There has been a lot a debate among the sales training / sales enablement community about The Challenger Sale from CEB’s Sales Executive Council. Some of it has been cogent and balanced, but unfortunately a lot has been mud-slinging and poorly articulated or uninformed specious commentary that does not reflect well on the sales training industry. Most of the latter type has, probably predictably, come from those who might have good reason to be threatened by the seeming ubiquity or pervasiveness of TCS. On the other hand, where measured arguments have been put forward, it seems that these originate more often from users, practitioners, or observers who acknowledge the value of TCS while wondering about its place in an overall sales eco-system.
I have read commentary from Linda Richardson, HRChally, Jonathan Farrington, Dave Stein, Tamara Schenk, Solution Selling, and others, and you can look at the links and judge for yourself who is engaging in productive debate, who is posturing to protect their own patch, and who is being downright unprofessional. Methinks the latter doth protest too much!
Most of the anti-Challenger rhetoric seems to rail primarily against how the Sales Executive Council has presented Challenger to the market, and less about the substance of the TCS model, or the research behind its findings. Many of the commentators take umbridge at SEC’s positioning of the findings as being new or noteworthy. “There is nothing new or unique here” is a common cant. Well, clearly that is not true: Otherwise TCS would not have captured the attention that is has, resonated as strongly with the marketplace, or evoked such a – sometimes vitriolic – response from those who feel threatened by it.
At The TAS Group, we faced similar criticism from some of the traditional sales training players when we introduced Dealmaker to the market. We presented a view that effective adoption of methodology could only happen when supported by intelligent software and integrated into the daily workflow of the sales professional by combining the application of methodology with usage of the CRM. We were subsequently positioned by our competitors as only focused on technology, and we were questioned by the analysts as how we could maintain deep research in methodology and technology at the same time. Well, that was six years ago, and the evidence suggests that we were not as misguided as some would have thought. Now, although not everyone has the depth of technology resources that we do, everyone recognizes the need for software as an integral part of a sales performance system. And, the advancements we have made in methodology during that time has served our customers very well.
I don’t think TCS is either perfect or a complete sales system, or a one-size-fits-all solution; nor do I believe that the folks at the Sales Executive Council think so either. (By the way, I am struck by the fact that it is evident that many of those who are criticizing TCS had not spoken to the SEC before they expressed their views.) A complete sales performance system requires everything from market planning to territory segmentation, account stratification, account management, opportunity management and sales process, all supported by skills and technology.
But TCS has a number of undeniable strengths. It has done a better job of highlighting the need for greater sales and marketing alignment than many of its forerunners. (I have written about that problem here, here, here, here, here, and here.) With a level of clarity all too rarely seen in the industry, it has debunked the myth of the Relationship seller. Where others represent it as arrogant that a sales person should bring insight, or being able to ‘teach’ the customer as being arrogant, I see it as a customer focused approach, and an acknowledgement that buyers are more informed and therefore the sales person has to prepare much more diligently. It demands that the sales person work hard to understand their customer and the customer’s industry, and requires a level of intellectual capital that all customers should look for from their suppliers. In my opinion, any effective sales person should be able to bring insights to her customer of what has worked elsewhere. I think that is table stakes.
Through its membership community, SEC has an effective petri dish to test its approaches, before unleashing them on the market. Their heritage in research is a matter of fact – not of opinion. While they still have a way to go, I would have hoped that constructive inclusion, a recognition of how TCS complements other methodologies, would have been the response, but sadly …
More importantly though, the success of Challenger – and it is unquestionably successful – points to a failure of traditional providers, particularly those who focus on sales skills. The fact that TCS has been so quickly embraced points to a deficiency in the alternatives. Otherwise why would there be a gap in the market for SEC?
Make no mistake. SEC has done a remarkable job of positioning TCS in the market, and indeed is using the principles espoused by Dixon and Adamson in their book to effectively challenge the status quo. Something is working – and the response of the detractors only validates the approach.
October 7th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Great points by Donal Daly!
We need more professionals like The Challenger Sales’ Team and Sales Executive Council who bring world class research, specific examples based on factual evidence and innovative concepts/ideas to move the marketing and sales profession forward. The world of sales and marketing is changing and Challenger is helping us compete more effectively!
Mr. Daly makes excellent points and the unfounded attacks on The Challenger Sale and Sales Executive Council are generally based on opinion and not fact. I don’t think most sales and marketing professionals who need solutions to their business challenges are looking for a pig wrestling and mud-slinging contest among Challenger’s competitors and the naysayers.
Fortunately, The Challenger Team is bringing what sales and marketing professionals want – powerful marketing/sales/leadership insights, world class research, specific examples that lead to success and providing solutions in a competitive marketplace. Way to go Challenger!
October 8th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
I have not been slow at giving Donal a hard time, when we disagree.
So, its only fair to support him when we agree.
We agree.
It is no surprise to me that Evidence Based Selling improves by The Challenger Sale.
I commend Donal for his fair comments, and his promotion of DealMaker in context is fair too!
I particularly admire his frankness and naming names,
something we do not do often enough as Sales Professionals. Well done, Donal.
October 8th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Hello Donal,
I would like to point out that the blog post you have linked to – http://bit.ly/VrhP8V – is an extract from Chally’s new ebook, and not my personal comments.
Secondly, you suggest that “Most of the anti-Challenger rhetoric seems to rail primarily against how the Sales Executive Council has presented Challenger to the market, and less about the substance of the TCS model, or the research behind its findings.” Actually, my questions all relate to the research behind the theory, as I want to learn more. Nick Toman and I are communicating openly on this.
You are right when you suggest that “Some of it has been cogent and balanced, but unfortunately a lot has been mud-slinging and poorly articulated or uninformed specious commentary that does not reflect well on the sales training industry. Most of the latter type has, probably predictably, come from those who might have good reason to be threatened by the seeming ubiquity or pervasiveness of TCS. On the other hand, where measured arguments have been put forward, it seems that these originate more often from users, practitioners, or observers who acknowledge the value of TCS while wondering about its place in an overall sales eco-system.”
I don’t think any of the names you mention are “threatened” as they (we) are not competing?
My perception is that although we have witnessed a plethora of unhelpful and uneccessary verbal “combat” – and that hasn’t been one-sided by any means – we have reached a point where a semblance of mutual respect is being restored – and this can only improve.
With that in mind, I am not entirely sure that your commentary achieves anything other than fan the flames again: Admittedly, you are not aware of all the “internal” dialogue that has taken place, which has lead you to arrive at some conclusions based on out-of-date intelligence.
We absolutely must encourage open debate and the right to question if we do not understand or disagree: As you well know, the sales space is riddled with sycophancy, and endorsements given with the expectation that they will flow back again – and in fact endorsements even purchased ( And no, I am definitely NOT talking about the people at SEC or the Challenger project!)
However, I do fervently believe that there is room for everyone – the “sales space” is a global community, and we should, in my humble opinion, respect each other (but not be afraid to question – or be made to feel aggressors, even Luddites, if we do.) I feel certain that you will agree.
Great advert for DealMaker by the way :-)
My Best
Jonathan
October 8th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
@Doug, @Brian, @Jonathan,
Thanks for commenting. Lots of great points.
It is always great to observe passionate discourse.
@Jonathan, I checked the link – it goes to thejfblogit.co.uk. The one beside it goes to Chally. Glad to hear you and SEC are talking.
Donal
October 8th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Donal,
Yes, the link does go to The JF Blogit, but I wanted to point out that the post is a re-publication of extracts from Chally’s ebook, not my own comments.
I do hope I have managed to clarify that? One of us could die whilst having this conversation :-)
Jonathan
October 9th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I like Jonathan’s PS line
“Before they wrote TCS the authors interviewed 6,000 of the worlds best sales professionals” I am curious to know who developed these best of breed individuals, because surely it is those companies who should new be receiving all the plaudits”
To add….if the TCS is just presenting what is already there…..what’s new, apart from presentation?
October 9th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
great discussion, objective and valid points. I believe many of your answers lie here:
http://saleschallenger.exbdblogs.com/2012/10/09/the-single-most-important-question-for-the-challenger-sale/
October 10th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Donal, recognizing market shifts, especially while you are in the midst of them, is very hard to do. SEC does a good job of describing the evolving buyer/seller dance. For those nay sayers, it is hard to live in this reality, to adapt to the new normal, and change. I personally have benefited from TCS & Dealmaker. Thank you Donal, Matt, & Brent.
October 13th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Hi Paul, when you ask, “what’s new in the Challenger Sale”, it is like the Penicillin Fallacy. Fleming did not “invent” Penicillin he only “discovered” what was already there!
However, Fleming like CEB, it changed the world.
The truth is what CEB-SEC and the authors discovered was that some salespeople had changed, and it was successful. They were the best at adapting to changes in Buying, and had become Top Performers. Some of these Top Performers, were NEVER Trained by any Sales Training Company.
You have an interest in Sandler Training, which is orthodox, but what you do not have is The Challenger Approach, you should look into it. It is new its fresh and it really does work.
Have a look at how you would interface it to DealMaker while you are there! ;-)
October 20th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
TCS has debunked the “relationship seller as the key to winning the complex sale” myth which is one massive leap forward in finding our version of the unified-field theory of selling. They have also created a new “sales taxonomy” (e.g., 5 type of salespeople) that more accurately reflects a salesperson’s functional behavior not psychological dispositions. For these two reasons alone, and a few others, they should be commended!
November 8th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
@Brian –
1) could you elaborate on what you mean specifically by orthodox (in this context)
2) would you also outline your evidence that I/Sandler do not have a Challenger approach
November 8th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
@Victor – is there only 5 types of salespeople?
November 8th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I’ve been looking at the book for insight on the psychology of the challenger sale personality. I’m interested in what makes someone a challenger – what are the attitudes and beliefs that drive this kind of behaviour.
I haven’t yet found the answer…..
Perhaps commenters could help me out…. (especially the people who think they’re challengers but who are just opinionated like me ;-)
November 9th, 2012 at 6:28 am
@Victor – you have put your finger on the real problem – you cannot modify functional behaviour without regard to psychological disposition. Take a look at Brian’s comment to me. He (I assume) thinks he’s being challenging, but I interpret his comment as arrogant, bordering on jerkishness.
November 16th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
@ Paul – I think it’s great that you’re learning more about the Challenger Methodology. As you continue to learn, you’ll come to realize that Challenger is not a look into personality profiles or sales rep psychologies. While at first glance, it is easy to think that reps only fall into one of five types of sales people, you’ll learn upon digging into the methodology that CEB is not saying that at all. They’re saying that sales reps have different competency clusters and have each at different levels, and that not all of the competencies are created equal.
As darryl pointed out, there’s a great blog post you should read:
http://saleschallenger.exbdblogs.com/2012/10/09/the-single-most-important-question-for-the-challenger-sale/
as well as many others that dig into the nuance of Challenger.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:14 pm
@Dave – “They’re saying that sales reps have different competency clusters and have each at different levels, and that not all of the competencies are created equal”
None of this is new. What am I missing