Who Trains Salespeople?

Transcription

1 Who Trains Salespeople? The Role of Sales Trainers and Sales Earl D. Honeycutt, Jr. John B. Ford John F. Tanner, Jr. This study examines the roles played by sales managers and sales trainers in the sales training process. Findings that joint participation by sales managers and trainers in sales train- ing is higher today than in the past, yet several problem areas still exist. Sales trainers claimed to be primarily responsible for sales training in large companies, but did not seek inputs from field sales managers when planning, conducting, and evaluat- ing training programs. In smaller firms, sales managers are al- most totally responsible for sales training. However, they con- duct little evaluation and follow-up activities. The implications of thesejindings are discussed, and suggestions for managerial actions are provided. Address correspondence to Earl D. Honeycutt, Jr., Marketing Department, College of Business and Public Administration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA INTRODUCTION Personal selling is the most important marketing tool for most industrial firms and has been called the means through which business marketing strategy is executed [lo, p Because of the importance of personal selling, industrial companies invest significant amounts of money their salespeople. The cost of initial training for each new salesperson, for example, varies from $22,500 to $28,455 [l]. That cost escalates greatly in high-tech industries, increasing to as much as $100,000 per trainee and taking up to 2 years to complete [4]. Whereas some large companies may train new representatives yearly, small companies must allocate a larger portion of their budget to train just a few. And, these figures do not include indirect or opportunity costs for new sales recruits [7]. Objectives for training programs vary, depending on the needs of the trainees, the conditions of the market and the Industrial Marketing Management 23, (1994) Q Elsevier Science Inc., Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY /94/$7.00

2 firm, and other variables. In general, training programs deliver a number of benefits for the organization: overcome common causes for salesperson increase productivity improve salesperson morale reduce turnover improve customer relations improve time and territory management lower selling costs [2, 41 failure The training staff often has sole responsibility for developing sales training programs [9]. Sales managers also actively participate in sales training programs as planners and/or instructors. Regardless of who is responsible for the training program, input from both sales managers and salespeople should be sought and utilized so appropriate training programs are prepared [8]. If a firm wishes to develop an effective training program, it is essential to gather feedback from customers before designing any training program. Salespeople have reported a number of sales training problems [3]. The concerns raised by the salespeople included: 1. Complex sales skills are presented before prerequisite skills are adequately addressed. For example, a trainer may demonstrate how client needs are used to prepare a presentation before salespeople fully understand how to identify and prioritize a customer s needs. Because the topics are taught out of sequence, salespeople are less able to learn the proper presentation skills. 2. Sales managers often fail to follow up. Salespeople may feel uncertain when trying new behaviors in the field. To illustrate, new presentation skills may be taught in training, but the sales person may not have fully mastered the skills. They want their managers to follow up with field coaching to reinforce new training. 3. There is a failure to reward new behaviors. Some behaviors, such as consultative selling, may EARL D. HONEYCUTT, Jr. and JOHN B. FORD are Associate Professors of Marketing at the College of Business and Public Administration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. JOHN F. TANNER Jr. is Associate Professor of Marketing the Hankamer School of Business Administration, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. at lengthen the sales cycle while the rep is gaining proficiency. Without adequate incentive to engage in the new behaviors, reps acknowledge they often slip back into their previous practices. These concerns raise important questions about the role of sales managers in the sales training process. If managers are not actively involved, then they may not be able to field coach salespeople who attempt to master new behaviors presented at company training programs. Sales managers may also be incapable of observing and rewarding new behaviors. The result may be that sales representatives will resort to old habits and the training program will be a failure. The purpose of this study is to examine the role played by sales trainers and sales managers in key areas of the sales training process and provide suggestions to industrial marketing managers for improving the sales training process. Both sales managers and sales trainers accumulate feedback, either formal or informal in nature, that can be used to modify and improve the sales training process. But if either party s participation is limited, then valuable feedback may go unused. By adopting suggestions provided by this paper, industrial marketing managers can enhance the positive role played by sales managers and trainers in the sales training process. METHODOLOGY Data were collected by mail survey from two groups: sales managers and sales trainers. A census was taken of a national training organization s 136 major U.S. corporate training executives. Sales managers were surveyed by randomly sampling sales managers subscribing to Sales and Marketing Management magazine. Since the sales training executive organization agreed to participate, the response rate was 82 %. Sales managers responded at a 38 % rate, but only half reported having an established sales training program. The respondents were further divided into industrial products, consumer products, and services with 55% of sales trainers and 63% of sales managers classified as industrial; 24% and 16 %, respectively, as consumer; and 2 1% for each group as services. There were no significant differences between industry classification, so the data were aggregated for further analysis. The practices of large and small companies have been found to vary [6], so the responses of the sales managers were divided in terms of firm size. A median split resulted in dividing the sample such that firms reporting yearly sales 66

3 Sales training is a five-step process. greater than $50 million were classified as large and those with sales less than $50 million were classified as small. Using the same definition for sales trainers resulted in a unbalanced split: only 8 of 112 companies could be classified as small. Therefore, all trainer responses were consolidated into a single category. FINDINGS Generally, sales training is explained using the four-step process of determining needs (and setting objectives), TABLE 1 Parties Responsible for Training Process Large Sales Small Sales Trainers (N = 112) (N = 49) (N = 51) (0~) PO) (Oh) Assess Needs Top management Sales management Training staff Sales management/ts Other Budget Top management I Sales management Training staff Sales management/ts Other Design Top management Sales management I Training staff Sales management/ts Other Conduct Top management Sales management Training staff Sales managementits Other Evaluation Top management Sales management Training staff Sales management/ts Other I 0 10 designing the training program, conducting the program, and evaluating results [12, 151. Because budgeting is an important sales training consideration [5, 131, it was also examined. Respondents were asked to state who they perceived as having primary responsibility for each area of the sales training process. Possible responses were: top management, sales management, training staff, all combinations, and other. The responses for the five-step process are listed in Table 1 and discussed below. Step 1: Assessing Training Needs Assessing training needs in large companies appears to be a joint responsibility shared by the training staff and sales managers. A large proportion of respondents, however, indicate that the primary responsibility lies with either trainers or managers. For small companies, the responsibility is primarily top management s, perhaps because a staff is not available to assess training needs. Step 2: Budget Responsibility Surprisingly, top management was third in terms of who assumes budget responsibility for large company sales training. But if one considers that the question focused on allocation of the training budget rather than determining the amount of the total budget, then this result is not as unexpected. Sales trainers were primarily responsible for allocating the training budget, followed by sales managers. In small companies, however, the order was reversed, with top management having primary responsibility, followed by sales managers and the training staff. Few companies assigned joint budget responsibility. Step 3: Designing Training Programs Over 81% of the trainers stated that they were responsible for designing the training programs of large companies. Fewer trainers than sales managers reported that joint efforts were used. In small companies, a joint design effort is unlikely to occur, with either top management or sales management responsible for training design. Step 4: Conducting the Training Program The training staff is most often responsible for conducting training in large companies, as reported by 73 % of the 67

4 trainers and 31% of large company sales managers. If the training staff does not conduct the programs alone, the most likely occurrence was a joint effort. But in small companies, sales managers reported that they were most likely to conduct any training. Step 5: Evaluating Training Top management was not reported to perform evaluation of the sales training program by any respondents. This finding is surprising since sales training is expensive and important for industrial marketers. Sales trainers claimed they were more likely to conduct evaluations, while sales managers reported that they assumed that responsibility, especially in small firms. Trainers and sales managers were also asked who was responsible for evaluating the following: program content, trainers, knowledge via tests, attitudes, and performance. The results are listed in Table 2. Interestingly, 49 % of large company sales managers report that they evaluate performance as related to sales training. This finding supports the concern raised by salespeople that there is little observation and reward for incorporating newly learned skills and behaviors [3]. Content evaluation also appears to be important, irrespective of the type of respondent. Small company sales managers are more likely to rate the trainer and also more likely to evaluate the attitude of the salespeople toward the training. Follow-up Procedures Follow-up is an important aspect of sales training; therefore, trainers and managers were asked who was responsible for certain types of follow-up: observing performance, refresher classes, combination, and other. The responses indicate sales managers and trainers each play an important role in insuring that follow-up is conducted (for results, see Table 3). TABLE 2 Evaluation Practices Evaluation Area No evaluation conducted content Trainers Test Attitude Performance Trainers w Large Sales W) w Small Sales TABLE 3 Follow-Up Procedure Procedures No follow-up Observed performance Refresher classes Combination Other Totals DISCUSSION Trainers W) Large Sales Small Sales (04 ( The practices of large and small companies do appear to differ. In large companies, sales managers and sales trainers share a number of training responsibilities. In small companies, a joint effort is also apparent; this effort, however, is shared by top management and sales managers. Therefore, the practice of joint responsibility for sales training appears to be greater now than reported in previous studies [9]. What is troubling, though, is the lack of perceptual agreement. Either respondents increased the importance of their role in each stage of the sales training process or there is a lack of communication between managers and trainers. A good example concerns evaluation of the training process. Training executives perceive they are primarily accountable for evaluation at the same time large and small company sales managers claim they are responsible for evaluating sales training. If this inconsistency is due to a lack of communication between the two groups, there could be a detrimental impact on the design of future training programs. And such a lack of communication may explain some of the negative perceptions previously reported by salespeople [3]. Information from evaluation procedures is used to redesign training programs. If the differences in perceptions concerning who is evaluating training is due to a lack of communication, the apparent failure to communicate during the training design process is magnified. About onefourth to one-third of the large companies report a joint needs assessment; only 7% of the trainers, however, report a joint design process. Training design in large companies appears to be conducted, in many cases, without much input from the field. Given the importance of effective sales training, the costs associated with sales training, and the increased competitiveness of most markets, this reported lack of joint-training development is alarming. 68

5 Open communication between sales management and training is imperative. Trainers also reported a much higher level of sole responsibility for conduct of training than did large company sales managers. This may mean the training staff is not aware of training being conducted by sales managers, sales managers may have included field coaching in their perceptions of training, or some other explanation may account for this result. Whatever the cause, if the training staff is unaware of field training efforts, the possibility for duplication or outright conflict in objectives, content, and desired outcomes may occur, rendering the overall training program ineffective. It is imperative that open communication exist between the training staff and sales management to ensure that appropriate training is conducted. In small companies, 16% reported no evaluation of training was being conducted and 8% reported that no followup occurred. Although these percentages may appear relatively small, these findings are troubling. Given the costs associated with training and the importance of effective personal selling to the firms success, one would expect that greater care would be taken to ensure that appropriate training was being conducted. It also appears that far too many companies continue to conduct sales training without learning whether previous efforts were effective and ignore the need for proper follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Sales training is an important consideration for industrial marketers, large and small alike. While this study found higher levels of joint training program development than were reported in the past, apparent communication and coordination problems still exist between sales trainers and sales managers in many large companies. In small companies discrepancies center on evaluation and follow-up, as many firms report not doing either. Nor is observing performance a part of the follow-up procedures for two-thirds of the small companies. SUGGESTED STEPS FOR MANAGERS The findings of this study suggest that industrial firms may need to make certain modifications to their sales train- ing process. Most suggested changes are directly attributable to the findings of this study, while others are based upon a normative model of sales training. If the sales training process is to be improved, it is imperative for upper management to take an active role in the implementation of these changes. Listed below are four actions, and examples of industrial companies that practice these actions, that marketing managers should implement to improve the contribution made to the sales training process by sales managers and trainers: Action 1: Improve Communication and Coordination No matter who is responsible for sales training, information must be gathered and proposed training programs must be coordinated. Training staffs must seek feedback and cooperation from sales managers during the needs assessment, objective setting, design, evaluation, and follow-up stages of sales training. Although this new process increases coordination time, the result will be a better designed and focused training program and a stronger commitment from field sales managers. Also, gathering inputs from former trainees provides additional intelligence that can be used to improve the overall training process. At Fullerton Metals, the needs assessment process includes gathering input from salespeople who volunteer to participate in the training design process in order to improve their skills. Action 2: Set Specific, Measurable, and Timely Objectives Objectives establish a roadmap for trainers and trainees. They tell the trainee what is important and needs to be learned and provide objective criteria for determining the success of the training program. Upper management, trainers, and sales managers must all specifically agree what the training program will accomplish. are often apprehensive about establishing specific objectives, because failure to accomplish goals may lead to criticism. Firms that fail to establish and agree upon training objectives reduce the success of their sales training program. Paychex Inc. spends $3,500 per sales trainee for its ini- 69

6 Top management must take the lead role to improve sales training. tial sales training program. But, final objectives are not established until upper management, trainers, and sales managers have agreed upon training program outcomes. Action 3: Evaluate Sales Training This action can be concluded through tests and surveys, field evaluations, and by comparing the results of sales people completing the training program with nonattendees. Even in small firms, sales managers and upper managers must conduct some form of evaluation to insure training objectives have been accomplished. If training objectives are not met, but are realistic, then future training programs must be modified. Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc., evaluates training by allowing trainees to play a game. Over an 8-hr period, trainees respond to various customer scenarios stored on laser disc. In addition to reinforcing what was taught, the training staff uses the game to identify deficiencies in the training program. Action 4: Conduct Training Sessions Regular Follow-Up Many companies today use video-enhanced training methods, such as VCR tapes and programmed texts, to reinforce what was learned at formal training sessions. must also be knowledgeable of and able to coach their sales force when the salespeople deviate from methods or skills learned in formal training programs. Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals uses field skills coaches, who are also salespeople and not managers, to work on developing specific skills with their peers. If management observes that a salesperson needs additional training, the salesperson is paired with a Certified Field Skills Coach. Curbside conferences between coach and salesperson follow each sales call. Because the coach is a peer who is not allowed to participate actively in the sales call, but merely observe, evaluation apprehension is lessened. Coaches report that, in addition to assisting the develop- ment of specific sales skills, they often learn from the trainee. REFERENCES Average Costs of Sales Training per Salesperson, Sales and Marketing Management 23 (February 26, 1990). Chonko, Lawrence B., Enis, Ben M., and Tanner, John F. Jr., Managing Salespeople, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Chonko, Lawrence B., Tanner, John F. Jr., and Weeks, William A., Sales Training, Status and Needs, Journal ofpersona Selling andsales Managemenf (forthcoming). Churchill, Gilbert A., Ford, Neil M., and Walker, Orville C. Jr., Sales Force Management, 3rd ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr., Ford, Neil M., and Walker, Orville C, Jr., Sales Force Management, 3rd ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, Dubinsky, Allan J., and Barry, Thomas E., A Survey of Sales Management Practices, Industrial Marketing Management 11, (1982). Dubinsky, Alan J., and Staples, William A., Sales Training: Salespeople s Preparedness and Managerial Implications, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 2, (1982). Dubinsky, Alan J., and Staples, William A., Sales Training: Salespeople s Preparedness and Managerial Implications, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management II, (1981). Hopkins, D. S., Training the Sales Force: A Progress Report, The Conference Board, New York, Hutt, Michael D., and Speh, Thomas W., Business Marketing Management, 4th cd., The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, Texas, Kaminski, Peter, and Wagle, John, Territoriality: A Literature Review with Implications for Industrial Buyer Behavior, in Proceedings of rhe Southern Marketing Associationb Annual Conference, (1982). Still, Richard, Cundiff, Edward, and Govoni, Norman A. P., Sales Managemenf: Decisions, Strategies, and Cases, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Stanton, William J., Buskirk, Richard, and Spiro, Rosann L., Management ofa Sales Force, 8th cd., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, Tanner, John F. Jr., and Chonko, Lawrence B., Territorial Behaviors in Organizational Buyers: Vigilance, Encroachment, and Defense, in Marketing Theory and Applications. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association s Winter Educators Conference, Chris Allen et al., eds., Chicago, Wotruba, Thomas R., and Simpson, Edwin K., Sales Managemenr, Text and Cases, 2nd ed., PWS-Kent, Boston,