The buying table: a systemic handle on the bully and the juice

In his recent blog post “The Myth Of The Single Decisionmaker” David Brock shares insights on various research on the number of people involved in a buying decision, and the role they play. My overall conclusion: things are getting more complicated in B2B – for both the buying and the selling party.

The question for us sales folks is how to handle this complexity. Very often, we do not really have a clue how the buying decision is being made, and more complexity will only make that worse. The usual reflex is to focus on (increased) 1:1 engagement, and to adapt to the specific nature of the customer contact we meet.

One approach is to simply try and connect with all of the growing number of people involved. But they vary wildly in influence, some are inaccessible and our time is limited. The risk: we spend too much time with the wrong people.

Another approach is to identify the so-called dominator, the bully with the juice, and focus all engagement on this person. But often, someone else is influencing the bully – whispering input in his or her ear. The risk: we are not engaged with the influencer.

The reality is that the people involved in the buying decision are interconnected, and part of an organizational system that includes not only these people, but other elements such as buying history, culture and conflict. Bullies might have cronies, who are equally important, and the juice flows from and to a certain direction.

Before engaging, us sales folks need to define an approach for the buying system as a whole – through exploration and strategizing. However, the sales methodologies available are not helpful here, because once again, they dive in – they are aimed at identifying and analyzing the buying individuals. We need something that helps us zoom out, not zoom in.

To get a handle on the buying system, I have designed and often used an exercise I call the buying table. It is based on the systemic principles of organizations, and it includes the sensing that we all do. It has three steps: set-up, explore and strategize. This is how it works:

The sales person (responsible for the opportunity) lists the people involved in the buying decision (the buying individuals), in front of a team audience. After that he or she sets the buying table, i.e. intuitively (in silence) gives all these people a spot at an imaginary oval table. Doing this in silence is important. It will enable the sales person to include all observations that he or she has gathered in the engagement with the buying organization. As human beings we observe a lot (I call this sensing), beyond verbal communication, and it can be helpful to try and make sense of these observations.

When the table is set (this can be done using a visual on a flip chart, or a couple of coffee mugs on a table), the team observes the setting, and starts exploring, using a variety of questions.

• what does this visual tell us?
• who is missing?

The way people are seated at the table sends a message, might warrant further exploration and might influence our strategy. The second question often leads, according to my experience with the exercise, to one or more individuals being added to the list, and table.

• who is new?
• who was involved when the current supplier (or status quo) was decided on?
• who started this?

A new individual, especially in a dominating spot, is often bad news for the existing supplier and/or the status quo. This person wants to change. On the other hand, if most of the individuals at the table were present when the decision for the existing supplier and/or status quo was taken, they might still be loyal to that – even when it failed to deliver all that was promised.

• what kind of tension do we see at the table? Any polarities?
• who is influencing who, and who is steering the discussion?
• who wants this most?

By using these exploring questions we will get a feel for the flow of the juice. Added to that: dominators are not per se the individuals who talk the most, or the loudest. But they do steer, and control.

The exercise should not be rigid. The questions might produce insights – or not. Other very relevant questions will pop up, and it is important to include them. We are exploring for insights, not so much answers, and the more questions, the better. It is human nature though to – at some point – stop exploring and get into strategizing. That is fine – as long as the team agrees that the relevant questions have been asked.

Let’s see the exercise in action:

Meet Anne. Anne is lead consultant at a supply chain consultancy firm. Her job is a combination of sales and delivery (of consultancy engagements).

Anne has been working on a very large engagement opportunity with a manufacturing firm. They wish to transform their supply chain, fixing some short-term issues, and build something robust and flexible enough to support their longer-term growth objectives, and they need a consulting partner to help execute this.

However, the opportunity seems stuck, no progress has been made for a couple of weeks. She sets up a meeting with her boss (one of the partners of the firm) and a colleague – to get a better handle on this opportunity. Both have been involved up till now, but Anne has been in the lead.

They decide to do the buying table exercise. Anne lists the buying individuals:

1. the COO
2. the head of Supply Chain
3. the IT manager
4. the CEO

Anne sets up the buying table. She puts the COO at the head of the table, the head of Supply Chain on his right, and the IT manager on his left. She puts the CEO further down the table, in the middle. Her two colleagues nod approvingly. They get into the questions.

In summary, the following comes out of the exercise.

When they get into the question of who is missing, the CFO pops up. At the table, Anne puts him opposite the CEO, and moves the IT manager closer to the CFO. The whole picture changes, because it now includes not only the CFO, but also his connections to the others, and possibly a different flow of the juice.

While discussing, they discover that the CFO is relatively new, and has been brought in by the new investor in the company, who has acquired a majority stake. For inclusion, Anne adds the new owner, standing at some distance from the table.

There has been no direct engagement with the CFO yet, but the team builds a hypothesis (to be validated) that the COO will need his blessing to go ahead with the project. To obtain that, the project benefits will need to resonate with the CFO. They also believe the CEO is under pressure, and might not want to overrule the CFO at this point. He doesn’t seem to be steering this discussion. The sensing of the teams suggests that the CEO is actually stepping away from this. The CEO is also the one who has been with the company a long time, and he might be a bit too loyal to the status quo.

The head of Supply Chain is relatively new too, he started this and he is the one that wants this most. Based on an informal observation, the thinking is that he has access to the CFO.

In summary, the approach is a pivot – from the CEO to the CFO. Anne will continue working her contacts, but will try and get intelligence on the role and the perspective of the CFO. In parallel, her boss will secure a meeting with the CFO, through a mutual contact. If the hypothesis proves to be correct, they will try a joint approach (with the COO and the head of Supply Chain) to sell the project to the CFO.

The buying table exercise is a great way to get a handle on complex buying systems. Firstly, it helps us to zoom out, look differently and see more. Secondly, it makes a lot of implicit observations explicit, so we can actually discuss and use them as teams. And thirdly, it is a visual and energizing format that helps team reviews to be more inclusive and more productive.

Next post: the buying scale!

Sources:

https://partnersinexcellenceblog.com/the-myth-of-the-single-decisionmaker/

https://wp.stevewmartin.com/buyers-report-whats-wrong-with-salespeople

https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/customer-stakeholders-new-high-data