sales management association research report … · also of the specific selling activities...

Benchmarking Sales Readiness and Enablement

March 2020

© 2020 Sales Management Association, Inc. All rights reserved.

This research made possible in part through the underwriting support of MindTickle.

SALES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RESEARCH REPORT


2

Author

Robert J. KellyChairman

Sales Management Association

First published March 2020.

Sales Management Association

1440 Dutch Valley Place NE

Suite 990

Atlanta, Georgia 30324 USA

+1 (404) 963-7992

www.salesmanagement.org

Copyright © 2020 The Sales Management Association, Inc.

All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without

prior written permission of the publishers.

Research Report: Benchmarking Sales Readiness and Enablement

This document has been prepared by The Sales Management

Association for use by its members. The Sales Management Association

has worked to ensure the accuracy of the information it provides to its

members. This report relies upon data obtained from many sources,

however, and The Sales Management Association is not engaged in

rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Its reports

should not be construed as professional advice on any particular set of

facts or circumstances. Members requiring such services are advised to

consult an appropriate professional. Neither The Sales Management

Association nor its programs are responsible for any claims or losses

that may arise from a) any errors or omissions in their reports, whether

caused by The Sales Management Association or its sources, or b)

reliance upon any recommendation made by The Sales Management

Association.

Descriptions or viewpoints contained herein regarding organizations

profiled in this material do not necessarily reflect the policies or

viewpoints of those organizations.

About The Sales Management Association

The Sales Management Association is a global, cross-industry

professional organization for sales operations, sales effectiveness, and

sales leadership professions. We provide our members with tools,

networking, research, training, and professional development.

Our research initiatives address topics relevant to practitioners across a

broad spectrum of sales effectiveness issues. Our research is available

to members on our site at http://salesmanagement.org.

In addition to research we publish best practice tools, archived

webcasts, and expert content. Visit our website at

http://salesmanagement.org to learn more.


3

INTRODUCTION 4

WHERE SALESPERSON DEVELOPMENT GOES WRONG. A CLOSE LOOK AT SHORTFALLS IN SALES FORCE EFFECTIVENESS, TRAINING, AND RATES OF IMPROVEMENT

5

TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES 9

FOUNDATIONAL FLAWS THAT UNDERLIE SALES DEVELOPMENT SHORTFALLS

12

CONTENTS

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS23

INTRODUCTION

4

Sales organizations are reengineering sales learning and development, and streamlining

how they provision content and collateral to the sales force. Many now embrace the terms

“sales enablement” and “sales readiness” to describe these new approaches. These terms

don’t have fixed definitions, and are used variously by a growing set of vendors and

commercial offerings targeting sales organizations.

For our purposes, we consider sales readiness and enablement to involve the following

activities and practices: (1) more efficiently distributing sales content and collateral within

the sales organization, (2) delivering training, guidance, and content in situ - that is, in the

course of a salesperson’s day to day activities when its application is most relevant and

needed, (3) using purpose built technology platforms to accomplish the above, and (4)

using platform analytics to optimize content, training, and salesperson development.

These new approaches promise better outcomes and more flexible and adaptive

capabilities, and can not come too soon for sales organizations who have long recognized

the limitations of traditional classroom training approaches. In fact, they seem to be

arriving at the sales organization’s greatest hour of need. Reacting to shifts in demand

and buyer preferences, sales organizations are restructuring routes to market and selling

roles, retooling technology investments, and recasting the value salespeople provide to

customers. Traditional training approaches have struggled to keep pace in this operating

context of almost continuous change, and without better performing approaches to

salesperson development, sales organizations will be hobbled in their efforts to adapt to,

let alone to anticipate disruptive change (Cf. our research Managing Sales Force

Change).

Sales enablement and sales readiness initiatives point to better models for salesperson

development, but also to larger concerns of existential importance to sales leadership. Our

research shows clear links between sales organization effectiveness and firm

effectiveness in salesperson development, and firms with ineffectual salesperson

development pay a significant productivity penalty.

It should be of no small concern to those firms with underperforming training functions.

This report reveals a widening performance gap separating laggard firms from those

getting sales training and development right. Our research reveals characteristics of the

most successful sales development programs - they reward speed, adaptiveness, and

collaborative linkages between salespeople and management - capabilities that will

continue to strain traditional training, but which sales enablement and sales readiness

approaches are purpose built to deliver.


https://salesmanagement.org/resource/managing-sales-org-change/

5

Many sales forces aren’t effective, but even fewer are improving. Fewer still have

effective approaches to developing salespeople. Our research finds just 56% of firms

describe their sales forces as effective overall, and just 42% improved in effectiveness

over the prior 12 months. Among all sales organizations, just 18% have effective

salesperson development programs. Fig. 1.1.

WHERE SALESPERSON DEVELOPMENT GOES WRONG. A CLOSE LOOK AT SHORTFALLS IN SALES FORCE EFFECTIVENESS, TRAINING, AND RATES OF IMPROVEMENT

These results reflect concerns that extend beyond current effectiveness. Low rates of

sales force improvement and ineffectual salesperson development capabilities suggest

poor prospects for future improvement for low performing firms, and the fragile nature of

currently effective firms’ advantages in the face of future changes in market conditions.

Firms offer tepid assessments of their sales organizations’ overall effectiveness, and

also of the specific selling activities salespeople engage in. Half or fewer of firms’

salespeople effectively connect with important prospects, meaningfully engage buyers,

prioritize sales opportunities, or overcome difficult selling situations or buyers.

Salespeople are more effective in demonstrating value to buyers (as are 59% of firms),

and in retaining business (64% of firms) Fig. 1.2.


6

B E N C H M A R K I N G S A L E S R E A D I N E S S A N D E N A B L E M E N T

Fewer firms are improving than are currently effective in these focus activities. Fig. 1.3.

A single exception: 53% of firms improved their effectiveness in overcoming difficult

situations and buyers, while just 39% are currently effective doing so. Fig. 1.4.


Sales organizations’ training efforts underperform throughout the salesperson

talent development lifecycle, beginning with onboarding. Just 44% of firms

consider their structured onboarding programs successful, for example

(though onboarding was deemed more effective than other post-onboarding

training activities).

Just 33% of firms conduct one-on-one salesperson coaching effectively; 32%

utilize digital content effectively; 26% utilize micro learning effectively; 23%

utilize outside content effectively; and just 9% use social sharing, gamification,

or video enabled coaching effectively. These low rates of effectiveness stand

in contrast to the rated importance of these capabilities, six of which are

considered important by a majority of firms (the exceptions are outside

content, gamification, social sharing, and video coaching). Fig. 1.5.

7


S H O R T F A L L S I N S A L E S F O R C E E F F E C T I V E N E S S , T R A I N I N G , A N D R A T E S O F I M P R O V E M E N T

8


Sales organizations consider important a diverse set of topics when developing

salespeople. Considered most important is knowledge of core products and services

(considered important by 97% of firms). Other training topics researched are

considered just slightly less important; they are new products and services (considered

important by 87% of firms), selling skills (85%), company information and processes

(83%), and technology and tools (81%).

Most firms are effective in only the first two topics, training on core products and

services (62% of firms are effective), and newer products and services (55%).

Effectiveness lags considerably in the other three topic areas: selling skills (38% of

firms train effectively), company information and processes (45%), and technology and

tools (42%). Fig. 1.6.


9

Our research examined multiple characteristics of salesperson learning and

development initiatives and the company level. These characteristics include the

amount of time spent in training activities, the training topics emphasized, the degree to

which training is customized to individual salespeople, the manner in which learning

objectives are determined, the modalities of training delivery, and the frequency of

training delivery.

TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES

Time Spent Learning

Salespeople spend 6.8

days per year in

classroom training, on

average (the median

number of days is 5);

25% of firms provide 2

or fewer days of

classroom training to

salespeople) 2.1


On average, salespeople spend 26% of their time in learning and development activities.

This includes internally led training (8.6% of total salesperson time), manager-led coaching

(7.0%), content consumption (4.4%), peer based learning (2.9%), online learning (2.6%),

and video based practice (0.5%). Fig. 2.2.

10


Manager Observation

On average, salespeople

are directly observed 3.2

hours per week by

management. But time

spent by managers directly

observing salespeople

varies widely by firm. Half of

firms observe salespeople

one hour or less per week.

Fig. 2.3.


11

T R A I N I N G A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R A C T I C E S

Determining Developmental Objectives

In most firms (54%), salesperson

developmental objectives are determined

predominantly by management. In 17% of

firms, salespeople themselves determine

learning objectives, and in the rest (29% of

firms), developmental objectives are

determined collaboratively by both

salespeople and management. Fig. 2.4.

Training Customization

Sales training is customized to individual

salespeople only in one quarter of sales

organizations. Six percent customize all or a

majority of training; 17% customize half of

their training; and 78% of firms offer training

that is all or mostly the same for all

salespeople. Fig. 2.5.

About half of firms (52%) make sales training

a once-a-year event; 27% provide training

several times throughout the year; and 21%

deliver training more continuously. Fig. 2.6.


12

Lack of Direction and Support

Most sales organizations do not consider management responsible for salesperson

development (just 46% do). Firms are more likely to embrace the notion that

salespeople must be self directed in their own development (60% of firms agree with

this premise). Fig. 3.1.

FOUNDATIONAL FLAWS THAT UNDERLIE SALES DEVELOPMENT SHORTFALLS

Traditionally among the firm’s most autonomous and independent workers,

salespeople may nevertheless need more than intrinsic motivation to improve. We

find many organizations falling short in providing salespeople the direction and

support needed even by salespeople expected to learn on their own.



13

F O U N D A T I O N A L F L A W S T H A T U N D E R L I E S A L E S D E V E L O P M E N T S H O R T F A L L S

Consider:

• Just 45% of companies provide salespeople with a blueprint of skills

required to be successful, and just 34% of firms believe their salespeople

understand their own developmental needs.

• Only 40% of sales organizations believe their firms are making the right

technology investments for salesperson development.

• Just 25% effectively assess salespeople’s skill.

• Just 30% assess the effectiveness of their sales organization’s learning

activities.

• Managers observe how salespeople apply learning in just 44% of firms.

Insufficient Training Activity, Including Classroom Time

Firms in which salespeople spent 10 or more days of classroom training

enjoyed significant performance advantages over other firms. They were 16%

more productive in sales objective achievement (Fig. 3.2), had sales training

effectiveness ratings 12% higher than other firms (Fig. 3.3), and overall sales

force effectiveness ratings 18% higher than other firms’ (Fig. 3.4).


14



Despite its well known limitations, classroom training still represents the bulk of most

training activity. We find firms with the least amount of time spent in classroom training

also have the least amount of training and development activity of any kind, whereas

firms with higher amounts of classroom training activity are more likely to augment

classroom training with complimentary online content and technology enabled

reinforcement.

15

Management Observation

Time spent by managers directly observing salespeople correlates with higher sales

effectiveness. Firms in which salespeople are observed by managers four or more

hours per week are 8% more productive in achieving firm sales objectives (Fig. 3.5), 8%

more effective overall (Fig. 3.6), and realized rates of improvement in overall sales

effectiveness 10% higher than other firms (Fig. 3.7). Notably, firms with between one

and four hours of manager observation per salesperson per week approximated this

rate of sales effectiveness improvement, improving 9% overall compared to peer firms.



16

Collaboratively Established Learning Objectives

Firms in which salesperson learning objectives are predominately manager developed

(as opposed to developed with salesperson input) significantly underperform firms that

provide salespeople greater input in developing learning objectives.

Firms with manager-determined objectives were 16% less productive in achieving sales

goals (Fig. 3.8), improved 17% less over the past 12 months (Fig. 3.9), and were 9%

less effective in sales training (Fig. 3.10). Firms that set learning objectives

collaboratively between salespeople and management enjoyed the greatest advantages

over firms where objectives were set by management predominantly, or by salespeople

themselves without significant manager input. These advantages include 14% higher

sales objective achievement (fig. 3.8), 17% higher rates of improvement in overall sales

force effectiveness over the past 12 months (Fig. 3.9), and 8% higher sales training

effectiveness (Fig. 3.10).



17



18

Customized Training

Firms that rely on generic training content underperform companies that emphasize

training content customized to individual salespeople. Rates of sales objective

achievement are 9% lower in firms relying on sales training content that is all or mostly

the same for all salespeople.

Firms that customize half of their training content had the highest sales objective

achievement, 10% higher than other firms. Firms in which most or all training content is

customized enjoy sales objective achievement rates 4% higher than other firms’ (Fig.

3.11).

However, firms with the most customized training had substantially higher rates of both

sales training effectiveness and improvement in sales effectiveness over the past 12

months; sales training effectiveness in these firms is rated 19% higher than other firms’

(Fig. 3.12), and they enjoyed rates of improvement in firm sales effectiveness 30%

greater than those of other firms’ (Fig. 3.13).



19



20

Training Frequency

Firms that deliver sales training once annually underperform firms delivering

training more frequently. These once-a-year training firms have rates of firm

sales objective achievement 8% lower (Fig. 3.14), ratings of sales training

effectiveness 6% lower (Fig. 3.15), and rates of overall improvement in sales

force effectiveness 17% lower than peers’ (Fig. 3.16).

Firms that offered training several times throughout the year had the highest

levels of firm sales objective achievement and outperformed other firms by

11% in this metric. Offering training continuously throughout the year does not

correlate with increased sales productivity –firms doing so had rates of sales

objective achievement equal to the combined performance of all other firms

(Fig. 3.14), and have sales training effectiveness ratings roughly equal to

those of firms offering training several times a year, rather than continuously

(Fig. 3.15).

However, firms delivering training continuously enjoy substantially higher rates

of improvement in sales force effectiveness over the past 12 months,

improving 22% more than other firms (Fig. 3.16).



21




22


Firm Size

Participating firms totalled 123, and

ranged in size from US$1 million to more

than US$10 billion in annual revenue.

Sixty-one percent have annual revenue in

excess of US$100 million; 11% have

annual revenues in excess of US$10

billion (Fig. 4.1).

Job Role

Respondents are predominately sales

effectiveness leaders in their firms. Sales

operations, enablement, and related sales

effectiveness roles represent 70% of

respondents. Seven percent of

respondents are first-line sales managers

(i.e., they directly manage salespeople).

An additional 17% are senior sales

leaders, managing sales managers, 3%

are individual contributor salespeople, and

2% are in non-sales-related management

positions (Fig. 4.2).

Firm Performance

Sixty-eight percent of respondent firms

met or exceeded firm sales objectives in

the preceding 12 months (Fig. 4.3).

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

21


Respondents were asked to rate their

firm’s achievement of sales objective

based on a seven-point scale (“1” for far

underachieved objective; “4” for met

objective; “7” for far exceeded

objective).

We use this performance rating

approach in order to normalize

company performance across large and

small firms, and high and moderate

growth sectors. Twenty-five percent of

respondents rated sales objective

achievement in the highest two

categories (“6” or “7”).

Sales Force Size, Structure, and

Management Span of Control

Respondents firms have an average of

55 directly-employed sales managers,

and 580 salespeople; this represents an

average manager to salesperson span

of control of 10.5. Corresponding

median values are 70 salespeople per

firm, 10 managers per firm, and a

salesperson-to-sales manager ratio of

7.0:1 (Fig. 4.4).


22


sales management association research report … · also of the specific selling activities...

Documents