The day after the Tiger Woods story broke, I posted the  following question on LinkedIn:

What would you do ifyour top sales person pulled a “Tiger Woods”? Assume the person is married but not fooling around with people from the office…

I was curious to see how managers would deal with this situation. The question was posted before the full extent of Tiger’s exploits was made public.

The question generated hundreds of responses. People fell into three camps:

Fire immediately (20% of responders)

Try to help (20% of responders)

None of my business (60% of responders)

The majority of responders feel that employees should not be judged by what they do in their personal lives. As long as job performance is not affected, an employee’s extra curricular activities are of no concern.

On the other extreme, some people believe adultery is a character issue and equate it to cheating at golf. Since trust is such a large part of sales, can you trust a person who cheats on their spouse?

Many responders focused on the risk of not addressing the situation citing questionable behavior that becomes public may have a negative impact on the company. In addition, other employees may lose respect for management if the situation is not handled appropriately.

Three weeks after I posted the question, Tiger’s wife and  sponsors (except Nike) have left him. Tiger is still in seclusion and has not yet publically addressed themedia.

Much can be said from the old adage “messy personal lives usually spill over to professional lives”.  I fall into the be pro-active camp – if one of my top performers is engaged in risky behavior, I would address it.  Employers make an investment in their people and should take action to protect that investment.

I wonder if Tiger’s sponsors were aware of his activities? I find it hard to believe that a sponsor paying millions of dollars for image marketing would not conduct extensive background checks on a regular basis.  Accenture’s brand marketing revolved around the “Be a Tiger” campaign. How would you like to be the marketing person who came up with that idea? Yikes!

A few weeks ago, I agreed to meet a “friend of a friend” who was looking for employment. As I shook the person’s hand, I noticed he reeked of smoke. I immediately wrote him off as a “do not hire” and feigned interest for the remainder of our 30-minute conversation.

Wondering if I was being too judgmental about his smoking habit, I decided to poll a group of business people about this topic. I posted the following question on several LinkedIn group discussion forums:

“Would you hire asmoker for a customer- facing position such as sales or account management?”

Someone immediately sent me a private note suggesting that I should seek psychological help for asking such a stupid question.  I made a mental note to do so.

As expected, smoking is a very polarizing subject for business professionals. Respondents were very strong in their beliefs – either adamantly no or yes.

Over ninety percent WOULD NOT HIRE a smoker, offering reasons such as:

• “Smoking is not socially acceptable”
• "There is no way to get rid of the smell
• "Smokers are bad for business (more sick days,higher insurance premiums, smoke breaks during work hours, etc.)"

•  “I find it absurd and offensive not to hire aperson because of a habit”
• "Hire the best person for the job. There is no difference in ability between smokers and non-smokers.”
• "Smoking is totally acceptable in our country (UK)”

Some of the most vocal WOULD NOT HIRE people were current smokers. Apparently, they see smoking as a barrier to personal and professional acceptance.

A few attorneys joined the discussion to warn people that refusing to hire a smoker could be deemed discriminatory.  Where would we be without the lawyers?

My bottom line – Most people (in the USA) do not smoke and are turned off by people who do. Smoking is a choice – one that could become hazardous to your career.

When President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I was struck by the reaction here in the United States. The award bewildered many people, including the media. The fact that he was in office only twelve days when nominations were due made people wonder if he was deserving of the award.

This situation made me think about the negative consequences of receiving something that was not deserved. To gauge public opinion, I posted the following question on several LinkedIn groups:

"What is the downside of receiving something (example - a raise, promotion, the Nobel Peace Prize) you may not deserve?"

This post generated hundreds of responses, most in line with my way of thinking:

• "Undermines the value of the award"
• "Cheapens award, deflates moral, diminishes faith in the organization"
• "If person knows they didn't deserve (raise, promotion, award), they may spend too much time defending themselves"
• "Can create jealousy that torpedoes the success of the recipient"
• "Provides a false sense of importance for the winner"

A small minority believes that awarding promotions, awards, and raises to the undeserving is a good thing - logic being that it will serve as a motivator to the recipient and others in the organization.

A few people attacked me personally for merely suggesting that President Obama may not be deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope they didn't contact the White House and suggest that I get put on the enemies list.

My bottom line - reward the deserving. Don't lower the bar and reward mediocrity.

Sales meetings, when managed properly, can be an effective tool to help communicate, train and motivate a sales team. Top sales leaders make the most of this limited but valuable time by focusing on activities that are shown to have the greatest positive influence on their team’s performance.

One proven way to help increase the quality and value of a sales meeting is to use a list of best-practices. These lists can be very helpful, but be sure to confirm that you’re taking advice from a reputable source, i.e. a successful sales manager, and not the advice of some sales manager hack wannabe.

To illustrate my point, check out the list below - I stumbled across it a few weeks ago. I wanted to share it with you because…well…it really helped hit home the point. When reading through the list, I found it most helpful to think about doing the exact opposite of what’s being recommended. This way, you’ll not only get the humor, but also ensure that you’re on the right path to leading both effective and productive sales meetings – for you and your team.

It should have been called…Sales Meeting Worst Practices. Here they are:

• Show up late for your sales meeting
• This type non-verbal communication is especially effective in helping the team understand how unimportant sales meetings really are.
  
• Don’t use an agenda
  
• If you do decide to use an agenda, make sure that you hold off on distributing it until the team arrives at the conference room – this way you can see the expressions on people’s faces. Also, be sure that the agenda is packed with topics that are completely irrelevant and disinteresting to the salespeople - this is a great way to help ensure reps come fully prepared to zone-out.
  
• Start the meeting by introducing unannounced major changes
• Important, personal announcements, such as compensation plan changes, are a great way to help start off your meeting with a bang. What’s more, they almost always guarantee that you catch everyone off-guard (which sales people love). Remember too, everyone loves surprises.
  
• Always follow alarming announcements with bashing individuals and the team
• Letting the meeting turn into a complaint session is the sign of truly talented sales leader. Teach your team to embrace this type of energy and apply it whenever the opportunity arises.
• Scrap recognition and encourage everyone in the meeting to gang-up on poor performers
  
• The conference room setting not only makes it hard for “C players” to escape the ridicule, but helps build a special type of solidarity among reps. Think of it as an exercise in team-building.
  
• Use twitter as a way to fill time while your team is strategizing how to win major deals
  
• Not only will this win you respect and praise as a legitimate “hands-off” manager, but it will also make it crystal clear to your team that your priorities clearly do include helping them succeed.
  
• Manage the time poorly
  
• Reps are always looking for a reason to be late to their next appointment – so what better person is there to lend a hand. Communicate specifically what time the meeting will start and end, and then just keep everyone late enough guarantee they’re late to their next appointment.

Post written by guest blogger: Chip Quimby - Director of Operations, STM360 

This past June, I had the pleasure to attend a special three-day seminar hosted by one of the world's preeminent martial artists. The instructor was a remarkably talented individual and held not only a 9th degree black belt, but also Japan's Intangible Cultural Asset title in the Field of Okinawan Karate.

I share his qualifications with you not to impress, but to help you understand the irony of the seminar. Perhaps it might surprise you to learn that our training over those three days wasn't the advanced curriculum you might expect to see at a seminar held for seasoned practitioners, most with an average experience level of twenty years.

No, there wasn't any in-depth examination of quarter-second timing theory or any practice of variable-distancing combatives, but actually the complete opposite. This group of martial artists, lead by one of the most accomplished practitioner alive, focused instead on the basics. You know...punching, kicking, striking and blocking.

Why? Well the reason was simple. The teacher wanted to impress upon us, more than anything else over those three days, that no matter what our level of experience, be it beginner or advanced - if we wanted to be great martial artists, than we needed to always stay focused on the basics.

Days later I jumped a plane and returned home. Over the next few days, I continued to reflect on the seminar and the theme we focused on during training. I also spent time reflecting on the similarities that existed between the martial arts and sales, and how to be effective at both requires a constant focus on the basics.

The most successful sales people I know, just as in the martial arts, are great at the fundamentals - you know - the punches, kicks, strikes and blocks of selling. Effective sales professionals, just like martial artists, earn and then re-earn their "sales black belt" everyday by continually focusing on the basics. It's all too easy a thing to forget, but truly one of the secrets to their success. Here's what made my list:

• Know your customer
• Always be prospecting
• Prep for every customer interaction
• Properly execute every customer interaction
• Validate needs and buying process with the customer
• Qualify hard and often
• Always be closing
• Never take short cuts with the basics

Learning and applying any one of these skills is not difficult, yet to do all of them, all the time, requires commitment and discipline, just like the martial arts. It's easy to skip steps and blow things off, especially when you think you've been around the block once or twice.

Complex sales, by definition, involve multiple steps and multiple decision stakeholders. Although it's not rocket science, to perform this type of process well requires a high degree of discipline, good old-fashion hard work, and focus on the basics - very much like the martial arts.

The USOC, even with help from Oprah and the Obamas, could not close the deal. Despite being the odds-on favorite to win the bid for the 2016 summer Olympics, Chicago was eliminated in the first round of the finals by the IOC. What sales lessons can be learned from Chicago's loss?

Bidding for the Olympic Games is the truest form of a complex sales cycle. A significant investment of time and money is required just to participate in the process. Losing this type of deal, especially late in the game, is a heart breaker.

So what mistakes did the USOC and Chicago make in the sales process? Several things:

Alienate the decision makers - This past summer, the USOC announced plans to launch a cable TV network, without the official buy-in from the IOC. This brazen plan angered many within the IOC and deepened their distrust and dislike of the USOC. The plan was eventually aborted days later.

Appear unstable at the top - The USOC has cycled through six CEO's in the past nine years. Current President Stephanie Streeter was hired just seven months prior to the October 2nd bidding process and made minimal efforts to build relationships with key decision makers. Coming from the printing industry, she had no prior experience in international sports. Ms. Streeter resigned a few days after the failed bid.

Not understand the decision criteria - The Olympics are more than just a business event - they are a worldwide celebration of excellence, sportsmanship, and culture. Chicago's final presentation generated no emotional response from the voting body. Deciding to focus on what the games would mean to the City of Chicago, the pitch failed to show how a broader constituency would benefit. By contrast, Brazil's main message stressed a Rio games would raise the acceptance of the entire continent.

Focus on the pitch, not the relationships - Chicago thought that it was all about the pitch. Enlisting help from Oprah and Barack Obama, Chicago was hoping star power would secure the win. Many IOC members were offended by Chicago's lack of effort to build relationships prior to the voting. The team made last minute efforts (led by Michelle Obama) to meet with key IOC voting members. Brazil, by contrast, spent months entertaining and building relationships with the voting members.

Show lack of commitment - Until the 11th hour, it was not clear if the City of Chicago would step up and fund any financial deficits. All the other bidders included financial guarantees as part of their proposal right from the start.

The outcome is not a surprise if you look at other factors such as the world's dislike of the USA and the Olympics never being held in South America. I would like to know how the odds-makers determined Chicago as the city to beat.

Take nothing away from the Rio delegation - they did an amazing job of selling the city, Brazil, and South America to the IOC. We should all remember how important passion is to the sales process.

Few would argue that military experience teaches leadership skills valuable in the corporate world. But is military experience an asset for someone who chooses a sales career?

I posted the question on several sales-focused Linkedin groups. Not surprisingly, a large majority of responders (80%) believe the ex-military make good sales people. Citing attributes such as tenacity, discipline, work ethic, and ability to work under pressure, most would not hesitate to hire these folks - assuming they possessed the right personality type.

What I found most interesting was the anecdotal comments made by those cautious of hiring ex-military:

"Are trained by the numbers. May struggle if the job requires out-of-the-box thinking."

"Reluctant to call on senior executives. Might be a result of the rank system."

"Struggle in sales manager roles. Expect sales people to follow orders and do what they are told. People don't behave that way in the civilian world."

In my opinion, military experience can be a real asset for sales, especially in challenging times. Like any other candidate, they must be fully vetted during the hiring process to make sure they possess the appropriate skills / mindset for the mission at hand.

With that said, I made one of my worst mistakes as a sales leader by hiring an ex-officer from a very elite group. Needing someone to "pioneer" a new territory, I felt he was perfect for this difficult assignment. I was so enamored with his background that I ignored red flags raised during the hiring process. As it turned out, he was severely deficient in mental toughness. How he made it through his unit's notoriously rigorous training still remains a mystery to me......

Bad hiring decisions and poor sales management account for some of the blame. However, most organizations have abandoned training / on-boarding for new sales people as a way to save money. Is it realistic to expect a new hire to "figure it out" with little or no help? I think not.

In the previous century, many companies invested heavily in the development of new hire sales people. It was not uncommon to see month long "sales boot camps" coupled with a formal mentoring program. Many current top sales leaders began their careers in one of these programs.

I admit times have changed. Every company is facing margin and cost pressure. However, sales on-boarding programs need not be extravagant in cost and design to be effective. To "bootstrap" a sales on-boarding program, follow these steps:

1. Identify what factors contribute to a sales person's productivity
• Selling skills needed for THIS job (prospecting, etc)
• Industry / company / product knowledge
• Learning internal processes (how to take an order, etc)
• Building internal relationships (marketing, customer support, top sales people, etc)
• Engagement in day to day selling activities (prospecting, meeting customers, etc)
• Logistics (computer, phone, email, etc)
2. For each category, detail what existing assets (e-learning, people, white papers, etc) are available and can be leveraged
3. Develop a 90 day plan
• Create a series of learning modules for each factor
• Create an inspection method for each learning module (role plays, written tests, etc)
• Detail week by week
• Organize by critical path
• Check off for each module when comprehension meets your satisfaction

Content will only get you so far. To be effective, on-boarding programs must also adhere to the following best practices:

• The hiring sales manager needs to monitor progress daily AND be held accountable for the new hire's success. This means allocating a reasonable amount of time to the new hire.
• Inspection methods must be incorporated for each module.
• The hiring manager must set expectations with the new hire on day 1 regarding program progress, and level of effort required.
• An activity pipeline (phone appointments, face to face meetings) should be inspected on a weekly basis to ensure the new hire is engaging in the job.

Obviously, a program such as the one described above requires effort to create and manage. Is it worth the time (and maybe some money) to invest in sales rep on-boarding? Consider these financial realities:

• The cost of replacing a sales person before they become productive is approximately 1.5 times their annual salary.
• Source: Ernst and Young
• Each month represents 8.3% of a given territory's revenue.
• What is the financial impact of reducing time-to-productivity by one month for each of your new hires?

Given the positive impact well-run on-boarding programs have on revenue, how can you NOT get on-board with on-boarding?

Full disclosure - I hate voicemail. My business associates (clients, employees, etc.) know my preferred method of communication is live conversation, email, or text with voicemail as a last resort.

I only leave voicemails if:

• I am calling someone at a scheduled time and they did not pick up

• I am connecting with a referral and do not have their email address

• I need to connect with someone and I don't have access to email (which is rare)

• I want to annoy someone

The majority of voicemails I receive are from vendors. Unless they state in the first five seconds that they were referred to me by a trusted source, I hit delete. I admit that I rarely listen to a voicemail from someone I know in it's totality - I simply call the person right back.

Apparently, many sales people do not share my disdain of voicemail. In a recent on-line discussion, about 66% of participants still utilize voicemail as a prospecting tool. They claim leaving short, concise, enticing messages will result in a large percentage of callbacks.

Most of the pro-voicemail people are in the business of selling sales training services such as prospecting best practices. Those who sell technology, financial services or other non-sales consulting products think leaving voicemails when prospecting is a waste of time, especially when calling on senior levels.

Is my anti-voicemail stance justified? Let me know....but don't be a wise guy and leave me a voicemail.

As it becomes increasingly harder for sales people to achieve quotas, many sales leaders need to make decisions on how to deal with under-performing reps.

Let's agree that under-performance could be a result of ineffective sales management - poor hiring decisions, lack of training and coaching, minimal over-site, etc. With that said, I recently posed the question, "How much time do you give under-performing sales reps to turn it around?" to a group of sales leaders.

As expected, this question generated significant dialogue. Responders focused on two areas, the first being factors to consider before making a decision. Suggestions included:

• Length of sale cycle
• Past track record
• Length of time in current position
• Support, training provided to date
• Market conditions
• Territory
• Personal problems (divorce, illness, etc)
• Expectations
• Performance compared to peers
• Cost to company (salary, other expenses)
• HR termination policy

Secondly, responders shared their opinions on how much time to give a rep to turn it around. Most were in agreement that 90 days is more than enough time, but cut ties quicker if documented milestones are not being met. In fact, many sales leaders said that turn-a-rounds are a waste of time and follow the philosophy "hire slowly, fire quickly."

Obviously there is no right answer to this question. Circumstances will dictate the best approach - whether it is a 90-day plan or fire immediately.

My two cents - consider who takes the initiative in an under-performance situation. I have observed that sales reps who realize they are failing AND pro-actively approach the manager for help have a much higher likelihood of success. Results, focus and self-awareness are critical traits for sales reps. If a rep doesn't understand or admit they are under-performing, will additional nurturing make a difference? I think not.