Those of us who began our sales careers in the 70’s and 80’s may remember the old adage where a potential new salesperson is put in a room with a telephone and a phone book and told they now have all they need to succeed in sales. If they did not intuitively pick up the phone book and began miraculously making appointments, it was then determined that they simply did not have what it takes. As ridiculous as that may sound, today in small companies this practice still remains.  However, the subtleties of its enrollment makes it even more damaging since the bosses believe they are providing proper training.

A fast-tracked career is one of the benefits received when working for a small company. However, many times the exposure to new opportunities comes abruptly as employees are required to perform duties before receiving proper training. This happens throughout all departments but it is most problematic in the sales department.

In most departments a team of individuals work collectively together to achieve a common goal. In this the new recruit can learn from colleagues and/or follow established protocol: fill out the required forms, log the collected data and file the documentation. Sales is a different animal; the people have a unique temperament. They tend to prefer to work alone and covet tribal knowledge. The processes tend to be ill-defined and although results are based on effort, the outcome also involves chance and a bit of luck.

Most sales training in small companies is based on a perceived osmosis; place the person in an environment where they are exposed to sales dialogue, which may include a few key meetings and presto out pops a salesperson capable of achieving results. While this may be possible in a low dollar “gumball” sale where the ticket items are inexpensive and the sales person can bluff their way through, for sales transactions that involve a higher level of sophistication, specific industry language or persuasion based on experience this technique usually does not work. This is especially true of longer sales cycles involving a series of transactions where the salesperson performs research to locate leads, develops a communication strategy, uses past performance and case histories to convince the prospect of industry expertise and presents proposals that may not be as attractive as their big competitors and therefore must be sold on the unique capabilities of the firm. This type of sale requires the salesperson to develop cognitive thinking abilities, which are best learned in a linear training program in order to understand the processes and reasoning so they can use the tools to develop strategies unique to each situation.

In small companies, owners and/or key employees are often involved in the hiring and training processes, causing them to forego other important duties. Therefore the risk of a wrong hire or inefficient training can be disastrous to the bottom line. For this reason company owners need to choose which hiring and training method to employ, based upon the type of sales transaction and a honest assessment of their ability to invest in a training program.

If the company has the structure to provide formalized sales training (or the money to invest in outside consultants), the company can afford to hire inexperienced sales people. One advantage to this approach is the ability to train “fresh” employees to adapt to the company’s unique culture and processes.  

If the owners and/or key employees have the “tribal knowledge” that must be passed on to the new employees yet lack the time to establish a structured sales training program, than the company is better off investing in a more experienced sales person that offers a faster ramp-up time given their knowledge and experience.

If the company chooses a “sink or swim” training structure, in order to locate those self-starters with inherent sales skills capable of succeeding in this type of environment, the company must be prepared for employee turnover. The process involves hiring several individuals, setting time limits and measureable goals and quickly firing those that do not reach the mark. Otherwise the company retains ineffective, unhappy employees and this is not beneficial to the company or the individual.