In-house or external?
Most failings of in-house training are obvious to outsiders. Training departments have to rely generally on in-house analysis of skills and therefore it can be difficult to see how skills remain competitive in the market as a whole. In-house politics comes in to the frame too. Often a best practice from one division isn’t shared through the organisation via the training department because of silent competition between the other divisions.
Every sales leader wants to be at the head of the most successful team and wants the spotlight on them. Sharing the golden nuggets defeats that competitive edge.
There is a common thread that runs through all sales staff issues – “it takes one to know one”. This may indeed be wholly fallable, but it is common perception. Often sales training in-house is undertaken by non-sales specific trainers who have acquired the knowledge but may not be practitioners of the skills they encourage.
Often the decider of course content is the sales leader, which can be limiting – it assumes that the leader is aware of what is available in the market and that they are best placed to undertake that skills analysis. But perceptions are inevitably biased and the importance of benchmarking against similar industries is ignored.
So taking an external training company is the best option? It depends. The same issues could be said for external training if it is a cover-all packaged solution. Anything learned is ultimately valuable but is it best value for money? To answer that, we need to consider the non-learning aspects of training.
Practice makes perfect
It is important that training is directly relevant to the sales persons task. If that is covered by a packaged off the shelf course then it’s the best option. But its often quoted that for training to be effective it needs to be used and practiced within 72 hours of being learnt. Providing the best opportunity for this to happen is one of the keys to making a training course best value for money.
That impacts on several areas. Firstly, it calls for a clear understanding of where there is a skills gap. Secondly it assumes that delegates are prepared and ready to take the lessons on board. Then it depends on the course content, presentation and delivery and lastly that the training can be easily assimilated and become normal working practice – long term
Best Value
Many companies appreciate the first step. Many completely forget the second. Briefing and debriefing from courses is often time poorly spent. The delegate needs to know up front why they have been chosen, what is expected of them and what they can hope to achieve. The line manager must be aware of what has been learned to be able to monitor, encourage and ultimately endorse the training messages. Managers should be briefed themselves on how to adjust their style to take into account the new focus of their team.
Changing the team without changing the leader is a common way that old practices slip back in and assimilation of training becomes less effective. The content of the course should be specific, interactive and most importantly relevant. To have best chance of implementation it should take your sales processes and sales model into account. Bespoke training is often more expensive but there is a reason. It relies on more investigation of your sales issues and client strategies. The benefit is that by using your own process, delegates emerge already practiced on the “home patch”.
They have already started that assimilation well within the 72-hour frame. In most cases, being different means honouring your own corporate and product offering differences in training.
Remember that course?
The majority of training undertaken involves training new employees or new people into the role. Development of staff through training programmes is often cited but rarely occurs. Training needs to be reinforced regularly to keep skills allied to the experience of the team member. When we achieve “unconscious competence” – the “I can do this with my eyes shut” stage – we want to grow further. Otherwise we become unchallenged, demotivated and ultimately bored. Building on that competence will often raise the sales game with a corresponding impact on revenue attainment.
Egg the pudding
Training programmes are often expensive and there are fears in releasing staff and the corresponding loss of “on the road” time. But by considering training in context with your needs, processes and sales model and by time over the other non-course related aspects, you can make the optimum use of your investment. Training is rarely a magic bullet but with focus can considerably improve your chances of hitting those all-important targets.
© Cambridge Business Training
No comments:
Post a Comment