We’ll keep our baseball theme going today by referencing a well-crafted post from Dave Kurlan – Baseball and Sales Management by the Numbers. He develops a good analogy between how a manager’s style affects his starting pitchers’ stats (ERA) and how different situational factors affect a salesperson’s revenue totals. Towards the end, you get the fastball right down the middle of the plate (my emphasis):
Turning to sales, there are a number of statistics that are equally difficult to equate with performance, the most obvious being revenue. Many salespeople, considered top producers by their companies, top the charts for revenue but don’t perform in such a manner as to justify the attention, rewards or commissions that they earn. They may have inherited their accounts, built them up over decades, or have the best territory but if you removed those accounts and directed them to go out and sell, many of them would fall flat on their faces.
Conversely, some salespeople who don’t appear at the top of their company’s charts because they are new, don’t have the best territories or are starting territories from scratch, may be great performers, doing all the right things on a daily basis, but don’t get the recognition they deserve.
We’ve seen this inversion in spades often when we first start working with a client. Many times a top performer (not necessarily the top performer) has achieved their status by owning the best territory, longest tenure or the largest, locked-in account.
The unstated implication in Kurlan’s post is that a revenue metric is not the most accurate for determining your most skilled/talented salesperson. That being the case, how can you benchmark top sales performers? If revenue is your metric for selecting the benchmark participants that establish the baseline, you may be sullying your results.