CONSULTATIVE SELLING: WHAT ABOUT 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK?
Last week’s blog (scroll below) examined feedback— and suggested that the consultative salesperson use it “bi-directionally.” Whenever appropriate, voluntarily play back to the client our understanding of what he/she is saying (especially, apparent needs) and also ask our clients to play back their understanding of what we’re saying (especially, ideas and recommendations). Our goal: preclude potential misunderstandings— an obvious benefit to all. This starts to sound like “360 degree feedback”; should we really go that far?
Broadly defined, 3600 feedback is a mutual exchange of comments, suggestions and improvement opportunities between individuals or groups; frequently, it replaces one-way evaluations of subordinates by their bosses in corporate personnel management settings.
When the 3600 feedback concept is applied to client/sales team situations, an excellent process technique is the “Keep/Stop/Start” exercise— a mainstay of idea-generation and problem-solving projects. Here, everyone contributes to a listing of productive practices already being done (the “Keeps”); unproductive practices currently being done (the “Stops”); and potentially productive practices not now being done (the “Starts”). It’s a democratic, creative and non-threatening way for groups to move forward synergistically.
- Since K/S/S focuses on actions, policies, behaviors and their business consequences, it leaves individual conflicts— personality traits, presumed attitudes, etc.— out of the discussion. Finger-pointing kills 360 degree feedback! Further, K/S/S is always mutually “solicited feedback,” rather than unexpected, unwelcome suggested changes and criticisms.
It’s important to note that 3600 feedback can be implemented at different levels of frequency and formality— matching the needs and comfort requirements of the client team and sales team members:
1. The consultative salesperson casually, informally offers ad hoc playback and requests client feedback, as necessary, to assure mutual understanding. If the salesperson calls attention to the process, purpose and value of 3600 feedback, the client may volunteer her/his constructive feedback more readily. (Otherwise, it’s mostly salesperson-driven, and “not very 360.”)
2. The client team and sales team agree to routinely operate in “3600 feedback mode,” a way of doing business which happens often, is still informal, impromptu, and “unofficial”— but is much more a shared, joint-team process and policy.
3. The 3600 feedback process becomes formal and official: scheduled, systematic mutual evaluations, which may include a prescribed format and may be documented “for the record.” If we choose this level, we should routinely be sharing informal 3600 feedback along the way, too. (Our willingness to recommend this level signals our confidence, professionalism and commitment to providing excellent client service— and invites the client to reciprocate.)
The bottom line: Remember that 360 degree feedback is a team effort— a collegial, supportive, pragmatic dialog, whose end objective is better, more successful business practices and results for the client and consultative sales team alike. It must be designed and conducted to be comfortable for everybody involved, so that they’ll accept (and even enjoy?) the process. How might the 3600 feedback concept work for your sales team?
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: “HEADLINING”
Business professionals who participate in idea-generation (“brainstorming”) meetings are often asked to use a communication technique called, “headlining.” Quite simply, it means stating our idea immediately and succinctly (even if, occasionally, somewhat imprecisely?)— before going on to set it up, detail and rationalize it. In effect, it’s leading with our “punch line.” Let’s examine headlining as a potentially powerful consultative selling tool.
Leading with our idea or recommendation can seem like an impulsive, disorderly, risky way to sell a proposal; many professionals automatically begin with the “setup”— background, supporting circumstances and elements, etc. — and conclude with the recommendation. Their goal is to “weave a web” of logic and persuasion so convincing that the resulting recommendation seems uniquely appropriate and unarguable. Well, maybe so, and maybe not.
The problem with this sequence is that because the client doesn’t know where we’re going, he/she may misunderstand, forget, or just plain not hear much of our setup and rationale. What’s missed along the way could sabotage our sale. Isn’t a jigsaw puzzle a lot harder to do if we don’t have a picture of it completed, for reference? Three headlining applications:
- Formal presentation: Make no mistake: beginning by reviewing the client’s needs is always right— because it’s always what the client cares about most. After that, consider a 3-part presentation format often credited to the US military: (1) “Tell Them What You’re Going to Tell Them,” (succinct recommendation) (2) “Tell Them” (the detail and rationale) and (3) “Tell Them What You Told Them” (tight summary). If we telegraph/support/review, isn’t it likely that they’ll get it? Admittedly, there’s no suspense or drama here, but do we really need that?
- Email or Letter: The email’s Subject line or the letter’s Title line contains the recommendation; (a review of client needs and) our proposal’s details and rationale follow in the “body copy.” If the client already agrees with us, she/he doesn’t even have to read the body copy— a courtesy from us. If he/she disagrees, our (hopefully convincing) rationale follows; at least, we won’t be making her/him re-read the text, after discovering and disputing our recommendation at the end.
- Verbal Communication: Spontaneous talk is the most challenging application of headlining. Our impromptu spoken headline may not be a precise articulation of the idea; even so, we’re telegraphing the general direction of our proposal. Next, we (review the client’s needs, and then) precisely define and rationalize our recommendation. The client may cut the conversation short if she/he readily agrees.
Clearly, headlining isn’t always the right way to offer a recommendation. Some ideas, if broached immediately, can send the client off into an erroneous inference— and we’ll need to dig ourselves out of the resulting hole. Further, drama and suspense could help us make some sales, despite the risks. Headlining is a useful selling skills tool— a “judgment call” that’s well worth considering.
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: SEEKING CONFIRMATION
An unfortunate reality of all client/salesperson conversations is that opportunities for major misunderstanding arise often. If we’re lucky, we’ll recognize our confusion and ask for clarification. The biggest threats are the undetected misunderstandings— often the birthplace of disagreement and rejected proposals. Beyond maximizing our listening skills, what can we do to nip potential misunderstandings in the bud?
The key concept here is seeking confirmation; four important examples:
- Confirming Our Review of Needs as Understood: Arguably the “granddaddy” of consultative selling confirmation situations, here’s where we play back the client needs we (think we) heard during the meeting’s situation analysis phase. If there ever was a place where we have to get it right, this is it: our subsequent recommendations will be tied to demonstrating how our product/service meets these perceived needs. Replay the client’s needs thoroughly— then ask if we got them right and got them all.
- Confirming the Agenda and Available Time: These are presumably not miscommunication problems; surprises here usually result from the (client’s) circumstances or needs having changed since we earlier agreed on the meeting’s agenda and length. The benefits of our understanding the new situation— and being able to adapt the meeting content and timing accordingly— are obvious. Ask the client straightforwardly if our agreed-upon agenda and meeting length are still valid.
- Confirming Our Paraphrase of the Client’s Objection: This third step of the Objection Resolution process “reframes” the objection as an unfulfilled client need, and defines a task that we’ll need to accomplish for our recommendation to be accepted. Since our paraphrase opens a new pathway by turning the objection into an objective, it’s necessary to get client confirmation that he/she agrees that our proposed task is the way forward.
- Confirming the sale, itself: our February 5 blog on “Closing” describes a technique for confirming the client’s readiness to buy without pressuring him/her, or resorting to artificial closing “gambits.” After the client’s objections to our recommendation, if any, have been fully resolved, we voluntarily ask if she/he needs to discuss anything else. If the answer is, “no,” we can fairly assume that the client has approved our proposal. This “assumptive close” confirmation tool is uniquely comfortable for both of us.
Although these four applications are especially important, there are many other salesperson/client dialog situations where a confirmation question or statement can be beneficial. When it comes to confirming mutual understanding, “more is more”; we should ask for repetition or clarification often— and always, if we have the slightest doubt.
Importantly, we can improve the client’s understanding of us by replaying what we’ve heard— an irresistible invitation to correct us and, therefore, to get it right. (Could we occasionally ask the client to paraphrase what we’ve said, when full understanding is crucial?)
One of the most important selling skills is knowing when and how to “seek confirmation” in our client dialogs.
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: THE PROS & CONS OF BEING AN “EXPERT”
Clearly, the term “consultative selling” involves and requires genuinely collaborative, client needs-oriented attitudes and behaviors in all our business dealings. Even so, there are times when we must behave as pure “experts” — essentially dictating recommended client decisions and actions in our product/service area— where he/she simply isn’t qualified to make, or even contribute to the decision. Let’s talk about how “playing the expert card” affects our client dialogs.
Peter Block’s widely-acclaimed book, “Flawless Consulting,” comprehensively defines the often-contrasting characteristics and consequences of our roles as expert and collaborator.
Our challenge is precisely “roping off” that part of our recommendation which is non-negotiable: where we know how to do something, and the client doesn’t; indeed, these are probably the capabilities that caused the client to hire us in the first place. Outside those ropes, we’re true consultants: always collaborative and client-inclusive.
- If we rope off too wide an area, we’re arbitrarily excluding the client from making legitimate, beneficial contributions. If we rope off too narrow an area, we’re allowing the client to override our core capabilities and inadvertently degrade our proposals. A (hopefully-humorous) metaphor: if we’re asked, “What time is it?” even a genuine desire to be “collaborative” doesn’t justify the response, “What time would you like it to be?”
We should always try to draw these lines before making the recommendation; not waiting until the client raises an objection, and then scrambling to decide what’s legitimately negotiable, and what isn’t. Under pressure, emotions and professional egos could cause us to exaggerate what we “own” or, conversely, to abandon some of our expertise while trying to maximize collaboration and make the sale.
As we’ve so often said, the downside risk in doing anything to which the client doesn’t directly contribute is that her/his lack of authorship/ownership could reduce the feeling of shared commitment to the plan. When we must rightly wear the expert’s hat, it’s a price worth paying: first and foremost, we need the program to be as effective as possible.
A caveat: saying “trust me” (because I’m the expert) to a deeply skeptical client asks him/her to make a huge leap of faith; if we’re not proven right virtually every time, the client’s confidence in our expertise is probably permanently damaged. Make an extra effort to persuade that dubious client!
We should never forget that even in situations where, as experts, we rightly dictate client decisions and actions, it’s always the client who judges the success (or failure) of the outcome. Our own opinion about the results will never outweigh the client’s opinion. That means we should collaboratively seek client/sales team agreement, up front, on the criteria for measuring the program’s success.
In a nutshell: the consultative salesperson must walk a tightrope, carefully balancing the expert’s necessary dictates with a collaborative, client needs-driven mindset. We need to map out those boundaries precisely— before team selling goes to work.
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: THE ART OF DEFINING “NEXT STEPS”
Every successful salesperson knows the elation of closing a big sale— and the desire to “head for the door” immediately. The “Next Steps” process that ends the meeting can seem like anti-climactic “boiler plate” to be quickly dispensed with. Beware the urge to give short shrift to determining Next Steps— a task which has the power to make or break our selling skills triumph.
The bedrock of a good Next Steps determination is specificity and detail:
- Make sure the Next Step is an action or process, not an objective or strategy. It’s not, “Confirm the project’s legality…”; it’s, “Email the corporate lawyer our plan summary and ask for her/his legal opinions, especially regarding our suspected problem areas A and B.”
- Assign responsibilities and actions to individuals, by name. It’s not, “the Brand Group will…”; it’s, “John Smith will…” Try to assign at least one “helper” to any task which appears to be at all complicated or time-consuming; don’t leave Mary Jones with a daunting list of solo Next Steps.
- Always assign a precise due-date to each specific task. It’s not, “Call Jim Johnson…” it’s, “Call Jim Johnson before close of business tomorrow….”
It goes without saying that every individual tasked with one or more Next Steps should feel comfortable and confident that she/he can accomplish the assignment(s). Ask that question in a consultative selling, empathetic manner that encourages team members to volunteer any latent concerns. (Technique: one or two “casual” follow-up questions about a task’s “how to” elements may uncover a worry that could keep someone from pursuing his/her assignment.)
- Often, responsible professionals don’t proactively perform a task simply because they either don’t know how to do it and/or they’re anxious about doing it. Both kinds of reluctance can be sensitively queried and addressed now— rather than after the project has mysteriously stalled. Often, the combined client and sales team can brainstorm and overcome perceived obstacles during the Next Steps discussion, itself.
Get at least three Next Steps, if possible. While there’s no magic in the number “3,” it has a way of signaling a truly substantial, important activity. Further, a list of three tends to readily spark additional suggestions— and a comprehensive action plan builds rapidly and easily.
Make sure the client has at least one important Next Step in moving the project ahead. His/her acceptance of a task is an indication of genuine commitment, and it generates a sense of client authorship and ownership (even if it’s essentially our recommendation and project). Meaningful client involvement reduces the likelihood that the project will be easily stalled or abandoned when (inevitable) obstacles to progress arise along the way.
The meeting’s Next Steps phase is a golden opportunity for the consultative salesperson to facilitate defining both the sales and client teams’ future contributions to the project; let’s make the most of it.
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: THOUGHTS ON RAISING OUR PRICE (BESIDES, “UGH”)
Certainly, one of the toughest client conversations the consultative salesperson will ever face is announcing a price increase. In most business “conflict resolution” situations, we’re offering a benefit (our product or service), but the client perceives a problem. Here, we’re offering no (new) benefit, and actually contributing a perceived problem— the higher cost. Our best possible outcome is to mitigate the client’s discomfort, rather than add tangible new value. How do we approach this daunting situation?
By the way, it might help a lot if we could offer any new benefit (e.g., a small service upgrade) along with the price increase. While it wouldn’t rationalize the new price— we’d explain that openly to the client— it could make the proposition more palatable psychologically. Some suggestions on positioning the price increase:
Exhibit the courage of our convictions. We have the same right our clients do: to charge an appropriate price in order to make a fair profit. (Our client knows this, too, although her/his fantasy would be to receive our product/service for free.) We’re not ashamed or defensive about the new pricing— but we sure are caring and understanding about the difficult situation it could create for the client. (How would we feel in their shoes?)
Be open about our own contributions to this situation. For example, should we have done this sooner— when it would have cost less? Taking legitimate responsibility shows our character, courage, professionalism and commitment to the client. Be careful to avoid “playing the victim card” by blaming our management; we’re all in this together.
Probe the client consequences thoroughly. If there ever was a situation where we need to perform in-depth questioning to uncover the client’s job-related and personal needs, this is it! Find out what challenges the client anticipates when he/she has to bring our price increase back to the office. What will she/he have to do and handle? At the least, we can be empathetic; at best, maybe we can mitigate or share some of the consequences. (An example: maybe we should explain the issues to higher-ups.) Yes, it takes a lot of will power to pursue this unpleasant conversation diligently.
Our message, on the bottom line: we’re on your side, we’d like to help and we value the relationship above all— despite the fact that we’ve had to institute a potentially problematical price increase.
Some consultants and selling skills trainers envision a “trusted advisor bank” in which each benefit we provide our client is a “deposit.” By building a substantial “balance” over time, we can sustain an occasional “withdrawal”— perhaps an error we make or a deadline we miss. Our price increase may be perceived as a big withdrawal, but our honor, expertise, commitment and empathy remain intact. We need to have the courage and sensitivity to demonstrate that, and to count on it to weather this storm.
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: THE “JOHARI WINDOW” ILLUMINATES CLIENT NEEDS
The Johari Window, created by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham in 1955, is a simple and powerful tool used to improve self-awareness and mutual understanding among individuals and groups. Its research technique compares and contrasts how a person sees himself/herself, versus how others see her/him. For the consultative salesperson, applying Johari to understanding client needs can be an instructive, even insightful experience. The Johari Window is comprised of four quadrants:
Open (“Arena”): This quadrant represents those personal traits that both the individual and others are aware of. Hidden (“Façade”): These are the personal traits that the person is aware of, but that others are unaware of (either because the traits aren’t conspicuous, or are being intentionally camouflaged). Blind Spot: These are personal traits that the person is unaware of, but that others can see. Unknown: These are personal traits the subject might or might not have; either way, neither he/she nor others can see them. (As such, this “potential” quadrant is typically less often addressable and actionable than the other three.)
Now, let’s substitute the phrase “client needs” for “personal traits,” and revisit Johari’s three most relevant quadrants:
Open client needs are the “easy ones,” because they’re readily recognizable to both the client and the salesperson. Indeed, if the salesperson somehow fails to spot and service all of the “open” quadrant needs, she/he risks under-serving the client (and might even lose the business to a competitor who does see these needs, and alerts our client to them).
Blind Spot client needs can be detected by thoughtful, in-depth questioning and brought to the client’s attention. This is a conspicuous example of “adding value”— and the client is sure to appreciate a salesperson who brings solutions to threats and problems he/she didn’t even know were there in the first place. On rare occasions, the salesperson may be so exceptionally knowledgeable, insightful and imaginative that she/he will discover an obscure, latent client need that probably belongs in the Unknown quadrant.
Hidden client needs are especially challenging: he/she is reluctant to volunteer certain needs to the salesperson. Examples of why this can happen: the client may feel responsible for contributing to the problem, or be concerned about the risks in trying to solve it, or be embarrassed by some aspect of his/her personal or job situation, etc. (Be empathetic; we all have such issues!) The consultative salesperson who can sensitively and supportively uncover and meet hidden needs may be forging the strongest client relationship of all.
Here’s where process enters the picture. Because client needs may be dispersed throughout all four Johari quadrants, only a rigorous, systematic, consciously (and sensitively) applied process can hope to uncover them fully and accurately. This process will necessarily emphasize questioning and listening skills— the core tools that bring needs to the surface— and it’s called, “Consultative Selling Skills.”
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: CLOSING THE SALE
Our last two blogs discussed issue resolution, first, stressing the basic concept— identifying and satisfying the client’s underlying need (rather than rebutting the objection) . Next, we explored the “reframing“ technique— where the salesperson paraphrases the objection as its underlying need, and gets client confirmation before going on to address it. This week, we’ll examine closing the sale: its basic process is essentially the same, whether or not the client has raised objections to our recommendation.
Countless selling skills books have been written about the art of closing the sale. Many of them treat closing as stand-alone, memorized and rehearsed techniques or devices— connectable to but distinct from this particular client’s needs and business situation. (Even so, in certain situations, they can sometimes work.)
The Baron Group believes that the closure should be a natural, follow-on outcome from the client/salesperson dialog which preceded it.
- If the client had no objections or reservations of any kind about our recommendation, isn’t it fair to assume that he/she is ready to commit?
- If the client did have objections that were genuinely and completely resolved, the consultative salesperson then gives him/her an opportunity to volunteer other concerns— the “Asking For Others” step. If none is forthcoming, isn’t it now fair to assume that she/he is ready to commit?
This process is call an “assumptive close,” because the salesperson’s “due diligence” in the previous needs-analysis and/or objection resolution gives him/her every right to believe that the client wants to buy. (If the salesperson isn’t reasonably confident, then ethical issues enter the picture and, pragmatically, the likelihood of closing the sale greatly decreases, too.)
The beauty of the assumptive close is that it takes the pressure off both the salesperson and the client.
- Often, even the confident salesperson feels the pressure of asking for the big “yes,” fearing rejection, or looking too aggressive, or an unwelcome and surprising negative response.
- Sometimes, even a client who is fully ready to buy can be anxious about saying the words that confirm commitment and launch the project— especially if it’s a big, costly undertaking.
The assumptive close either softens the question, or avoids asking it entirely. Here are just a few examples of assumptive closure statements and questions; some are more direct than others. “Sounds like we’re ready to proceed.” “Are we ready to move forward?” “Here’s what we need to do to make it happen.” “What’s the next step to get things started?” “ “Are you comfortable with pursuing this?” “We’re eager to start the process…” etc.
In the rare event that the client unexpectedly does push back, it’s time for (more?) issue resolution: explore the details of the objection, determine the underlying need and paraphrase it to the client’s satisfaction; address it, and move to closure again. Just make sure that closing isn’t any harder than it has to be.
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: REFRAMING CLIENT OBJECTIONS
The turning point in resolving client objections is paraphrasing the objection as a need— the need which the client feels wasn’t successfully addressed by our recommendation. Once that need is uncovered and agreed upon, we’re in a position to move toward a solution, without having to argue about the original objection. (For a conceptual overview, please refer to last week’s blog, “Understanding Issue Resolution,” directly below.) Now, let’s examine the technique of “reframing” an objection.
Never forget that we’re not ready to reframe until we’ve questioned the client to identify, accurately and in detail, the need that our presentation somehow missed. (In theory, if our previous needs-analysis and subsequent recommendation had been perfect, the client wouldn’t have raised an objection in the first place. Unfortunately, reality rarely goes that well.) For more on questioning techniques, please review, “Questioning Skills- Part 3.”
When we’ve nailed that unfulfilled need, it’s time to offer a reframe: where we “turn an objection into an objective”— a goal to be reached, a task to be accomplished— rather than debating a perceived obstacle. Again, “Here’s why it won’t fly” becomes “Here’s what we need to do to make it fly.”
The exact phraseology of the reframe isn’t critical, but it is important to always include two elements in any reframing statement:
- Always use an “I message”— explicitly taking responsibility for the fact that we’re paraphrasing the client’s objection when we reframe it as the underlying need. This makes it easy for the client to disagree with or change our reframe to his/her own liking. (If necessary, we can try another reframe.)
- Always end the reframe by asking for confirmation that the client accepts it. If the client genuinely agrees, we didn’t just “put words in her/his mouth.” (Note that reframing is therefore a transparent, client-centered, non-manipulative process.) Further, our next step will be addressing that need— so we have to get it right!
Here is a generic reframe format, in which “……..” represents the client’s unfulfilled need: “If I understand you correctly, you need to …….. Is that correct?”
Now, let’s flesh out a typical reframing situation. The original client objection is, “It’ll be too much hassle.” Our follow-up questioning reveals the client’s worry that our proposal will add excessive workload on his/her staff. Our reframe might be, “If I understand you correctly, you need to feel confident that your staff can comfortably handle our proposed process. Is that correct?”
How we next address the confirmed need will depend on whether or not our current recommendation does or doesn’t actually fulfill it. Often, addressing the need is surprisingly easy, now that we know precisely what we have to accomplish.
Like most new selling skills, reframing takes practice to become comfortable and feel natural. It’s effectiveness in issue resolution makes it more than worth the consultative salesperson’s effort.
To receive more information about The Baron Group,
CONSULTATIVE SELLING: DECIDING HOW TO DECIDE
In the classic group problem-solving meeting model, a major turning point occurs when the meeting process shifts from generating ideas (the “anything goes,” divergent phase) to developing workable solutions (the debugging, answer-seeking, convergent phase). Determining which ideas should be turned into solutions is critically important, of course— and that decision process has broader implications for the consultative salesperson every time he/she makes a business decision affecting the team, and maybe her/his client’s team, too.
Here’s how ideas are chosen for further development in problem solving meetings:
- Problem Owner makes the decision alone. Here, the group generates the ideas, but doesn’t contribute to the selection process. An obvious advantage of this option: the “PO”— who must carry the solution forward and “make it happen”— will surely be comfortable with her/his own choices. Meetings about issues in which the PO has unique expertise, or is solely responsible for the consequences, or is especially strong-willed (!) often take this path.
- Problem Owner makes the decision, with group input. Here, the PO takes counsel from the group and its collective knowledge and judgment before deciding for himself/herself. (In this case, the participants may rank or vote for their favorite ideas, anonymously or openly, and tabulate the results for the PO.) The advantages of this additional input are apparent— which is why so many meetings go this route.
- The group makes the decision, with Problem Owner input and oversight. This is a very democratic, team-oriented process; it’s especially appropriate in situations where the group, collectively, owns the problem more that any single individual, including the leader. The development of client presentations sometimes follows this path, with the sales team leader making decisions while pulling together the team members’ contributions.
A fourth potential option— the group makes the decision, without regarding the PO— isn’t emphasized here because it’s very risky and (therefore) rarely chosen. No PO wants to be “stuck” with a decision from which he/she has been excluded; further, a leaderless group may not be able to converge on a unanimously acceptable solution (although that works, if a listing of ideas is the PO’s only meeting objective).
Let’s connect all this to managing a sales team. Many sales team leaders have a habitual, “automatic” decision-making process— whether derived from selling skills training, or not. Even if it’s usually successful, that process may not be right for this particular situation and circumstances, this particular time; (e.g., a team leader should beware the consequences of bulldozing through her/his internal operations decision that the team members don’t genuinely support).
Maybe the best thing about the decision-making process described above is that it requires conscious, considered evaluation every time, for each new problem or opportunity. Wouldn’t the few moments the sales team leader takes to “decide how to decide” prove to be time well spent?
To receive more information about The Baron Group,