Sales Team 6

Over the summer I worked on the sales team of a software company. There were two other teams within the organization. These were the product development and the product support teams. The objective of the sales team was to set a demo, and then from there the product specialists would perform the demo. Following the demo, if someone was interested in becoming a client, the process of creating a proposal would be worked on by the sales rep and whoever performed the demo. When the proposal was written, it would then be passed on to the owners of the company to be approved or disapproved. If it was approved and the client accepted, the product development team would handle any modifications to the platform that the client might have asked for. Three teams worked together as a larger team in order to complete the sales process. In terms of the decision making process, it resembled a one boss arrangement because the owners had the most through understanding of the companies health and status of the industry. They would either approve or disapprove the proposal based on the conclusions they came to on information they've gathered themselves. However, when viewing how information was transmitted between people up to the point of sending the proposal for review, the structure resembled an all-channel network. This had to do with the incentives put in place.

Each sales rep needed to generate a certain amount of revenue determined by higher management. This alone might make for a cut throat environment with fear of sales being stolen, but there were territories assigned to each rep to combat that fear, and there was a certain amount the sales team as a whole had to generate. This encouraged the exchange of information between people, and was especially helpful when leads would leave their company and join another one in a different territory. People would talk to each other, exchange notes, and this helped make it a lively and collaborative environment. The sales people that have worked in the company are also expected to coach the less experienced people. The less experienced people were also expected to ask questions. This exchange was easily noticed because the office was so small, and it was recognized with praise and considered when raises or promotions were in question. The product specialists also had similar incentives in place, and the connection between them and the sales team was driven by commission. With similar interests, the sales rep would share all the information he had with the product specialist before the demo, and the specialist would want to do a good job during the demo so that both people could benefit. It was important for the sales people to have a deep understanding of the product so they could sell to people that might ask technical questions. Many sales representatives become product specialists as a result of this. With a similar distribution of skills across teams, a product specialist might come over to the sales team or vice versa if one of the teams needed more manpower.

This cross functionality of employees made it more important for information to be easily accessible. To address this, each team had a whiteboard with their current objectives and where they were within them. This public record of performance kept everyone accountable for what was or wasn't accomplished, and developed an interdependent structure. Overall it made the selling process productive, but the pressure did get high occasionally. Fortunately, everyone worked together and and asked questions when they thought necessary, which helped keep things under control when goals had to be hit.

Comments

  1. Can you increase the size of your default font? I can increase the size on my end but then your post reads all across my screen.

    You have written to the prompt for next week on team structure and performance. I will comment on it, but note that this week we are talking about opportunism and when people might not engage in it even though they have the ability to do so. Next week you can either write on that or on some other topic of your own choosing.

    I have some experience with purchase of software on campus, as I led the team for the original Illinois Compass purchase. The software was from a company then called WebCT. Eventually WebCT was bought out by Blackboard, who supplies the software for Blackboard 2G.

    So some issues from that which might be relevant for your story.
    1. What about the length of the contract? How were renewals handled? Might customers switch to another vendor instead of renew? It seems like your whole story was about initial sales only.
    2. Higher Ed may be a bit different as a vertical than other sectors. But, in general, the question is whether the experience of early customers is useful for the sale to later customers and whether early customers get some break from the company for doing that.
    3. Depending on the nature of the software, customers may care as much about the trajectory of the software development after they sign on than about the price. So the issue is whether customers interact only with sales or if some of the preferred customers interact with the other teams you mentioned and, if so, how that happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adjusted the font.

      1. The company offered cloud based solutions, and one of the benefits of that platform is that it can easily be adopted and scaled based on customer needs. Because of this, most deals clients entered were month to month. If they wanted to terminate their service they could. There might be some servicing fees, but that was pretty much it.

      2. Early customers had an impact on later customers. This was mainly when the early adopter was familiar or a competitor. There really wasn't much of a break for all early adopters, but if it was a big company, their feedback was given more weight in the development of the platform.

      3. Customers would mainly interact with some of the more established sales/relations managers. I'm not really sure how the interactions went, but managers typically handled them, and more weight was given to the more profitable clients.

      Delete
  2. So it seems as though this wasn't a post about opportunism, but it seems like with sales reps trying to generate as much revenue that opportunism may exist here. Is there an example that you recall of an opportunistic situation within the company? Or one that maybe someone did not take advantage of when they could have?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am curious as to how opportunism plays into this. As others have pointed out, this is a post for the next week's prompt, but I wonder if it could apply to this week's. You mention that there was actually large incentive for communication among the reps and between the teams, which decreases the need for individuals to act competitively. Without these systems in place, it would have been in the favor of each individual to keep all information secret and refuse to help others (or even spread false tips on sales). Ultimately, by eliminating the benefits of that kind of opportunistic behavior, everyone performs better, at least from what it sounds like.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Risk and Uncertainty

Conflict Managment

Illinibucks