The Great Sales and Training Divide
<p><strong>Sterling, Va. — May 2 </strong><br />Inherent to the DNA of most companies is a fundamental disconnect between sales and training. </p><p>On a primitive level, this disconnect stems largely from differing areas of focus, unaligned goals and — perhaps most importantly — inconsistent metrics to drive and measure results.<br /><br />In the mind of the sales manager, training equates to time out of the field, and time away from the customer — for whatever reason — never can be a good thing. </p><p>Training from their perspective (and experience) is a waste of time with little long-term benefit or “muscle memory” of learned skills. </p><p>As such, sales managers perceive diminutive value in the training function. <br /><br />Interestingly, they’re basically right. Huthwaite’s research demonstrates that sellers suffer an 87 percent loss of skill on average within one month of training unless there is immediate and ongoing coaching — and most reinforcement (if it exists to begin with ) generally loses momentum over time as “process” falls victim to the “pressures” to deliver. <br /><br />Professionals responsible for learning and development (L&D) consider training an unmitigated good in and of itself and think great organizations are ones that invest in their people. </p><p>The employees — and their development — come first. From their perspective, hostility from the sales department is misdirected — as the services provided are genuinely valuable to the sales function. </p><p>Why then do most sales managers fail to recognize the value training delivers? <br /><br />Could a more accurate question be, if as L&D professionals you do not know how to create value for your customers, how can you help your customers create value? <br /><br />In theory, L&D professionals should be — by nature — proficient salespeople. Everything they do should create innate value for their customers: the sales organization. </p><p>But all too often, training professionals are seen not as strategic partners but as the “ball and chain” whose existence, a necessary evil, is merely tolerated.<br /><br />So, there is a “cold war” standoff, which slowly escalates with occasional moments of open hostility. But such battles are usually brief, as it isn’t a fight between equals — it’s a fight between David and Goliath. </p><p>Sales generates the revenue, L&D, which is a cost center, depends on the success of sales. </p><p>So, the sales side of the house generally sets the course, while L&D is struggling to justify its budget and rationale for sellers’ time out of the field.<br /><br />So, what is to be done? How can you decode “the disconnect," build cooperation, respect and mutual support between the two sides of the house? </p><p>The answer, while simple, is not easy. It lies in the alignment of L&D’s definition of success with that of the sales function. <br /><br />It is in the best interest of the training side of the house to make the first move. Sales is entrenched. L&D needs to be assertive, proactive and courageous to open the dialogue about definitions of success. </p><p>The purpose is to develop a line of sight between the objectives of sales and the objectives of the training department. </p><p>What do sales leaders need from their sales force? What kind of success is desirable but not inevitable? How can L&D’s desire to train people, align with “the wants” of sales leadership?<br /><br />Line of sight is in the best interest of all concerned. If L&D can facilitate the alignment of vision, either with outside assistance or internally, everyone wins. </p><p>L&D needs to demonstrate how x number of training hours leads to y behavior change and quantify this behavior change in terms of the outcomes sales is seeking. <br /><br />L&D needs to recognize and communicate that performance improvement extends beyond classroom training. What occurs before and after is as important as the training itself. </p><p>Success, as defined by sales, requires upfront agreement on goals, expectations, metrics and, most importantly, a plan for post-training coaching — the process of expecting and empowering salespeople to revisit, practice and master the skills introduced in training. <br /><br />Second, the entire initiative has to be driven with metrics (i.e., objective, empirical and quantified measures) — essentially, putting hard measures to the “soft” skills of selling. </p><p>In practical terms, L&D needs to understand and communicate the behaviors that result in sales excellence — the skills that separate average from superior sellers. </p><p>L&D needs to provide sales leaders with leading indicators to assess their people in a timely manner, beginning right after training. </p><p>To drive outcomes, sales and L&D need to be able to assess the skills of the salespeople post-training against the skills empirically associated with world-class sales performance. </p><p>By recognizing and reinforcing effective behaviors and addressing remaining skill gaps, sales leaders can be assured of achieving their desired outcomes.<br /><br />The line of sight between the objectives of sales and the objectives of L&D is an imperative. There is no shortcut.</p>
