Who Trains
Salespeople?
The Role of Sales Trainers and Sales
Managers
Earl D. Honeycutt, Jr.
John B. Ford
John F. Tanner, Jr.
This study examines the roles played by sales managers and
sales trainers in the sales training process. Findings con@m that
joint participation by sales managers and trainers in sales training is higher today than in the past, yet several problem areas
still exist. Sales trainers claimed to be primarily responsible for
sales training in large companies, but did not seek inputsfrom
field sales managers when planning, conducting, and evaluating training programs. In smaller firms, sales managers are almost totally responsible for sales training. However, they conduct little evaluation and follow-up activities. The implications
of theseJindings are discussed, and suggestions for managerial
actions are provided.
Address correspondence to Earl D. Honeycutt, Jr., Marketing Department,
College of Business and Public Administration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529.
Industrial Marketing Management 23, 65-70 (1994)
Q Elsevier Science Inc., 1994
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
INTRODUCTION
Personal selling is the most important marketing tool for
most industrial firms and has been called “the means through
which business marketing strategy is executed” [lo, p. 4901.
Because of the importance of personal selling, industrial
companies invest significant amounts of money train@ their
salespeople. The cost of initial training for each new
salesperson, for example, varies from $22,500 to $28,455
[l]. That cost escalates greatly in high-tech industries, increasing to as much as $100,000 per trainee and taking up
to 2 years to complete [4]. Whereas some large companies may train 50-100 new representatives yearly, small
companies must allocate a larger portion of their budget
to train just a few. And, these figures do not include indirect or opportunity costs for new sales recruits [7].
Objectives for training programs vary, depending on the
needs of the trainees, the conditions of the market and the
65
0019-8501/94/$7.00
firm, and other variables. In general, training programs
deliver a number of benefits for the organization:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
overcome common causes for salesperson failure
increase productivity
improve salesperson morale
reduce turnover
improve customer relations
improve time and territory management
lower selling costs [2, 41
The training staff often has sole responsibility for developing sales training programs [9]. Sales managers also
actively participate in sales training programs as planners
and/or instructors. Regardless of who is responsible for
the training program, input from both sales managers and
salespeople should be sought and utilized so appropriate
training programs are prepared [8]. If a firm wishes to develop an effective training program, it is essential to gather
feedback from customers before designing any training
program.
Salespeople have reported a number of sales training
problems [3]. The concerns raised by the salespeople included:
1. Complex sales skills are presented before prerequisite skills are adequately addressed. For example, a trainer may demonstrate how client needs
are used to prepare a presentation before salespeople fully understand how to identify and prioritize
a customer’s needs. Because the topics are taught
out of sequence, salespeople are less able to learn
the proper presentation skills.
2. Sales managers often fail to follow up. Salespeople may feel uncertain when trying new behaviors
in the field. To illustrate, new presentation skills
may be taught in training, but the sales person may
not have fully mastered the skills. They want their
managers to follow up with field coaching to reinforce new training.
3. There is a failure to reward new behaviors. Some
behaviors, such as consultative
selling, may
EARL D. HONEYCUTT, Jr. and JOHN B. FORD are Associate
Professors of Marketing at the College of Business and Public
Administration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
JOHN F. TANNER Jr. is Associate Professor of Marketing
the Hankamer School of Business Administration, Baylor
University, Waco, Texas.
66
at
lengthen the sales cycle while the rep is gaining
proficiency. Without adequate incentive to engage
in the new behaviors, reps acknowledge they often
slip back into their previous practices.
These concerns raise important questions about the role
of sales managers in the sales training process. If managers
are not actively involved, then they may not be able to field
coach salespeople who attempt to master new behaviors
presented at company training programs. Sales managers
may also be incapable of observing and rewarding new behaviors. The result may be that sales representatives will
resort to old habits and the training program will be a failure.
The purpose of this study is to examine the role played
by sales trainers and sales managers in key areas of the
sales training process and provide suggestions to industrial marketing managers for improving the sales training
process. Both sales managers and sales trainers accumulate feedback, either formal or informal in nature, that can
be used to modify and improve the sales training process.
But if either party’s participation is limited, then valuable
feedback may go unused. By adopting suggestions provided
by this paper, industrial marketing managers can enhance
the positive role played by sales managers and trainers in
the sales training process.
METHODOLOGY
Data were collected by mail survey from two groups:
sales managers and sales trainers. A census was taken of
a national training organization’s 136 major U.S. corporate
training executives. Sales managers were surveyed by randomly sampling sales managers subscribing to Sales and
Marketing Management magazine.
Since the sales training executive organization agreed to
participate, the response rate was 82 % . Sales managers
responded at a 38 % rate, but only half reported having an
established sales training program. The respondents were
further divided into industrial products, consumer products, and services with 55% of sales trainers and 63% of
sales managers classified as industrial; 24% and 16 % ,
respectively, as consumer; and 2 1% for each group as services. There were no significant differences between industry classification, so the data were aggregated for further analysis.
The practices of large and small companies have been
found to vary [6], so the responses of the sales managers
were divided in terms of firm size. A median split resulted
in dividing the sample such that firms reporting yearly sales
Sales training is a five-step process.
greater than $50 million were classified as large and those
with sales less than $50 million were classified as small.
Using the same definition for sales trainers resulted in a
unbalanced split: only 8 of 112 companies could be
classified as small. Therefore, all trainer responses were
consolidated into a single category.
FINDINGS
Generally, sales training is explained using the four-step
process of determining needs (and setting objectives),
TABLE 1
Parties Responsible
Assess Needs
Top management
Sales management
Training staff
Sales management/TS
Other
Budget
Top management
Sales management
Training staff
Sales management/TS
Other
Design
Top management
Sales management
Training staff
Sales management/TS
Other
Conduct
Top management
Sales management
Training staff
Sales managementITS
Other
Evaluation
Top management
Sales management
Training staff
Sales management/TS
Other
for Training
Process
Trainers
(N = 112)
Large Sales
Managers
(N = 49)
Small Sales
Managers
(N = 51)
(0~)
PO)
(Oh)
5
3
34
31
21
14
18
12
25
31
39
26
10
6
19
I
8
65
5
15
27
20
35
4
14
46
34
6
0
14
0
I
81
7
5
11
11
29
25
14
28
30
13
2
27
0
8
13
12
7
4
31
37
18
10
20
31
14
4
31
0
19
50
24
I
0
49
32
19
0
0
71
7
12
10
designing the training program, conducting the program,
and evaluating results [12, 151. Because budgeting is an
important sales training consideration [5, 131, it was also
examined. Respondents were asked to state who they perceived as having primary responsibility for each area of
the sales training process. Possible responses were: top
management, sales management, training staff, all combinations, and other. The responses for the five-step process
are listed in Table 1 and discussed below.
Step 1: Assessing
Training Needs
Assessing training needs in large companies appears to
be a joint responsibility shared by the training staff and
sales managers. A large proportion of respondents, however, indicate that the primary responsibility lies with either trainers or managers. For small companies, the responsibility is primarily top management’s, perhaps because a
staff is not available to assess training needs.
Step 2: Budget Responsibility
Surprisingly, top management was third in terms of who
assumes budget responsibility for large company sales training. But if one considers that the question focused on allocation of the training budget rather than determining the
amount of the total budget, then this result is not as unexpected. Sales trainers were primarily responsible for allocating the training budget, followed by sales managers.
In small companies, however, the order was reversed, with
top management having primary responsibility, followed
by sales managers and the training staff. Few companies
assigned joint budget responsibility.
Step 3: Designing
Training Programs
Over 81% of the trainers stated that they were responsible for designing the training programs of large companies. Fewer trainers than sales managers reported that joint
efforts were used. In small companies, a joint design effort
is unlikely to occur, with either top management or sales
management responsible for training design.
Step 4: Conducting
the Training Program
The training staff is most often responsible for conducting training in large companies, as reported by 73 % of the
67
trainers and 31% of large company sales managers. If the
training staff does not conduct the programs alone, the most
likely occurrence was a joint effort. But in small companies, sales managers reported that they were most likely
to conduct any training.
Step 5: Evaluating
Training
Top management was not reported to perform evaluation of the sales training program by any respondents. This
finding is surprising since sales training is expensive and
important for industrial marketers. Sales trainers claimed
they were more likely to conduct evaluations, while sales
managers reported that they assumed that responsibility,
especially in small firms.
Trainers and sales managers were also asked who was
responsible for evaluating the following: program content,
trainers, knowledge via tests, attitudes, and performance.
The results are listed in Table 2. Interestingly, 49 % of large
company sales managers report that they evaluate performance as related to sales training. This finding supports
the concern raised by salespeople that there is little observation and reward for incorporating newly learned skills
and behaviors [3].
Content evaluation also appears to be important, irrespective of the type of respondent. Small company sales
managers are more likely to rate the trainer and also more
likely to evaluate the attitude of the salespeople toward the
training.
Follow-up
Procedures
Follow-up is an important aspect of sales training; therefore, trainers and managers were asked who was responsible for certain types of follow-up: observing performance,
refresher classes, combination, and other. The responses
indicate sales managers and trainers each play an important role in insuring that follow-up is conducted (for results,
see Table 3).
TABLE 2
Evaluation
Practices
Trainers
Evaluation Area
No evaluation conducted
content
Trainers
Test
Attitude
Performance
68
Large Sales
Managers
Small Sales
Managers
w
W)
w
2
17
66
55
35
13
2
76
55
53
35
49
16
71
78
28
45
65
TABLE 3
Follow-Up
Procedures
Procedure
No follow-up
Observed performance
Refresher classes
Combination
Other
Totals
Trainers
Large Sales
Managers
Small Sales
Managers
W)
(04
(04
4
24
3
68
1
6
25
2
59
8
8
32
12
42
4
100
100
100
DISCUSSION
The practices of large and small companies do appear
to differ. In large companies, sales managers and sales
trainers share a number of training responsibilities. In small
companies, a joint effort is also apparent; this effort, however, is shared by top management and sales managers.
Therefore, the practice of joint responsibility for sales training appears to be greater now than reported in previous
studies [9].
What is troubling, though, is the lack of perceptual agreement. Either respondents increased the importance of their
role in each stage of the sales training process or there is
a lack of communication between managers and trainers.
A good example concerns evaluation of the training process. Training executives perceive they are primarily accountable for evaluation at the same time large and small
company sales managers claim they are responsible for
evaluating sales training. If this inconsistency is due to a
lack of communication between the two groups, there could
be a detrimental impact on the design of future training
programs. And such a lack of communication may explain
some of the negative perceptions previously reported by
salespeople [3].
Information from evaluation procedures is used to redesign training programs. If the differences in perceptions
concerning who is evaluating training is due to a lack of
communication, the apparent failure to communicate during the training design process is magnified. About onefourth to one-third of the large companies report a joint
needs assessment; only 7% of the trainers, however, report a joint design process. Training design in large companies appears to be conducted, in many cases, without
much input from the field. Given the importance of effective sales training, the costs associated with sales training,
and the increased competitiveness of most markets, this
reported lack of joint-training development is alarming.
Open communication between sales
management and training is imperative.
Trainers also reported a much higher level of sole responsibility for conduct of training than did large company sales
managers. This may mean the training staff is not aware
of training being conducted by sales managers, sales
managers may have included field coaching in their perceptions of training, or some other explanation may account for this result. Whatever the cause, if the training
staff is unaware of field training efforts, the possibility for
duplication or outright conflict in objectives, content, and
desired outcomes may occur, rendering the overall training program ineffective. It is imperative that open communication exist between the training staff and sales management to ensure that appropriate training is conducted.
In small companies, 16% reported no evaluation of training was being conducted and 8% reported that no followup occurred. Although these percentages may appear relatively small, these findings are troubling. Given the costs
associated with training and the importance of effective personal selling to the firms success, one would expect that
greater care would be taken to ensure that appropriate training was being conducted. It also appears that far too many
companies continue to conduct sales training without learning whether previous efforts were effective and ignore the
need for proper follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Sales training is an important consideration for industrial marketers, large and small alike. While this study found
higher levels of joint training program development than
were reported in the past, apparent communication and
coordination problems still exist between sales trainers and
sales managers in many large companies. In small companies discrepancies center on evaluation and follow-up, as
many firms report not doing either. Nor is observing performance a part of the follow-up procedures for two-thirds
of the small companies.
SUGGESTED
STEPS FOR MANAGERS
The findings of this study suggest that industrial firms
may need to make certain modifications to their sales train-
ing process. Most suggested changes are directly attributable
to the findings of this study, while others are based upon
a normative model of sales training. If the sales training
process is to be improved, it is imperative for upper management to take an active role in the implementation of these
changes. Listed below are four actions, and examples of
industrial companies that practice these actions, that marketing managers should implement to improve the contribution made to the sales training process by sales managers
and trainers:
Action 1: Improve Communication
and Coordination
No matter who is responsible for sales training, information must be gathered and proposed training programs
must be coordinated. Training staffs must seek feedback
and cooperation from sales managers during the needs assessment, objective setting, design, evaluation, and follow-up
stages of sales training. Although this new process increases
coordination time, the result will be a better designed and
focused training program and a stronger commitment from
field sales managers. Also, gathering inputs from former
trainees provides additional intelligence that can be used
to improve the overall training process. At Fullerton Metals, the needs assessment process includes gathering input
from salespeople who volunteer to participate in the training design process in order to improve their skills.
Action 2: Set Specific,
Timely Objectives
Measurable,
and
Objectives establish a roadmap for trainers and trainees.
They tell the trainee what is important and needs to be
learned and provide objective criteria for determining the
success of the training program. Upper management,
trainers, and sales managers must all specifically agree what
the training program will accomplish. Managers are often
apprehensive about establishing specific objectives, because
failure to accomplish goals may lead to criticism. Firms
that fail to establish and agree upon training objectives reduce the success of their sales training program.
Paychex Inc. spends $3,500 per sales trainee for its ini69
Top management must take the lead role to
improve sales training.
tial sales training program. But, final objectives are not
established until upper management, trainers, and sales
managers have agreed upon training program outcomes.
ment of specific sales skills, they often learn from the
trainee.
Action 3: Evaluate Sales Training
REFERENCES
This action can be concluded through tests and surveys,
field evaluations, and by comparing the results of sales people completing the training program with nonattendees.
Even in small firms, sales managers and upper managers
must conduct some form of evaluation to insure training
objectives have been accomplished. If training objectives
are not met, but are realistic, then future training programs
must be modified.
Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc., evaluates training by allowing trainees to play a game. Over an
8-hr period, trainees respond to various customer scenarios
stored on laser disc. In addition to reinforcing what was
taught, the training staff uses the game to identify deficiencies in the training program.
4. Churchill, Gilbert A., Ford, Neil M., and Walker, Orville C. Jr., Sales
Force Management, 3rd ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, 1990.
Action 4: Conduct
Training Sessions
8. Dubinsky, Alan J., and Staples, William A., Sales Training: Salespeople’s
Preparedness and Managerial Implications, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management II, 24-31 (1981).
Regular Follow-Up
Many companies today use video-enhanced
training
methods, such as VCR tapes and programmed texts, to reinforce what was learned at formal training sessions.
Managers must also be knowledgeable of and able to coach
their sales force when the salespeople deviate from methods
or skills learned in formal training programs.
Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals uses field skills coaches,
who are also salespeople and not managers, to work on
developing specific skills with their peers. If management
observes that a salesperson needs additional training, the
salesperson is paired with a Certified Field Skills Coach.
Curbside conferences between coach and salesperson follow each sales call. Because the coach is a peer who is
not allowed to participate actively in the sales call, but
merely observe, evaluation apprehension is lessened.
Coaches report that, in addition to assisting the develop-
70
1 Average Costs of Sales Training per Salesperson,
Management 23 (February 26, 1990).
2
Sales and Marketing
Chonko, Lawrence B., Enis, Ben M., and Tanner, John F. Jr.,
Salespeople, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1992.
Managing
3. Chonko, Lawrence B., Tanner, John F. Jr., and Weeks, William A., Sales
Training, Status and Needs, Journal ofPersona Selling andSales Managemenf (forthcoming).
5. Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr., Ford, Neil M., and Walker, Orville C, Jr., Sales
Force Management, 3rd ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, 1990.
6. Dubinsky, Allan J., and Barry, Thomas E., A Survey of Sales Management Practices, Industrial Marketing Management 11, 133-141 (1982).
7. Dubinsky, Alan J., and Staples, William A., Sales Training: Salespeople’s
Preparedness and Managerial Implications, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management 2, 24-31 (1982).
9. Hopkins, D. S., Training the Sales Force: A Progress Report, The Conference Board, New York, 1978.
10. Hutt, Michael D., and Speh, Thomas W., Business Marketing Management, 4th cd., The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, Texas, 1992.
11. Kaminski, Peter, and Wagle, John, Territoriality: A Literature Review with
Implications for Industrial Buyer Behavior, in Proceedings of rhe Southern
Marketing Associationb Annual Conference, 84-87 (1982).
12. Still, Richard, Cundiff, Edward, and Govoni, Norman A. P., Sales Managemenf: Decisions, Strategies, and Cases, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.
13. Stanton, William J., Buskirk, Richard, and Spiro, Rosann L., Management ofa Sales Force, 8th cd., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, 1991.
Tanner, John F. Jr., and Chonko, Lawrence B., Territorial Behaviors in
Organizational Buyers: Vigilance, Encroachment,
and Defense, in Marketing Theory and Applications. Proceedings of the American Marketing
Association’s Winter Educators’Conference, Chris Allen et al., eds., Chicago,
71-77.
Wotruba, Thomas R., and Simpson, Edwin K., Sales Managemenr,
and Cases, 2nd ed., PWS-Kent, Boston, 1992.
Text