Concern over this problem was revealed in a 2001-2002 Aspen Institute survey conducted on a group of MBA students. "When asked whether they expected they would have to make business decisions that conflicted with their personal values during their careers, half the respondents in 2002 (and more than half in 2001) believed they would. The vast majority of respondents both years reported it would be 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that they would experience this as stressful," according to Professor Mary Gentile, author of a book, Giving Voice to Values: How to Speak Your Mind When You Know What's Right.
Professional development in sales and marketing is no better. Aside from the ambiguous demand, "put customers at the center of everything you do," practitioners ignore the issue altogether. "Don't lie. Ever." Huzzzzahh! Easy to say at the sales kickoff. Looks nifty on PowerPoint. But Job #1 for business developers is customer persuasion. Such admonishments are flimsy, and don't penetrate the thorny dilemmas employees routinely encounter, like choosing between pressuring customers to buy and keeping their jobs another quarter.
During my career, I have repeatedly contrived rationalizations and reasons for not speaking up when my values have been confronted. I've learned I'm far from alone. As we endeavor to preserve a self-image of high integrity, we have cultivated a parallel talent for sweeping concerns and better judgement under the carpet.
Instead of thinking, "well, I've already slipped on that ethical slope, so I guess I'll just continue the slide," recognizing past imperfections in ethical decision making frees us to move in better directions. There's nothing to be gained beating ourselves up over workplace decisions that we'd rather re-do. Wearing egg has never been fashionable, but as a practical matter, you can't hold a conversation about ethical choices if the person leading the discussion cops an attitude of finger-wagging judgment. And I've yet to meet a colleague, client, or direct report who doesn't wear symbolic egg.
In September, 2018, Theranos announced it was formally "dissolving", which suggests its downfall was less ugly than it was. Its two senior executives, founder Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani, were indicted the same year, charged with engaging in schemes to defraud investors, doctors and patients. Takata filed for bankruptcy. Wells Fargo got spanked with onerous restrictions on its asset growth. And VW, well, I'll never buy a car from a company that gleefully sacrificed my respiratory system to pad their profits.
Not every business can address every CX risk. Fortunately, not every business needs to. Some CX outcomes can be plain-old good, and that's good enough. I offered to send this article to my trash hauler, but the service manager politely declined. Seems he was busy planning the company's annual golf outing coming up in May. That was fine with me. I just told him to just make sure he continues to collect my refuse around once a week.
I like funnels because they are easy to understand. Funnels mansplain uncertainty and risk. When you need to justify a pipeline multiplier, or reveal the rationale behind a multi-channel lead generation campaign, simply fire a 2-D trapezoid shape onto the projection screen. Divide the image into equally-spaced horizontal stripes. Use bright colors. Then, dive into funnel taxonomy. "Raw prospects enter the gauntlet at the top. From there, they undergo a metamorphosis, becoming Leads, then MQL (Marketing Qualified Leads), then SQL (Sales Qualified Leads). Those that emerge will be anointed as Opportunities before moving south, eventually crossing into a hallowed zone marketers call Paying Customers." My presentation includes a bloated money bag positioned near the funnel's bottom to drive home the idea. The screen glows even brighter. Warmth envelops the room. This is everyone's favorite topic.
I often disagree with opinions that I read online. No biggy. Much rarer is when I read business advice so wrongheaded, so ill-conceived, and so dangerous that my forehead collides with my keyboard.
"awfjsoefivfdljkmdvfl;jkvxcljkvxcljk;m,..,m." You can quote me.
That happened recently when a colleague shared an article on LinkedIn from Inc. Magazine titled, Recruiters Share Can't-Miss Interview Questions to Disarm Candidates. A banal topic, but the word disarm piqued my curiosity. I had to read on.
Do top producers make a lot in order to spend a lot? Or, do they spend a lot, and therefore, they're uber-motivated to make a lot? Either way, the notion that proclivities for acquiring expensive things predicts sales success is absurd, and perpetuates a horrible stereotype about salespeople.
At best, the recruiter's question is misguided. At worst, it's patently discriminatory. People who grew up with limited means are less inclined to make self-indulgent purchases than those who grew up wealthy. What about people send a chunk of their monthly income to family in their home country? What about solo-breadwinner parents who save every month to provide a college education for their children? My bet is that you'll find them shopping at Target for footwear, not Neiman-Marcus. This recruiter wouldn't understand their motivation or hunger for income because her myopia doesn't allow her to. Not good, when your raison d'être is discovering the talent in others.
I don't buy her rationale. I know top-producing salespeople whose penury makes Jack Benny look like a spendthrift. And I've met others who couldn't sell their way out of a wet paper bag. But that idiosyncrasy didn't prevent them from repeatedly hurling themselves into consumption traps. "His n' her jet skis? Sure! I'm in!" So fawning over a candidate whose appeal comes from the fact that he swaggers in wearing a pair of $800 Santoni Darian Cap Toe Oxfords seems short sighted. Probe a little further beyond his conspicuous consumption, and you just might learn that he's been paying the minimum on his credit card balance for the last 25 months, and lives with his parents.
Maybe for the purveyor of this advice, the best evidence of potential motivation shouldn't be the candidate's shoes, but his physical behavior. For that, I'd suggest she seek someone who chugs a bottle of Maalox daily, and chain smokes. Now there's someone outwardly nervous! About what? Making money? Why not. The clothes add another data point to the desired fact pattern, thereby affirming the logic. It's a vicious circle of self-congratulation.
But is that aggressive, stressed image really what companies want? Is that the face vendors want to project to customers? And, more ominously, what does an employee's insatiable drive for disposable income portend for the safety of organizations, customers, employees, and other stakeholders? The questions are not intended to be facetious or hypothetical. I see the aftermath whenever I read about sales scams and betrayals of customer trust.
If you seek the One Best Question to ask sales candidates in 2019 – and there really isn't a single question – I suggest ditching "what's your most expensive purchase" for "when do you plan to retire?" If the candidate is 30-ish and says "not one minute past 40," hire that candidate immediately! I don't care whether he or she wears $4.99 flip-flops, and drove to the interview in a Hyundai Elantra. Or rode a bike. F-I-R-E: it's the new expensive wardrobe.
Online, you can find loads of more useful questions to ask sales candidates. In practice, however, I don't believe sales interview questions need to differ much from those you'd ask a non-sales executive. The best guide I found comes from Harvard Business Review (7 Rules for Job Interview Questions that Result in Great Hires, by John Sullivan, February 10, 2016).
I'd also ask the candidate to talk about resilience. Salespeople experience frequent setbacks. So, in addition to learning how goals were over-achieved, find out about responses and reactions to failure.
For many interviewers, the last rule represents an often-missed opportunity. Not only does it help reveal whether your organization matches what the candidate wants, but it offers the interviewer a reciprocal chance to convince the right candidate to join. And if the candidate isn't right, he or she could share that information with a friend or colleague who is.
Over many years, I've experienced revenue craters fomented by bad decisions, misguided assumptions, and cruddy planning. I blame myself for some of them, but that's between us. Regardless, this trusty superlative worms its way into every aftermath I've analyzed. Thank you, Professor Todd.
Strategy is defined as a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim. Companies should develop strategies whenever any crucial resource or result is constrained or difficult to achieve. For most companies, that includes securing capital, innovating new products or services, hiring human talent, or capturing revenue. Similarly, strategies are instrumental for achieving objectives such as high customer satisfaction, customer success, and market share percentage. Stuff that every company wants, and there simply isn't enough to go around. None of these outcomes can be left to chance, assuming, of course, that your goal is longevity.
Without strategy, the central mission of an organization – finding and capitalizing on opportunities – would depend on happenstance. A company without a strategy is like an untethered ship at sea without power, steering, or means for navigation. Unable to harness the forces of wind, tide, or other locomotion to go anywhere, the vessel just bobs around. Many businesses operate the same way, abdicating their outcomes to vicissitude. Que será, será. This is the mantra under which many companies operate, though it's never used as braggadocio.
use sound assumptions. A frequent trap. Many strategies are based on outsized or unrealistic estimates, or tenuous predictions.
be grounded in what's possible. The Fyre Festival was logistically doomed from the start. Any bets that SpaceX will successfully complete a Mars mission by 2022?
minimize potential conflicts of interest. This one just came across my desk: A company developed a strategy that rewards Sales for capturing revenue, but penalizes Operations for failing to meet customer demand. I forecast intense infighting until the strategy is scrapped.
Ethics problems start when strategies are revenue- and profit-focused, to the exclusion of all other outcomes. Every year, I call out a new list of offenders in the Sales Ethics Hall of Shame award – a showcase for executives who believe the revenue-profit ends justify the means to achieve them.
Are the intentions of the strategy honest? Strategies that depend on factual obfuscation and deceit are not ethical.
Does the strategy protect stakeholder interests? Ethical strategies include mechanisms for ensuring bad ethics and dishonesty don't metastasize and harm employees, vendors, customers, and investors.