Difficult and costly to recruit salespeople? But does it really have to be? In this article, Christer B Jansson writes about two “No Brainers”.
Recruiting salespeople costs a penny and successful recruitments are too few if we are to believe the statistics from the sales industry. From my perspective, there is a lot of thinking that lies behind this and also a resistance to trying something new, sometimes I even dare to think something new!
Costly when it goes wrong?
How much does it cost to recruit a salesperson? According to our experiences, it costs between SEK 500,000 to 700,000 to recruit a salesperson. In other words, if we recruit wrong, it’s money lost. Then there are hidden costs like it takes about eight months for a newly hired salesperson to be up and running according to the Gartner Group, so we get less business during the salesperson’s start-up period and maybe the brand also takes a hit sometimes. But what can you, who hires sales staff, do to streamline the process?
First some facts
The statistics show that only 45 percent within the large companies and 52 percent within the small companies are successful recruitments according to a Swedish recruitment firm at Google. In addition, 80 percent of salespeople have burnout syndrome and 52 percent are looking for new work outside the sales profession, according to recent figures from the Gartner Group in the United States. In other words, it’s really bad.
There are several reasons why salespeople quit, but a common reason is that the employer and the salesperson themselves have completely different expectations of how many customer visits and prospect conversations are necessary for the salesperson to succeed in achieving his goals.
Test widely and test early in the process
We know from all the studies that those who sell more than others are more active than those who don’t sell as much. So activity is one of the critical factors even a key factor to succeed in the profession for most sales jobs. In other words, will the salesperson hired be active enough for the sales job he applied for?
I therefore suggest that you screen the candidates who have been selected as interesting already after they have sent in their CV. Most people test the last three at the end, which if you have a potent test that measures the capacity for activity is insane from this perspective.
It’s that simple. If the most important reason for the person to succeed in the job is that they are from Gothenburg, left-handed and red-haired, the risk is high if you test at the end if the people meet the criteria that no Gothenburger who is left-handed and red-haired is among your three final candidates. I think you understand even if the example might be bad.
So then you have to start over or hire someone who is as close as possible. If you had tested all the applicants at the beginning, you would have been able to pick out everyone from Gothenburg who is left-handed and red-haired, thereby ensuring that your three final candidates meet that criterion. In addition, time saved as you do not have to test and interview other candidates than those who meet your critical criteria.
In other words, test the ability for activity as early as possible, as all research shows that it is what ultimately separates the chaff from the wheat in most sales professions. Perhaps the requirement for activity level should already appear in the job advertisement. Yes, you will probably get fewer answers, but those who answer can at least imagine the activity you say is needed to succeed.
How do we find the sellers who are more active than others among the applicants?
So we need to measure what creates activity in a seller and what hinders activity in the same one. Through years of research, more obstacles and other reasons have been discovered why salespeople do not prospect and develop customers to the extent necessary to be successful in their profession.
They have today developed very potent tools to measure activity such as motivation to prospect, goal focus and what prevents a salesperson from being active, which is 16 different sales obstacles as well as a number of other factors such as goal confusion. Sales barriers are complex and if you do it wrong, you can make the whole thing worse. That’s why it’s good if you know what you’re doing and keep up.
Two No Brainers
Just by screening with a test that measures the ability for activities such as prospecting, customer development, etc. (we use SPQ Gold/FSA), you can start hiring salespeople who will sell more, stay longer (recruitment costs are reduced), need a shorter training period and will also sell more (increased revenue).
If you are satisfied with the personality you are currently recruiting as a salesperson, use a test that measures the ability to sell and those who pass the barrier enter your normal recruitment process, then the % above will improve significantly in your favor.
A No Brainer I think!
Not only do we significantly reduce costs, we also increase revenue per salesperson as they make more customer and prospect visits. Yes, the test cost rises, but far from the cost savings and revenue increases/market shares you get as a positive effect.
We have references that this way of thinking works excellently and we/you can also help existing sales force develop when we know what the tests say about their ability to be active.
Actually another No Brainer.
