Sales Goals Revisited

Tweet

A few weeks ago, I posted a column about the problems with goal-setting for individuals. Although I received comments from several people who agreed that the Western system of goal-setting and rewarding employees were destructive, I also received many responses from people who vehemently disagreed and felt that the process not only worked, but was necessary for success.

I'd like to revisit the subject and limit the discussion to goal-setting and reward systems for salespeople. The Stanford Graduate School of Business recently reported on a study conducted about the effectiveness of using sales quotas to motivate and reward salespeople (http://gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/Nair_sales.html). Based on an experiment at one Fortune 500 company, the researchers concluded that removing the sales quotas resulted in a 9% increase in overall revenues.

I'll agree that conducting an experiment at one company does not necessarily prove my point that setting goals is often destructive, but since the study involved salespeople - the largest group affected by goal-setting - the results merit further discussion.

When I posted the blog, I received several confidential comments from sales professionals who wrote that they disliked the system of quotas for a variety of reasons. They stated that quotas forced them to play games with the timing of orders in order to meet a target in a given period. They knew this was not in the best interests of the organization as a whole, but felt it was necessary to keep their jobs and/or achieve their bonuses.

I've never understood why we feel it is necessary to use money to motivate salespeople but don't use the same approach with accountants, receptionists, network engineers, and other positions within the company. Are salespeople lazy? Are they untrustworthy? Do we really feel that if we don't offer them carrots that they won't produce?

Gallery Furniture

Jim McIngvale is the founder of Gallery Furniture store in Houston, Texas. Many years ago, he called on W. Edwards Deming to help him improve his business. McIngvale often tells the story about Deming telling him to change his salespeople from commission-based pay to salary. After failing to convince Deming that it wouldn't work in the retail industry, he gave in and changed his pay practices and put his salespeople on salary. In The New Economics, Deming wrote about the results of the change. " . . . steady increase in sales. Older salesmen now help beginners. Salesmen no longer try to steal business from other salesmen. they now help each other . . . sales go up month by month. Moreover, profit per square foot of floor space advances even faster." McIngvale agrees.

Like so many elements in business, it goes back to effective leadership and hiring practices.

Unfortunately, I'm betting that the Stanford study will not lead to a wholesale change in Western business practices because if people don't feel there is a problem, they won't be looking for a solution or feel there is a need for change. My hope, however, is that more studies will be conducted on the subject and more examples of companies changing their practices will be publicized and, little by little, transformation will begin to occur.

The Case Against Goals

Tweet

For years, Western management has embraced the notion that setting goals and holding people accountable to achieving them is a vital component of effective leadership. According to a BusinessWeek article published last July, goal-setting is especially important during tough economic times like we're experiencing today.

In the midst of a decade in which the world of business is undergoing significant transformation, however, I wonder why leaders still hold tightly to the traditional goal-setting process, even though it continually causes more harm than good.

Among the problems caused by assigning goals to people and tying rewards to success (and punishments to failure), include the following:

1. Goals set for individuals often conflict with one another. As a result, goals are not consistent throughout the organization. Even though many of these goals may be met, there is little, if any, improvement in performance of the organization;
   
   
2. Holding people accountable or tying bonuses to the achievement of goals results in "safe" goal-setting and mediocre results. People will resist committing to stretch goals if it means they could lose their jobs or bonuses if they fail. People will accept aggressive goals enthusiastically if they know their job or bonus does not depend on meeting them;
   
   
3. When money is involved, people will pretty much do whatever it takes to meet goals set for them. Whether or not their actions are in the best interests of the company is secondary;
   
   
4. Tying the achievement of a goal to a bonus can turn the best of team players into dictators or Lone Rangers. If you really want to transform someone into a micromanager, set a goal with a strict deadline and tie the result to a fairly large bonus.

Real World Examples

A plant manager for a small valve manufacturer was held accountable for the shipping budget and given a 10% bonus each quarter the budget was met. The budget was met every quarter during the year, but was accompanied by increases in returns, customer complaints, overtime costs, and employee turnover - all resulting from the increased pressure to ship products at the end of each quarter.

A procurement manager was given the goal of reducing the annual costs of rental equipment (the equipment was mostly used to support new gas production facilities). The operations managers, on the other hand, were given uptime goals for the facilities they managed and felt that they needed to keep the rented equipment for long periods of time after startup to handle any problems that occurred early in the process. The conflicting goals resulted in a breakdown of the teamwork between procurement and production because the achievement of the goal by one could only come at the expense of the other. Further, neither could afford to care about the other's ability to meet their goal.

A product manager was given a goal to grow the business for a certain material in Asia and South America, and was given a bonus when certain targets were hit. He met all targets during the year by lowering the price of the material, when necessary, to get orders. One of the new customers for the material was an Asian company that purchased the material at a significant discount. The VP of Procurement for a large European customer (a sister division of the Asian company) found out about the lower price and pulled the business from the supplier. As a result, the product manager got his bonus but at the expense of the European business unit's performance and the company's gross margin.

Enough Already

There are countless other examples with similar results as the above. The key is to get the entire team to focus on improvement objectives that benefit the company as a whole. In line with this, objectives should be set system wide (facility, division, company) rather than at the individual level. Also, specific targets really do not accomplish more than mediocrity when the real goal is to improve as much as possible.

Remember that it is the performance of the company - rather than the individual - that matters. Attempting to manage the company by breaking it down into components rather than focusing on the whole creates a host of problems and oversimplifies the role of a leader.

As Douglas Adams once wrote, "If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat." The same philosophy applies to organizations.

Breaking Down the Silos

Tweet

GETTING PEOPLE TO WORK TOGETHER & SHARE BEST PRACTICES

One of the biggest issues facing leaders today is figuring out how to get people in different areas of the company to work together and share best practices. Whether the people are in different departments or locations, a lack of teamwork is a frequent problem and is difficult to resolve.

Whenever I am asked to help with this type of problem, I ask the following questions to the leaders to probe into the organization’s culture and leadership practices.

· How do you evaluate the performance of people and regions?

· What do you do if a particular location or person does not seem to be meeting objectives?

· When meeting with people or visiting different locations, what do you generally talk about?

· What is the company’s purpose? Is it clearly understood throughout the company – i.e., in different locations? How do you know?

In many cases, the answers to these questions point to the company’s leadership practices as the main cause of the problem of a lack of teamwork and sharing. The company’s system for evaluating performance, in addition to the actions and behaviors of management tends to inadvertently create barriers that interfere with the desire and ability of people to share information and/or accept ideas from others.

Evaluating Performance

It is important to exercise care when using measures to drive behavior because it just might work – although not necessarily in the way you intended. Holding a sales manager accountable for sales in his region tends to drive him to focus on sales in his region – even if it hurts sales in another region.

The following are actual examples of failed attempts to improve performance by holding people accountable to goals based on individual or localized measures.

· In a mid-sized global manufacturing and service company, the CEO measured the revenues generated in each region and made it clear to the sales managers that they were responsible for increasing sales in their assigned territories. Bonuses were based on exceeding forecasts and whenever he visited the different regions, he would meet with the team and review their YTD results and plans for growth.

The sales manager in Slovakia was an expert in a particular application of one of the company’s products. Although there were similar opportunities in other regions, the other sales managers needed the support of this person to capitalize on them. Because of pressure from the CEO, however, the Slovakian sales manager could not afford to take time away from his region to help others. He was aware (and frustrated) that this type of behavior did not benefit the company as a whole, but he felt he was doing what was necessary to meet his objectives and keep his job. As a result, he met his targets (as did the other regional sales managers), but the company missed out on a fairly easy opportunity to grow revenues.

Other companies I have worked with experienced similar results. Salespeople fighting over credit for cross-regional accounts, and different regions of the same company competing with each other for business are common results from the pressure to meet targets set by leaders.

· A purchasing agent in a manufacturing company was evaluated on containing costs for the products she purchased. Her main responsibility was to purchase pipe used by the production department for one of the company’s main products. She met her goal by procuring pipe from a variety of sources which saved on material costs, but resulted in a great deal of variation in the quality of pipe, as well as late deliveries. As a result, the production department experienced late shipments, increased cycle times, and additional labor costs to process the pipe. The situation hampered the ability of the production people to meet their targets and resulted in a deterioration of teamwork between procurement and production.

Organizations are far too complex to assume that evaluating performance of people or regions based on isolated or localized measures will result in optimizing the results of the whole. The issue has psychological and sociological ramifications which results in complications that have to be dealt with carefully.

If you take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have in your hands is a non-working cat. – Douglas Adams

It is not possible to effectively lead an organization by breaking it into pieces and setting goals for each piece. What matters is the performance of the entire organization . . . not the individual people or departments.

In the sales manager example above, the CEO needed to stop worrying about the individual salespeople and focus instead on the sales of the entire organization. The objective of the regional sales managers should be to increase revenues for the entire organization – which by the way also involves procurement, production, engineering, and finance, as well as all sales managers. If the CEO made it clear to the team that their objective was to increase sales for the entire organization, the sales manager in Slovakia would feel empowered to help sales managers in other regions increase business. He would also feel better about his job knowing that he is helping other salespeople improve overall company’s results.

It’s About the Team

Getting people to work as a team requires treating them as a team. On the other hand, when you measure and hold people accountable as individuals they will act as individuals.

Although it seems simple, this premise tends to be difficult for many leaders because we are taught in business schools about the importance of performance reviews and increasing accountability to improve performance. Getting people to work together, however, requires holding the team – and ultimately the team’s leader – accountable for achieving results.

What About the Stars?

When you begin to manage and reward the team instead of individuals, there is a chance you will lose the “superstars” who like to work alone and be rewarded for individual effort. In every instance where I have seen this happen, however, the company actually improved performance after a superstar left. In the right environment, teams are much more effective than individuals – even if those individuals are superstars. Ridding the organization of those who put their own needs ahead of the company as a whole tends to unleash the talents of the team, enabling amazing things to occur. Superstars tend to shine in dysfunctional organizations where people do not work well together. Once teamwork starts to improve, the superstar starts to hamper, more than help performance.

Try It . . . It Really Does Work

When I work with organizations on teamwork-related issues, I suggest initially implementing changes in a pilot area to help reduce the apprehension of the leaders to change the way the organization is managed. In the sales example, the CEO agreed to change the high-level measures for the European business unit and focus on revenues and EBIT for all of Europe instead of country-by country. Regional measures remained, but were only used by sales managers and their teams to determine what was happening at the local level and to determine if action needed to be taken to improve results.

As a result, the level of teamwork between sales managers improved, and by year-end, revenues exceeded forecast by 27%. Sales actually declined in some regions because the team decided to focus on the areas where the biggest growth opportunities and higher margins existed – which contributed to EBIT surpassing budget by 57%. Customer satisfaction also increased because people in different regions were now working together to serve needs and resolve problems.