Coaching time - Where is it best invested? The views from top sales leaders, coaches, and experts

Coaching is frequently accepted as THE most important function of a front line sales manager, with data showing that effective and frequent coaching can comfortably see a 20% increase in performance. Yet despite the perceived importance of this function, the average sales leader invests only 5% of their time in helping to develop their reps.

The factor of time is probably the most common reason as to why coaching doesn’t take place as much as it should do. But when time is perceived to be at such a premium, where should sales leaders be best investing it within their salesforce?

Matthew Dixon and Brent Adamson wrote this HBR article back in 2011, which documented research that showed managerial coaching time is best invested in the ‘middle 60%’ (core performers or B-Players for the purpose of my piece), and is ultimately wasted on the top and bottom thirds. The gains seen from this middle ground of salespeople as a result of coaching was deemed to be so significant, that ultimately managers were being busy fools if they focus on strugglers or high achievers. But is this still the case six years on? What are the approaches of coaching time investment from front line sales leaders? Is there a correlation between profile of salesperson and how they respond to coaching? And what are coaching experts and researchers seeing in the industry? I went away and carried out a whole bunch of interviews, and this is what I found out:

Time as a barrier to coaching

Time is often pointed to as the single biggest barrier to frequent sales coaching. How much in reality is this the case? From each of my conversations, overwhelmingly - 95% of sales leaders I interviewed all shared a similar opinion along the lines that ‘should be doing much more’ but other managerial tasks often meant this was a difficult hurdle to get over.

Larry Long of Pendo.io stated that:

"On average - I try to invest an hour one-on-one per week with each rep. It isn’t enough though. You should make time for what’s important, so a lack of time is often used as an excuse - but it’s certainly a barrier."

Kristina Puccinnelli of Raise claimed that on average she invests between 30-35% of her working week coaching reps, but the difficulty comes with prioritisation.

"For me the challenge is always prioritisation with all the other tasks on my plate. I’m always looking for ways to find more time to dedicate to ongoing coaching".

Larry went further to highlighting his key challenges of facing the time barrier. "Currently I’m interviewing prolifically as we expand the team here at Pendo. Naturally that means my coaching time is stretched".

Whilst time challenges appear to be very real obstacles facing managers when it comes to coaching, Kristina McMillan of Sales and Marketing consultancy TOPO, explained that from her experience, managers can sometimes be guilty of ‘over-reporting’ on what they actually do in practice :

“Most managers say they spend 4 to 6 hours of their week coaching, but that typically includes training and one-on-ones which we don’t quantify as coaching. Most time invested in coaching up skills tends to be heavily focused in the first 3 months of a reps tenure, and then tends to drop off.”

Formalising coaching

In order to try and start addressing prioritisation and time challenges, comes the requirement to start to formalise coaching and ultimately making this a measurable KPI. We all have slots on our calendar for interviews, board reports, pipeline updates - so why don’t we do the same with a critical task such as coaching?

I spoke with Tamara Schenk, Research Director of CSO Insights who shared her knowledge about why coaching is not happening frequently enough, and the necessity of formalising the coaching activity in order to make it work:

‘‘One of the reasons managers aren’t coaching enough, is the structural barrier to time. If an organisation has a loose approach to coaching, then usually - no coaching takes place. Even if they have more of an informal approach to coaching (i.e. where there is only lip service, but no process), then having no time often gets used as an excuse. Often no companies have a formal way of measuring coaching time.’

An interesting perspective on the barrier of time came from Julie Newhouse - Sales Training & Enablement Manager at Lyft. She pointed to the fact that whilst time is an issue, this may be an excuse stemming from other factors. "A lot of junior front line managers aren’t comfortable having coaching conversations and delivering real time feedback. Time is often the excuse for not having the confidence."

This coaching aptitude issue was further highlighted by Schenk who describes it as a ‘mindset barrier’, and that often sales managers have a ‘lack of expertise as they were simply promoted into their role based on previous high performance’.

What was refreshing to hear when speaking with various sales leaders however, was that some are making strides forward in trying to get a more formalised approach to coaching activity in the working week.

Director Renewal Sales at OnDeck - Chad Dyar explained how his team have now incorporated a ‘coaching cadence’ to ensure it doesn’t fall by the wayside. They have even gone as far as giving each sales leader an ‘accountability buddy’, as a way to to reinforce coaching time on things such as call review sessions.

This coaching cadence is similarly being adopted by Anthony Wilkinson of Birst who carves out dedicated coaching time in his calendar. ‘An hour each week with each rep’ is largely set in stone.

The willingness to be coached

Much of my research identified that coaching time was often dictated by the willingness of the rep themselves, rather than who the manager selected per se. One common shared opinion, was that coaching time should ultimately be prioritised to those who crave it more. This more times than not happens to be the ‘middle 60%’.

Sales author and coach Barbara Giamanco stated that “coaching should be offered to those willing and eager for coaching, which is often the middle of the road performer”

Director of Sales for Mavenlink, Adam Nemeth had a similar outlook explaining that the skill and will approach is key here. “I want to focus time on the reps who WANT to be coached (even if they don’t have the skill). These typically fall into the middle 60%.”

Kristina Puccinelli essentially echoed these sentiments, by stating that from her experience, “middle performers are more keen to listen and act on it faster.”

Tamara Schenk added further weight behind this opinion that for coaching to be effective, it needs to be embraced. “Coaching always requires a coachee to be open to coaching. People resistant to coaching makes it difficult. You normally see this in the underperforming reps”.

Who are we investing coaching time in then?

Swinging back round to the debate in question then, which group do we see the biggest ROI in coaching time (if any), and does that dictate whether we focus all/the majority of our efforts in the middle 60% or across the board?

This question as perhaps expected, did start to show the split of opinion here with in general, two key stances.

1. Equal Opportunities?

There were a number of opinions aligned to the mindset of coaching all levels of the sales team, regardless of ability - with the majority caveating this with the fact that the reps themselves needed to be coachable.

Puccinnelli of Raise stated the importance of coaching at an ‘equal level’, and that ‘Everyone should receive coaching, no matter their results’.

The ROI received on coaching from all levels of the sales team was clearly highlighted by Anthony Wilkinson of Birst. Anthony recollected a story:

“A good example of someone I had worked with previously was a guy who made the most calls, the hardest worker yet still struggled with results. Driven by more intense coaching he ended up going from a bottom performer to the top."

In the same vein, Wilkinson also described a similar impact achieved with a top performer. “I was once tasked to double performance of the sales team. My top performer was doing ￡15k a month, and through more intensive coaching ended up doubling their results”

Proof of the powerful returns of coaching on high performers was again further reinforced by Larry Long. Long recalled a time that his top rep went from ‘great’ to ‘spectacular’ through close coaching and mentorship.

"She went from booking 45 to 62 which had previously been seen as almost an impossibility."

The case for coaching all levels of the sales team to achieve strong ROI, was succinctly summarised by sales author and coach Dave Kurlan. Kurlan brought maths into the equation.

“If I can get an incremental improvement of even 10%, then I will focus on all levels. If my top performer is bringing in ￡250k and I can get them to ￡275k, than that in itself is a greater ROI of improving a ￡150k biller by 10%.”

This was an interesting slant on the debate. When it comes to coaching varying levels of the sales force, is there a conflict of interests between sales managers prioritising coaching of reps for their own personal development versus for company revenue gains?

Eve Kadar, Manager of Sales Enablement at Gainsight expanded on this further by saying that:

“Your high performers are already performing well and so your impact on their ability may be smaller, but the impact on revenue could be huge. On the flip side, your impact on the middle performer might be larger but the proportional gains in revenue for the business may be a lot smaller.”

Talking further about the need to impact all ‘three buckets’ of the sales force through coaching, was mentioned by Paul Ohls, VP Sales for Tenfold. Ohls explained the need for sales leaders to have ‘leading indicators’ on WHAT to focus coaching on, so that he can have ‘fewer, focused conversations’  in order to optimise coaching time. This then helps “provide a level of scale that allows you to impact a greater number of people....people in the first 1/3, the "middle 60" and the bottom 1/3.”

2. The fear of ignoring the top performer?

What was a reasonably common theme across my various interviews, was that coaching the top reps was as much about keeping your highest performers as actually impacting on their performance. Fear that a lack of coaching time invested in those bringing in the most revenue would lead to disengagement is a very real concern.

Cody Guymons, Sales Operations Manager of Customer Experience software Qualtrics, explained that “if you don’t give attention to your top performers, you risk attrition”. Guymons felt that this in particular was one important area not considered by the HBR article.

Very similarly, Long of Pendo stated “If you neglect your A-Players then that’s when you lose them”.

A separate perspective brought to life, that the millennial workforce we now have demands feedback at all levels. Studies have even shown that millennials even prefer to receive negative feedback over positive. Eve Kadar told me that top performers at Gainsight are craving coaching as much as anybody else.

3. Focusing on the middle 60%?

In contrast, there remained a lot of shared opinion with Adamson and Dixon - that the middle of the road performer should be where managers are best off investing the majority of their coaching time. Fronting this side of the argument was Tamara Schenk, who through research presented the view of the importance of ‘level jumping’ the middle 60%:

“You want to improve the C’s (players) to B’s, and move B’s to become better B’s and A’s. The greatest gains are in the middle 60%. Commonly this is where we see the bigger impact. A-Players will always typically be over achievers (and may often not consciously know what they do differently). More worthwhile than coaching them is often praising and profile their performance. The more coaching goes to the lower performers, it tends to turn into performance management and managing activities rather than actually coaching skills and behaviours”

Chad Dyar of OnDeck explained that his sales managers will invest most of their coaching time on the middle performers, as that is where they see the greatest ROI on revenue. For him personally, he will look to work with the top performers but that this is not necessarily to improve revenue attainment, but to “turn them into player coaches who can share best practice and influence others on the team”.

Dyar went further to explaining that coaching time spent with bottom performers delivers the weakest return as more times than not, they are simply not a good fit for the role. Barb Giamanco shared this view point that it’s very much a case of ‘learning quickly’ whether coaching will reap its rewards on the low achievers.

“If coaching hasn’t had the desired impact, time should be more invested in looking to find a role which is a better fit for that person”

McMillan of TOPO shared why although she often sees managers ending up focusing on the middle performers, this isn’t necessarily down to scientific proof, but more a case of short sighted goals driven by pressure of targets:

“I see managers spending more time on what they feel most nervous about. If somebody is forecasting more deals by month end, then they will end up focusing on that person. Coaching ends up more slap-dash and not focused enough.”

From her prior experiences, Liz Cain of Openview Venture Partners has discovered that the best return of coaching time (as well as from those who WANT to learn) has been from the middle section of the sales team:

"it’s easier to spend time with your top performers, but incremental change with low/middle individuals has a greater impact on results, team morale and the business as a whole.

‘Coachability’ - How desirable is it?

In short - huge. In fact 100% of the people I interviewed, all vehemently claimed that coachability was one of THE most crucial attributes companies and sales leaders are looking for when hiring salespeople. In fact, much of the opinion garnered here profiled the ability to learn and be moulded as of higher importance than a sales track record. But despite it being such a critical ‘tick box’ on the candidate profile, what was evident was the difficulty sales leaders had of really measuring it in the recruitment process.

Dave Kurlan shone a light on this by saying that coachability is ‘too often looked at subjectively’ with no real data behind evaluations in interviews. A classic case of salespeople often being ‘expert interviewees’ not helping with this. Kurlan highlighted the need for more sales organisations to use formal assessments such as those provided by Objective Management Group, to make testing coachability much more tangible.

Top Performers who aren’t coachable - The Big Debate

What was definitely the most interesting part of my research, given the dichotomy of views I received - was whether there was a place on the sales team for the guys who ‘smash it out the park’, yet lacked coachability and were resistant to feedback. This is a conundrum for most sales leaders who crave coachable individuals on their team, but can ultimately live or die by the individuals who bring home the most bacon.

Jason Rozenblat, VP Inside Sales of Greensky held very strong views on this debate with some interesting prior experiences.

“In my last role I forced my top performer to resign as he was resistant to feedback to the point of being disruptive, despite the fact he made me a lot of money. More recently, when I interviewed someone for my team, despite him clearly being an amazingly talented sales person and there being such a huge war on talent in the area, there were a number of red flags which indicated this person wasn’t coachable. I ended up recommending him to apply for another company.”

Chad Dyar shared similar views. “Lack of coachability is not a good culture fit. I’ve previously managed top reps out of the business as they weren’t coachable.”

Barbara Giamanco weighed in further with the risk these individuals place on company culture and the moral dilemma of high performance versus coachability.

“The person who is not coachable (and therefore unlikely to be a team player), their behaviour typically tends to erode the team dynamic. What do we care about more? Just because somebody is exceeding quota, doesn’t mean they could be causing damage in other parts of the business.”

This ‘fine line’ was further talked about by the panel, with perhaps tones of uncertainty as to how far an uncoachable high achiever can go before they go ‘over the edge’.

Tamara from CSO was of the opinion that “The question becomes what their lack of cultural fit is impacting on the organisation. Organisations tend to tolerate those who make their numbers, but often there is a turning point when their behaviour impacts the rest of the team."

Julie from Lyft added to this by saying “every organisation needs the A-Players and so there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be left alone. There is a fine line on whether they end up affecting the company culture though.”

On the other side of the coin, was the argument for the ‘maverick top performer’. The high achiever who despite being resistant to change, was ultimately too important to let go and drive results elsewhere.

Adam from Mavenlink was completely on board with having that profile of sales-person on the team, simply because it’s so unlikely to ever have a set of reps all completely bought into coaching and feedback. Instead, it’s a case of managers adapting to the reps to get the best out of them.

“If you involve them in change rather than directing them, and implement some of their ideas in that process, it will make them feel like they are more involved, and actually build coachability.”

Kristina from TOPO gave what I perceived was more of a realistic outlook on the industry, in that whilst the demand for coachable reps is high priority, everything ultimately gets trumped by revenue.

“I’d struggle to see any leader let a sales rep go who lacked coachability but who was a top performer. The rep need to be open to process and training, but i wouldn’t call that coachability. They shouldn’t be left alone though and should be able to fit in with the sales team. Sales leaders want to hit their number and that's that.”

With a view that reflected this was from Dave Kurlan, who staked the claim that if top performers are moving the needle so much for an organisation, then the risk of letting them go is surely too great. He shared a unique view from all I interviewed, that moving these ‘mavericks’ away from the sales team into a ‘sales team of one’ so they don’t disrupt the dynamic was a feasible approach.

“I’m OK with an un-coachable top performer. If you’re hitting the numbers, do whatever you want. Every organisation has the maverick top performer. Instead of trying to change them, why not isolate them and let them produce?”

In Conclusion

Despite the studies carried out previously, there still appears to be a lack of consistency in where managers are dedicating their coaching time within the sales team. There is certainly a slight chasm in opinion between those who are directly involved with leading sales teams, versus those with more of an ‘outside looking in’ opinion. Whilst the research led approach, still overall dictates that managers should be investing their time in middle performers where they can get more ‘bang for their buck’, stories and theories of getting greater ROI out of top performers provides compelling counter arguments.

What was certainly a consistent view across most that I spoke with, is that coaching time is certainly not best focused in bottom performers, and that so often, those reps are ultimately in the wrong role or at the wrong place.

What was interesting in not just this piece of research, but from my own personal experiences, is that there still is much misconception which exists about what coaching actually is. Whilst the individuals I interviewed have been recognised as strong leaders, coaches, and experts - much of what I see in general in the industry, is time being spent on activities and tasks which aren’t impacting on performance. There exists probably a more wider issue of prioritisation and misunderstanding which is not helping managers ‘find the time to coach’.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you experiencing with your own teams? Where do you focus your coaching time and why? Please share your comments below.