1 Comment

Re: The goal of great teams is to have all A players and winners.

I'm not sure if this is a realistic goal. At one company, I was asked to look into why turnover was so high among our salesforce. I was surprised to see that a little more than half of the turnover was involuntary - meaning the manager let them go rather than the salesperson quitting. In my experience, turnover usually fits an 90% voluntary to 10% involuntary split. I called and asked sales managers why they were getting rid of so many people. They all said the same thing - those people weren't going to turn out to be Rock Stars (sell a lot of product) and they were getting rid of them early to make room/find potential future Rock Stars.

There was a myth at the company that the top producing branches at the company were comprised of all Rock Stars. This couldn't have been further from the truth. I collected data on 300 branches and over 15,000 sales people over a 3 year period. I plotted the number of loans a branch produced by the number of sales people achieving that amount (0 loans, 1 loan, 2 loans, etc.). The top performing branches resulted in a normal distribution. That is, they had a few Rock Stars on their team, a few under performers, but the majority of their teams fell within 2 standard deviations from the mean. The other thing that differentiated top performing branches was stability - same manager and longer tenured sales people (but not that long - avg. tenure was only 1.5 years).

The lowest performing branches distribution was heavily skewed to the right - that is - the majority of their sales people's production feel below 2 standard deviations from the mean - because they were constantly getting rid of average performers in search of Rock Stars. My message to the low performing managers was simple - stop firing your average and just below average salespeople until you can 'stabilize' your team.

Expand full comment