Selling with Data #87 - Is the individual or the manager responsible for core skill development?
Last week I paid $19.95 for the Harvard Business Review. What sold me was the headline: How AI Can Transform Your Organization. I spend a lot of time thinking about this, so I was willing to spend $20.
After reading the magazine, I can honestly say I would have paid 5x for it. The value of the content – ?especially around the process design and change management required by many organizations to capture the value of AI – was well worth the cost.
One point that struck me: Learning emerging skills doesn't always pay off.
The main message is that while people often prioritize the latest en vogue topic, the biggest opportunity to build their skills is around core skills and products. The article references a Gartner study of 3,375 employees where training workers in core skills essential to their current roles has five times more impact than teaching emerging skills.
Said differently, fundamental business acumen and deep technical expertise is of higher value than knowing the latest innovation or product off the truck. I didn't expect that.
Recent findings from the World Economic Forum (WEF) highlight the amount of change that is coming and the impact on skills. The WEF reported that 44% of workers’ skills would need to be updated within the next five years and that 60% of employees would require retraining before 2027. It isn't the cutting edge skills that have the highest return. It’s the core skills that are most important.
Near the end of the article the question of how to handle long-term employees who are opposed to brushing up on core skills was raised. What surprised me was the article answered the question with the following:
"If an employee is resistant, it's their managers job to help them understand the requirements and hone their skills."
The managers job is to help the resistant employee. The manager is responsible.
I have found a third of most teams are highly active in their skill development. These are typically the highest, most consistent achievers because they are curious and lifelong learners.
The next third of the team are kind of active, though the level of activity varies. They show up and either go through the motions or selectively pick where they are going to focus. These are the ones who finish the assignment the night before it is due.
The last third is reluctant to show up. They typically do not complete the assignment unless they fear retribution, They are the first to publicly complain about the skilling that the company is asking of them.
No matter the effort or reward – and I have tried the carrot and stick – changing the behavior of the last third is very difficult.
We all know people in the last third. Many are experienced sellers or technical sellers who are treated differently by their leaders – often given a "pass" to participate in their own skill building. I have found most new sellers and technical sellers are hungry for skills and tend to be in the top two thirds of learning. They do not develop bad habits until they see it tolerated by leaders.
I am frustrated by this last group because it’s not directly correlated to experience. I have worked with many experienced and successful sellers and technical sellers who prioritize their core skill building. They are the first to show up and lead from the front. They have a growth mindset and are lifelong learners. It is the other group – those who are complacent and should be active participants but are not.
The answer made me think. What responsibility does a manager have with those who refuse to invest in their own core skills?
My experience is many managers tolerate much more from experienced sellers and technical sellers than the average sellers or technical sellers on their team. They do this behavior because many of the last third are the most experienced sellers and technical sellers and often top contributors. Managers avoid disrupting the status quo, even when complaceny detracts from team culture and negatively impacts skills development.
I have managed exceptional, successful, and experienced sellers and technical sellers. They are self-starters, which is why I always saw my role as more of a coach – keeping the focusing on the training they need to keep sharp and always prepared.
The responsibility of the skill building is with the manager.
Ask yourself: if a top revenue contributor continuously beats their quota but never attends enablement or contributes to the building of their own core skills, is that okay? Should a manager who has low participation across their teams be held more responsible than the individuals who are not participating in their own development?
Please leave a comment with your thoughts.
Good selling.
Business Management Information Technology Solution Sales
1 周Is a top contributor lacking in core skills? If they are not able to attend training, is that the fault of the training manager not recognizing that the customer comes first? I've seen low performing reps get kudos for attending training, if they are not hitting their numbers, what does that mean?
AI Engineer | Psychology | Human Machine Teaming
1 周Your point about core skills versus emerging skills is thought-provoking. The data showing that training in core skills has five times more impact than teaching emerging skills challenges the common excitement around cutting-edge technologies and trends. I'm particularly interested in the accountability dynamic you've described. When it comes to that final third of resistant team members, especially high performers who meet quotas but skip enablement, how do you think the accountability should be distributed between the first-line manager and their leadership chain?? It seems there's a potential conflict when upper management directs FLMs to enforce skill development while simultaneously rewarding those same managers for the revenue numbers produced by resistant but high-performing team members. Does this create a no-win situation for first-line managers, where they're caught between conflicting directives from above?
Speaker, Coach, Technology and Thought Leader, Executive Advisor and Customer Success and Chief Magic Officer at IBM, Creator of the Tactical Communication method
2 周I'm with Paul on this one. You can be a great seller, but unless you can truly articulate value with knowledge, how can you really bring value to your customer, who you should see as your partner? It also demonstrates to your leadership that you're not just there to bring in the revenue, but investing in yourself and being that trusted partner for your customers. In short, it ain't all about the bucks - it's about valuing your organization, your partners and yourself.
VP IBM Technology Group Skills Vitality & Enablement at IBM
2 周Ya great article. I've managed those people. Sometimes those at the pinnacle of their tech careers (DEs) and had to de-band them. Why? Too many passes on skills and they were relying on what they'd in the past vs. what they can do in the future. For me, I ALWAYS know I won't be the most technical guy in the world, but I'm going to try to be. And just like if you don't do core or stretch at the gym, all those muscles you build won't help like they should without the supporting cast -- all those other skills you alluded to here. GREAT POST
Be Human, Be Humble, Be Honest
2 周Awesome post. No simple answer. I was leading a class for our TSLs / ATLs today and we talked about what it means to lead. I asked our sellers to share their thoughts on four questions. I think these also apply to learning core skills: 1. What are your expectations for your team? 2. To what extent do your team members know what good looks like? 3. In what ways are you leading from the front? By example? 4. How are you holding yourself and your team members accountable?