Where Leaders Go Wrong With Activity (Part 2/3)

Many of us have had the common experience in sales:

"Wait why the heck are they looking at those numbers?"

"If you just ask me to make 10 more calls just to check your damn box they are going to be crappy ones"

"Geez this manager doesn't understand my workflow at all"

"2002 called - they want their VP of Sales back"

The comments may be directed at your manager, your director, or another leader, but they all have the same flavor.

Back when I underwent my first manager training with Force Management , they introduced a terrific concept: "Sales Manager Deficit Disorder" - the idea that we as leaders ask from our reps but do not give back in value.

And that, to me, helps explain why the activity discussion is so tense: We ask for benchmark achievement without sharing the why or looking for a better way.

First, some reasons why you might get activity scrutiny from your manager. They are subject to a variety of key pressures:

• It's a simple approach that doesn't require much thought
• It's a legacy approach for the business
• They themselves are hearing about it from their boss(es)
• It correlates generally with success of a sales team
• Or more cynical reasons such as them being a micromanager, blindly relying on what they did as a rep, them focusing on managing up/saving their own skin, them looking for reasons to "get you" - not denying these all take place (just not the focus for today)!

It's helpful to understand why these reasons are so prevalent so we can talk about how to combat them

Reason #1: It's a simple approach

This happens all the time in marketing-land (my background). People measure clicks on their ads as a metric of success because - in spite of a mountain of evidence to the drawbacks - it's the most simple metric available.

In sales, a call or email volume metric is that same easy metric. Is there some correlation to success? Depends on your sales environment. While the short answer is "kind of/most of the time", we can all agree there are diminishing returns to both.

To the cynical, there is an element of laziness to the manager who focuses on calls and emails, and there is some truth to that. It's also true that as metrics get more complex, the picture gets a little muddier and it's harder to draw a correlation.

Reason #2: It's a legacy approach to your business

Lots of people at the top of your company have opinions, and chances are they come from a generation that prized volume, particularly if they are removed from sales (seriously, CFO's and CEO's just seem to love cold call numbers).

This is both a product of "this is how we have always done it" and execs needing a more simple metric to measure progress for their teams (see above).

Does it feel too old school to some of you? That's fair. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. But the POV could use an evolution.

Reason #3: Your boss gets pressure from their boss

Everybody has a boss, and the sh*t rolls downhill in the saying. Those execs are trying to forecast the business multiple quarters into the future, and they need some sort of concrete, leading metric to ensure the business is on the right track... and it doesn't get more concrete and leading than raw activity.

Your manager gets pressure on the revenue number, sure, but there is also activity pressure applied to ensure the revenue number is attainable at the end of the quarter.

Even good managers have some sort of CYA instinct, and they might not have much of a choice depending on their position.

Reason #4: Activity correlates generally with sales success (it does)

This last point is nuanced and key. Reliably, for years, I could look at average volume of activity across my channel and have a good idea of our new business trajectory the following quarter.

This held true for my medium-sized channel quarter after quarter. Now imagine you work with hundreds of reps. That law of averages plays out reliably at scale and reinforces the benchmarks that you have been handed.

BUT those same rules from rep to rep or team to team weren't as highly correlated. The friction comes when managers apply a broad average to each individual rep as the target metric.

Reps - understand the trickiness here for your manager. They likely know each rep has a particular style, but it's difficult to promote accountability and equity if everyone has different observable metrics. That's why you see team targets applied at scale.

It's easy for a manager - particularly a new one - to fall prey to simplicity, inertia, and social pressure.

Leadership is setup to prioritize simple, legacy metrics. They then get applied broadly at the rep level. It's a bit like a restaurant taking their most popular menu item from 2023 and serving that to every guest for dinner.

Given the above, there are some ways a manager can create a better environment for their team and avoid some of these pitfalls. While I will go more in depth tomorrow on some specific actions and what that looks like, here are some general concepts the manager needs to keep in mind:

1. Make the complex stuff more simple. It stands to reason that if "easy" metrics get more attention, one way to broaden the scope of your leadership group is to simplify your more complex numbers. Make sure you have easy access to all the metrics you need and a cadence to review them. I worked frequently with RevOps team members to get Tableau/SFDC in the right spot as well as my vendor partners to unlock the right data from our sales tools. Make sure your leadership team has access to those dashboards. Identify the primary metrics you want to focus on and why that number matters.
2. Consistently re-evaluate if your chosen metrics/targets are leading to success. What do the top performers have in common? Is the leading metric we focused on actually delivering? Has our landscape changed? Is our data outdated? Be asking yourself these questions. The more insight you have here, and the more correlation you can demonstrate, the more air cover you create for your team when leadership comes calling.
3. Introduce new metrics when you can. Those may come from a new vendor or a new hire or your own creativity. Can't hurt to have a fresh lens and additional data. If it makes sense, keep it. If it doesn't, maybe revisit later.
4. Involve your team. Share some of the stuff you are looking at. Give them access to the data if they want to investigate (a few will!). And try and create buy in from the team on your approach. They likely want to know what will make them better and drive success. Help them understand why you chose the metric, so that when you hold them accountable to it, they are motivated by success in their role as opposed to checking a box.

Part 3 on the way tomorrow!

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