In Defense of Activity (Part 1/3)

Your manager wants to talk to you/the team about activity every week... the HORROR. Are they incompetent? Cruel? Simple-minded?? Don't they know people work smarter not harder now?

Despite what it may seem, it's not Outputs > Inputs in sales... if anything it's Outputs = Inputs

I say this as a leader who - over the last 7 years - rarely had instances of the top activity rep being the top performer (and never over the long term). This isn't about sheer volume. It's about being more data-driven than just focusing on results.

And I'm addressing this because it's popular on LinkedIn to just talk about measuring just the "outputs" and not giving attention to those pesky annoying activity stats.

I hear it from reps all the time:

"Who cares what my numbers were, I booked 5 meetings"

"Don't hassle me on activity I am the top producer"

"Don't talk to me I am 150% to goal"

(Yes there are some of you who are actually "smarter not harder" savants - but there are WAY less of you than you think there are...)

(and some of you are just lazy and want to believe the inputs don't matter at all)

I also hear it from sales leaders all the time. Some version of:

"If a rep makes 100 calls and books one meeting and another makes 10 calls and books one meeting, those are the same"

Like a focus on activity diminishes the creativity, intelligence, or autonomy of a rep.

(And yes, there are MANY bad managers out there who micromanage with numbers or use them to manage up... sorry about them!)

But let's avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, please?

While you should absolutely strive to "work harder, not smarter", there is a limit to that approach.

Acknowledging that there are several "bad" ways a manager can focus on numbers, here are some of the good:

? Your path to consistent success ?

One of the EASIEST traps to fall into - both as a rep and a leader - is to take a positive outcome and extrapolate it as a trend.

I see this in a MICRO sense ("This got a positive reply so this email is the best").

As well as MACRO ("This rep hit goal on ramp without many emails so they can succeed this way for the year").

I've seen dozens of cases of reps with hot starts or strong quarters that were due to unsustainable approaches (such as tapping their network early in their tenure) that made activity a blind spot.

The crowd that wants to ignore activity numbers? Often inconsistent quota-achievers.

Without a focus on inputs, you miss what led to your success that you can try and recreate moving forward OR how closely those inputs aligned to your team's best practices (is this sustainable?), which brings me to...

? Identifying best practices for you and the team ?

You as a rep may not care about your team's success (I hope you do to a degree), but the best practices are there for you as well.

As a ramping rep, you need that template of success to build your early pipeline in a sustainable way (calling your past customers is a wonderful strategy but not a sustainable one).

As you develop your style and competency, you may think "eh these activity guidelines aren't for me", and that may very well be true BUT there are absolutely some inputs out there that are indicators of your success - I guarantee it.

No rep, no matter their competency, is completely free of some correlation with activity

A leaders job is to evolve with you, help you uncover these insights, and coach to the right stuff (more on that later) - which not many of them do unfortunately.

? Providing air cover for YOU, the rep ?

One of the biggest complaints from reps regarding an activity focus is that managers use activity numbers as a lazy replacement for coaching and a CYA up the chain.

And yes, that happens. I'm sorry on behalf of my fellow sales leaders!

BUT there is also an element of CYA for you as the rep.

I've seen it numerous times: A rep who doesn't fit the mold on activity that sticks out to leadership even when you hit your quarterly number. This is particularly true in poor sales cultures.

So the key is to have a quantitative explanation for those leaders (the quantitative part is key - execs don't want to hear a subjective take on why you are being successful).

A rep/manager pair who are dialed in on the inputs leading to success have created that air cover. So when a senior leader says "wow those dials are low and I am worried about rep X", your manager can say: "yes but they are producing results through LinkedIn and we see X and Y stat correlate highly with success."

A rep/manager pair NOT dialed in? That's when a manager panics and asks you to make more calls or puts their job above yours.

? Keeping the train on the tracks and avoiding valleys ?

Paying attention to activity (the right way - that's coming Part 2) leads to best practices and markers of success, even down to the individual rep level.

When you have a better sense for what sustainably got you there, you can do it again!

Long term success in sales is about consistent success, not the biggest quarterly flashes.

? Your reputation ?

Hard work may be out of fashion on LinkedIn, but I guarantee you it gets noticed in the workplace.

And while that USED to be the longest hours in the office and/or the highest dialer (I am glad it's not anymore), it still takes some form, and being seen as a "hard worker" is one of the best ways to build a consistent & strong reputation.

Obviously a much larger topic, but for me - from an activity perspective - the "hard workers" are the ones who have a plan for their day/week/month, the discipline to execute on it, and yes, are on the higher end of the dashboards (tho not the top) consistently.

? Your sales success ?

And finally, because it needs to be said, doing more (of the right) volume will lead you to more success in sales in 99.9% of cases.

I know how lazy "do more" coaching this sounds, but it's the truth (s/o to all those lazy managers with no command of the data asking for more calls and emails).

When you find what's working, and you do more of it, you get more out of it.

?? Finally, to be crystal clear, I acknowledge that managers are often bad actors here, and that in many ways this can be a counterproductive emphasis. Again, apologies for your previous experience in the matter

MORE TO COME ON THE TOPIC

Part 1: In defense of "Inputs"

Part 2: Where leaders go wrong with activity

Part 3: How leaders can use data to micromanage less

#TrustTheProcess #MakeSomeCalls #SalesManagement

#CorrCompetencies