|
|
|
Greetings!
Welcome to the June 2006 issue of “Sales
Effectiveness Insights”. In the last two months we
discussed various quantitative and qualitative
methods for evaluating sales compensation plan
effectiveness. This month, we turn our attention to
the topic of sales force turnover. Specifically, this
month's article suggests that too little turnover can
be a signal that something's not quite right with your
sales force.
As we launch into the summer months, it's time to
consider whether any of your salespeople are
already on holiday -- a mental holiday that's
outlasted any vacation allotment you may provide. If
you suspect you have a few of these perennial
vacationers, read on for some insights that may put
your mind more at ease about hastening their
departure.
Thank you for your continued interest in Valitus
Group. If there is anything I can do to support your
efforts, please don't hesitate to call on me.
All the best,
J. Mark Davis Managing Principal Valitus
Group, Inc.
|
|
by J. Mark Davis
|
|
Seven Reasons a Nominal Turnover Rate is Healthy
At a recent conference panel discussion I
attended, the CEO of a rapidly growing business
services company said that one of his company’s key
performance metrics is employee turnover. I didn’t
find that surprising as many companies keep a
watchful eye on turnover – particularly voluntary
turnover. However, the CEO went on to say that his
company’s number one goal – above all else – is to
have zero employee turnover. As he went on to
discuss the various programs they had in place to
help facilitate the achievement of that goal, I
thought to myself, “Why would you want to aspire to
that?” Good thing I didn’t share the podium with him
as I would have been obliged to challenge the notion
that zero turnover is necessarily a good thing. I
maintain it may not be. As food for thought, here are
seven reasons why a nominal amount of turnover is
one sign of a healthy organization.
- Internal business environment change -
When business objectives change, they often beget
changes to the go-to-market strategy, which may
beget changes to how selling roles and their success
requirements are defined. Yesterday’s prototypical
sales rep will likely not be the same as is required
today or tomorrow. One example is the salesperson
that has lower-tier accounts pulled out of the
territory to be handled by an indirect channel
partner. Now, in addition to continuing to handle the
larger accounts on a direct basis, the sales rep must
also manage an indirect channel partner to ensure
proper coverage of the smaller accounts. Not all
sellers can handle such a blended role.
- Customer buying preferences change
- When customers change the way they prefer to
buy from their vendors, this, too, can speak to a
difference in sales person skill requirements. These
may include a new product qualification process or
vendor proposal process. Salespeople who don’t
respond well to customer-imposed changes are likely
to cause another type of turnover – the customer
variety.
- Businesses mature -
As an organization evolves from the start-up and
volume growth phases to business maturity in its
natural life cycle, the aggressive new account seller
who in the early days thrived in an ill-defined, cold
calling environment is likely not well-suited to the
more structured existing account management role in
a mature business.
- Salespeople don't change
- You may have long-tenured salespeople who
have grown stale in their role because they simply
lack an orientation for continued learning and
growth. A client I worked with some years ago faced
this challenge with their long-tenured sales force
(they averaged over 13 years of service). Many of
the tenured salespeople weren’t technologically
proficient and were greatly resistant to becoming so.
It made the introduction of new technology-based
selling tools, such as e-mail and CRM software, quite
difficult.
- Salespeople do change - In
contrast to the prior example, some salespeople will
naturally outgrow their assigned role, making a job
change imperative for continued productivity. These
evolving sellers will need a new opportunity to match
their expanding skills, either with their current
employer or with a new one.
- Guarding against underperformance
- One of the most obvious challenges to the idea
of limiting turnover is when underperformers are
allowed to hide among the ranks of those who are
pulling their own weight. In a normal distribution of
performance, one would typically expect five percent
of the sales force to fall below established threshold
performance levels (i.e., the minimum level of
performance required to earn incentive pay and,
ultimately, keep one’s job). Despite the best
recruiting and training practices, eventually any sales
force will have its underperformers who need to be
counseled into another job opportunity.
- Avoiding excessive compensation
-
When compensation is above competitive norms, it
can cause disgruntled employees to hang on longer
than they would otherwise. This can be particularly
true for the marginal performers who realize they
can’t match their current pay elsewhere. I’ve
interviewed countless salespeople over the years and
have commonly found these individuals. They’re
neither fully engaged nor very productive, but the
high pay they know they can’t replicate numbs the
pain of a fundamentally poor fit. If you have
incredibly low turnover, it may be time to analyze the
competitiveness of your cash compensation
levels.
In summary, there are many reasons a nominal
amount of turnover is to be expected. When
analyzing your turnover experience, rather than focus
on a total turnover number, segment your turnover
analysis to better assess where and why it’s
happening (e.g., voluntary vs. involuntary turnover,
high performers vs. under-performers, highly
compensated sellers vs. lower compensated sellers,
as well as by role and geography). Yes, the cost to
replace a sales person is often considerable.
However, it can pale in comparison to the longer term
opportunity cost of lost customers or
under-producing salespeople who, for everyone’s
sake, need to move on.
|