and its knowledge of sales drivers
improve, the list of attributes (and associated weightings) is likely to evolve.

Learning As You Go
In contrast to typical segmentation exercises, McKesson’s scorecard does not assume that relevant customer
information is known at the outset. In fact, the assumption is that critical information is missing. Instead, the
scorecard is intended as a prompt for sales people to collect the most important customer information in order
to progress the process.

So, as the account manager learns more information about the customer, the status of various attributes will
move from “unknown” to either “yes” or “no.” Points are given only to “yes” attributes—i.e., attributes that are
true for the customer in question. And the sales can only move forward to bid stage when the number of points
is sufficiently high. So, if lots of attributes are still “unknown,” then the account manager must work to find out
whether the answer is “yes” or “no.” If many of the attributes are rated “no,” then the deal is shelved
or abandoned altogether.

Executive Briefing 31

Policing Opportunities

Opportunity Scoring Guides
Decisions Throughout the Sales Process

McKesson’s Dynamic Opportunity Scorecard
Illustrative

Customer Alignment Assessment

Customer Information Opportunity-Related Information

11 Customer Opportunity Parameters 22
Scorecard • Sales reps grade
parameters,are Business Issues Weight Yes No Unknown Score each attribute:
derived and “yes,” “no,” or
weighted based 1. Drug spending greater than $15 M annually 2 ❑ ❑❑ 2 “unknown”
on past sales ❑ ❑❑ 0
successes and 2. Existing contract within one year of expiration 4 ❑ ❑❑ 0 • Unknown
modeling of top ❑ ❑❑ 2 parameters
performers, 3. Relationship with existing supplier less than five years old 2 ❑ ❑❑ 2 represent crucial
❑ ❑❑ 0 information not yet
4. Not a heavy user of competitive products 2 ❑ ❑❑ 0 obtained
❑ ❑❑ 0
5. Financially viable organization 2 • While in early
stages many
6. Existing McKesson relationship 6 parameters may
be unknown, as
7. Existing relationship with group purchasing organization 4 the sale progresses
few, if any, will
8. Located near a distribution center 8 remain unknown

Customer Characteristics

9. Experienced change initiative within past six months 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
0
10. Top-level pressure for cost savings 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
0
11. Employs a partnership mentality 8 ❑ ❑❑ 0
0
12. Positive relationship with Health Systems 8 ❑ ❑❑ 10
6
13. Customer senior executive support 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
0
14. Technologically progressive history 2 ❑ ❑❑ 0
4
15. Formal buying process in place 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ 26
16. Established decision deadline 6 ❑ ❑❑
17. Possess clear vision of goals 2 ❑ ❑❑

18. Dissatisfied with current supplier 6 ❑ ❑❑

19. Understanding of McKesson’s value proposition 2 ❑ ❑❑

20. Defined cost saving goals 4 ❑ ❑❑
100 6 3 11
Sales Process
I II III IV V Number of Positive Parameters: 6
Number of Negative Parameters: 3
Number of Parameters Unknown: 11

Sales Process Step: 2

COP Score:
26% Alignment to Ideal

44 33
Assessing the score in relation to the current The score equals the total value of positive,

stage in the sales process informs intelligent present attributes; both negative and

decision making around resource allocation, unknown parameters score zero

including the decision to walk away

Source: CounterIntuitive Selling, Ltd.; McKesson Corporation; Sales Executive Council research.

32 Shifting the Performance Curve

Using the Scorecard to Deploy Resources
The scorecard becomes especially useful when viewed within the context of a portfolio of customer
opportunities. Understanding the deal score relative to other potential deals in the pipelines allows
for intelligent decision making regarding use of scarce sales resources.

So, in the case example on the opposite page, four potential deals are illustrated. In each case, the scorecard
is helping account managers to assess deals on an ongoing basis as conditions and knowledge changes,
something that only stars do naturally.

Prospect A has a rather low score (22), but it is still early and 11 factors are still unknown. The advice
here is to learn more.
Prospect B has a high score and only one remaining factor to be discovered. This deal should
obviously move to bid stage.
Prospect C has a relatively low score and little remains to be discovered about this customer. While
in the past account managers might have pursued this deal endlessly, the scorecard offers a clear
message to cut and run.
Prospect D has a low score and several factors remain unknown. The account manager has moved
prematurely to proposal generation. The account manager needs to back up in the sales process and
find out more information.

Executive Briefing 33

Making Better Decisions

The Dynamic Opportunity Scorecard Boosts Likelihood
of Deal Success by Focusing Salespeople on the Best Prospects

Illustration of the Dynamic Opportunity Scorecard in Use

Prospect A Prospect B

Stage of Sales Process: 1 Stage of Sales Process: 3
COP Score: 22 COP Score: 82
Factors For: 5 Factors For: 16

Existing McKesson relationship Customer executive support
Established deadline Dissatisfied with current supplier
Factors Against: 4 Established deadline
Vague cost-saving goals
No relationship with group Factors Against: 3
purchasing organization Eight-year relationship with supplier
Distance from distribution center
Factors Unknown: 11
Factors Unknown: 1
• Low score
• Early in sales process • High score
• Multiple factors unknown • Middle of sales process

Learn More Full Steam Ahead

Sales I. Opportunity II. Opportunity III. Strategy IV. Proposal V. Closing
Process Qualification Analysis Execution Generation

Prospect C Prospect D

Stage of Sales Process: 2 Stage of Sales Process: 4
COP Score: 24 COP Score: 42
Factors For: 5 Factors For: 8

Existing McKesson relationship Defined cost-saving goal
Recent change initiative Large drug spending
Factors Against: 13 Technologically progressive
Satisfied with current supplier Factors Against: 2
Far from distribution center Unclear future vision of goals
Informal buying process Vague deadline for decision

Factors Unknown: 2 Factors Unknown: 10

• Low score • Low score
• Few factors unknown • Late in sales process
• Multiple factors unknown

Walk Away Return to Stage II

Source: McKesson Corporation; Sales Executive Council research.

34 Shifting the Performance Curve

Increasing Visibility and Focus
At McKesson, the opportunity scorecard now serves as the primary tool for focusing discussion between
managers and sales staff. With a quick scan of the scorecards for various opportunities in an account
manager’s pipeline, a manager can gain immediate visibility into the likelihood of converting various deals
and make judgments about which may warrant additional resources.

The example on the right illustrates how a manager’s increased visibility into the progress of a sale prompts
a coaching opportunity. In this case, the account manager is pushing a deal to the closing stages prematurely.
The manager instructs the salesperson to go back for more information. The account manager now has very
specific questions to answer in order to progress the deal, rather than simply vague directives to learn more
or “get deeper.”

Executive Briefing 35

Surgical Intervention

Scorecard Provides Content and Context
for Manager Intervention into Selling Efforts

Illustration of Scorecard’s Impact on Manager–Rep Discussions

A tough I want to progress this Prospect D Are you sure it’s ready
conversation sale to stage four and for that?
with the sales have the RFP Center put COP Score: 36
manager… together a proposal. Stage of Sales Process: 4 Really? Don’t you think you
Number of Factors Unknown: should go back to Stage 2 and find
Yes, the CEO loves us, out more about their financials, the
we’re totally in. 10 other decision makers, and their

Yes, I guess so. Sales Rep Sales Manager current supplier?

11 22
Rep is eager to advance Scorecard gives manager
the opportunity to closing greater visibility into sales
stages of sales process effort, allows manager to
before uncovering sufficient direct rep action, and provides
information to inform the clear coaching opportunities
sales strategy

Rep determines level Hospital D Rep ascertains
of customer senior satisfaction level with
executive support Executive Suite Pharmacy current supplier Prospect D

…leads rep COP Score: 72
back to the Stage of Sales Process: 4
customer Number of Factors Unknown:
for more
information 2

Sales Rep

Purchasing Rep inquires
as to purchase
decision timeline

33 44
Guided by scorecard parameters Information uncovered increases
COP score; materially different
and manager direction, sales rep discussion ensues; opportunity
progresses to stage four; formal
goes back to customer and gathers proposal produced

additional information

Source: McKesson Corporation; Sales Executive Council research.

36 Shifting the Performance Curve

Better Targeting Yields Better Outcomes
The results for McKesson have been significant. The top of the right-hand page illustrates one real example
of where the scorecard significantly boosted revenue generation by focusing sales force effort.

Invited to compete for the business of individual member hospitals of a major hospital group, McKesson uses
the scorecard to distinguish quickly the best opportunities to pursue from among the large number
of potential prospects (too many for McKesson to pursue individually in the limited time frame allowed by
the parent hospital group). McKesson devotes its resources to the hospitals scoring best on the opportunity
scorecard and, as a result, generates $1 billion in sales—$600 million of it attributable to the scorecard.

Walking Away
The case hints at a new discipline that McKesson has developed as a result of using the scorecard. The company
now walks away from bad deals far more than in the past, freeing up account manager time to pursue higher
potential opportunities. This formula has worked well, leading to impressive revenue growth across the past
three years.

Benefits of the Case
Pulling up for a moment, it is worth repeating the major teaching points from the case.

Teaching Point #1: McKesson has found a way to systematize top-performer behaviors—the intensive
preparation that they do on each prospect—and drive it deeply into the core of the sales organization.
Teaching Point #2: McKesson has overcome one of the frustrations of many sales organizations—poor
management coaching of the sales force. The scorecard tools provides both a platform and content for
discussion that is missing in most sales environments.
Teaching Point #3: McKesson has substantially improved its deployment of scarce sales resources. By
matching resources to deal score, the company ensures that it is avoiding the trap of pursuing every
deal equally.
The practice has yielded additional benefits as well, including improved forecasting accuracy and better
communications with customers. McKesson can now communicate what it is looking for in a relationship to
customers and can be very clear about what is missing when it walks away. Sometimes, this may even result in
a change in the relationship that could actually raise the opportunity score.

Executive Briefing 37

Playing the Odds

Dynamic Opportunity Scorecard allows McKesson to capitalize on new opportunities…

A Representative Scorecard Win

Situation: Open Enrollment at Action: Focus Efforts Result: Capture Largest
Bertram* Hospital Group on Best Prospects Share of Wallet
Revenue from
Invited to participate in Bertram I II III IV V
Hospital Group’s three-month Bertram Hospital Group
open enrollment, McKesson Prospect A ✗Prospect C Prospect E ✗Prospect G
leverages the Dynamic COP score: 46 COP score: 82 $1.0 B
Opportunity Scorecard to focus Factors COP score: 24 Factors COP score: 44
sales efforts on high-potential Unknown: 8 Factors Unknown: 1 Factors Revenue
participating hospitals Unknown: 4 Unknown: 2 $600 M Attributed
Prospect B Focus Efforts
COP score: 28 Prospect D Prospect H to Scorecard
Factors COP score: 74 ✗Prospect F COP score: 88 $0
Unknown: 12 Factors Factors Revenue Before Revenue After
Unknown: 4 COP score: 34 Unknown: 1 Enrollment Enrollment
Factors
Focus Efforts Unknown: 0 Focus Efforts

…while walking away from others…

Number of Opportunities McKesson Has Declined to Pursue
Retail and Institutional Sales

109

80

Q4 2002 Q1 2003

…contributing to strong financial performance

Growth in U.S. Pharmaceutical Distribution Revenue (Indexed)
Retail and Institutional Sales
1.46
1.24

1.00

2001 2002 2003
Source: McKesson Corporation; Sales Executive Council research.
* Pseudonym.

38 Shifting the Performance Curve

Diagnostic Exercise

Shifting the Performance Curve:

Defining High Performance

1. We don’t understand what differentiates star performers from the rest of the sales force. Observation-Based Selling
Template
Standard Progressive World - Class

Star-performer competencies Externally validated competency Star-performer profiles are Role-Specific Competency
identified by senior executives model based on direct based on multiple internal Model
based on their own experience conversations with HiPers and and external inputs, including
and observation core performers inorder to customer feedback and Portrait of a Star Performer
accentuate differences quantitative analysis of rep time-
spend; HiPer differentiating
characteristics
are clearly delineated by role

2. We’re not good at learning from deal successes and failures. Third-Party Win–Loss
Analysis
Standard Progressive World - Class
Winning - Proposal
Informal, typically reactive Systematic, internal review of Objective third party performs Diagnostic Tool
reviews of past selling efforts wins and losses incorporates ongoing analysis of win–loss
based on rep input or in response customer feedback; lessons are drivers by rigorously evaluating Observation-Based Selling
to unsolicited customer feedback compiled, disseminated, and multiple sources of objective Template
sporadically applied data; closed-loop process drives
individual and organizational
improvement

3. Our salespeople don’t spend enough time with customers. Portrait of a Star Performer

Standard Progressive World - Class Manager Coaching Roadmap

Company instructs reps to Company methodically Company incorporates validated Dynamic Opportunity
maximize customer face time reduces non-customer-facing, model of rep time-spend into Scorecards
administrative activities for reps standardized sales methodology
and objectively differentiates
between high-value and low-
value customer-facing time (e.g.,
customer account plan meetings
versus complaint handling)

Portrait of a Star Performer Complex-Sales Specialist
Analysis of high-performer time-spend reveals High performers partner with core
value-driving activities performers on complex deals

Observation-Based Selling Template Job-Embedded Skills Certification
Field observation of star performers yields Certification hinges on demonstrated
insight into transferable behaviors application of higher-order selling skills

Role-Specific Competency Model Manager Coaching Roadmap
Competency model modifies desired behaviors Managers’ accountabilities linked to their
for specific sales roles adoption of rep coaching protocol

Third-Party Win–Loss Analysis Dynamic Opportunity Scorecards
Independently conducted customer interviews Ongoing scoring of customer opportunities
unearth true win–loss drivers guides decisions around deal pursuit

Winning-Proposal Diagnostic Tool Strategic Sales-Capability Audit
Analysis of past proposal success improves Audit assesses organizational capabilities and
future proposal-creation efforts assigns accountability for closing gaps

Executive Briefing 39

Member Take-Home Tool Kit

Exporting High Performance

4. Our reps lack the capabilities to succeed in complex selling environments. Job-Embedded Skills
Certification
Standard Progressive World - Class
Role-Specific Competency
Company hires reps with Training augmented with Advancement contingent upon Mode
complex selling skills due to structured on-the-job certification in higher-order
limited assignments that improve reps’ selling skills; certification Dynamic Opportunity
in-house training infrastructure; understanding of customer requires track record of Scorecards
periodic training aimed at basic business processes; managers/ demonstrated
selling skills (e.g., matching executives are involved in in-field skill application Job-Embedded Skills
product and service capabilities teaching reps to manage Certification
to customer need) multilevel relationships
Role-Specific Competency
5. We don’t know if training is improving rep performance. Model

Standard Progressive World - Class Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards
Training addresses generic sales Capability-gap analysis used to Development objectives
issues and is evaluated based determine required attendance; determined by customer
on participation rates and rep training evaluation based on requirements; evaluations
satisfaction; participation is testing and field observations; measure business impact and
voluntary metrics focus on retention of hold reps accountable for
training content over time achievement

6. Our sales managers “do” (or do nothing) instead of coach. Manager Coaching
Roadmap
Standard Progressive World - Class Dynamic Opportunity
Scorecards
Managers spend Managers receive sales-specific Sales processes embed coaching Complex-Sales Specialist
disproportionate amount training; promotion based and management into managers’
of time closing deals or on partly on aptitude and desire to own accountabilities Dynamic Opportunity
administration; managers manage people; organization Scorecards
receive generic companywide provides necessary coaching Third-Party Win–Loss
“Management 101” training tools, training, and support; Analysis
star performers can elect Manager Coaching
nonmanagement career paths Roadmap

7. Our reps don’t always pursue the best opportunities. Strategic Sales-Capability
Audit
Standard Progressive World - Class Observation-Based Selling
Template
Reps rely on a combination of Reps use “beyond-volume” Reps evaluate opportunities Winning - Proposal
financials-driven segmentation segmentation metrics to focus against a set of proven success Diagnostic Tool
and “instinct” to determine on opportunities with best drivers as the sale progresses;
focus; no objective means of relationship fit managers and reps use progress
deciding when to walk away against success drivers to make
principled decisions on whether
to walk away

8. We can’t get uptake on best practice programs.

Standard Progressive World - Class

Best practices are shared either Periodic best-practice Systematic surfacing of strategic
through happenstance or sharing events surface tactical best practices; dedicated
through informal networks innovations; identified practices resource screens potential
are centrally housed and practices for exportability and
adoption is optional relevance to overall strategy;
sales force is accountable for
adoption

40 Shifting the Performance Curve

Sales Executive Council

ORDER FORM

The study entitled Shifting the Performance Curve: Exporting High-Performance Sales Disciplines to the Core
is intended for broad dissemination among senior executives and management within your organization.
Members are welcome to unlimited copies without charge.

Online ordering is available at www.salesexecutivecouncil.com. Alternatively, you can call the Publications
Department at 202-777-5921, e-mail your order to [email protected], or fax in the order form on this
page. Additionally, members interested in reviewing any of the Board’s past strategic research are encouraged to
request a listing of completed work.

Study Requested Quantity
Shifting the Performance Curve
Exporting High-Perfromance Sales Disciplines to the Core You may order an unlimited
number of copies without
CATALOG NO.: SEC11L2EVH additional charge.

____________

Name & Title _______________________________________
Institution _______________________________________
Address _______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Telephone _______________________________________

COPY AND FAX TO: Sales Executive Council
Sales Executive Council 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
202-777-5270
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: 202-777-5000
w w w. s a l e se xe c u t i ve co u n c i l .co m