What is a common 'hiring trap' that you have seen when it comes to hiring salespeople?

Kevin and Cyndy both bring up great points.

Based on the questions and the intitial responses, the following three traps come to mind:
1. A common trap I see when people are hiring entry-level sales people in B2B roles is poor implementation of an inside to outside model. Many companies hire new sales people for inside sales roles in an attempt to train the new employee on the company's products and culture. While it may sound like a strong concept, there are two common mistakes.

First, companies hire a person looking for the skills required for an inside sales job. This does not indicate strength in the outside sales role. The result can be the transition of a top inside sales person into a role for which they're not as strong a fit. To fix it, companies should seek employees who demonstrate strong outside sales capabilities with acceptable inside sales capabilities and have a clear path to transitiion.

Secondly, the length of time a company places people in the inside sales roles can be a challenge. If a strong outside sales person recognizes their strength but continues for a year to remain in inside sales, they may transition to a company with a more clear path and stronger communication regarding the shift to the outside role. This leaves the company with strong inside sales people who may have limited desire or limited capability to finally make the transition to outside sales. The most effective companies keep lines of communication open and have a tested process for effective transition, recognizing that some of the top sales people can accelerate through the process.

2. Previous answers both touch on the overall challenge and all-to-common trap of failing to recognized sales specialties when filling roles. Incorporating the customer expectation of how a company will go to market into the criteria outlined for selecting salespeople should not be overlooked.

3. Cyndy is correct about the assessment tools, though companies should be cautioned that they are neither one size fits all nor silver bullets. While assessment tools are a terrific resource, they should be implemented as part of a comprehensive hiring process that includes assessment, targeted interview, background/reference checks.

I agree with Kevin and have a few other things to add.

I know of companies that hire inside sales people in droves with criteria that is designed for hiring customer service or administrative staff. It seems obvious that the skill-sets couldn't be any more divergent and further from the fact is that sales people are motivated by factors that don't necessarily come into play for C/S Reps or Admins. One good example that comes to mind is a call center environment. Some require people with sales skills while another may require well-skilled people who excel in customer service delivery.

There are a bevy of assessment tools available today that can help to identify who the best sales people are and which have a statistically higher probability of succeeding. These tools are designed to help identify high performers who are more likely to remain engaged and productive. Assessment tools are an investment on the part of the company, but one that will save money, reduce turnover, increase time to fill, time to productivity and ultimately help companies to select people who are a better cultural fit.

Hiring trap: Assuming that just because someone can sell themselve to you means that they can sell what you want sold.

The only thing some salespeople can sell is themselves.

Jeanne, you are correct that, " assessment tools are a terrific resource, they should be implemented as part of a comprehensive hiring process that includes assessment, targeted interview, background/reference checks." However, I suspect that employers that use assessments do all the things that you suggest. Why do so many employers not use assessments?

Emotion - we fall in love or dislike a sales candidate too early. The interview is too much like a date - everyone is on their best behaviour. Emotion plays too big a role in "liking or disliking" a candidate. We have proven over the years that a candidates performance in the interview does not related to their ability to execute on the job. You have to move the emotion to the side. We have been doing this for years through our Hiring Simulation Assessment www.hiringsimulation.com process - see the candidate in action - not in the interview.

Craig Bissett CEO - www.hiringsimulation.com

Companies often hire sales people based on their performance at a previous company and that can prove disastrous. There are two important issues that must be considered if prior performance is to be a criterion.

The first is one that is seldom discussed and that is the personal integrity of the person. Will they use any tactic they can think of to make a sale even if they are highly questionable or in some cases illegal? Do they offer you their current client list which is in effect stealing from their former or soon to be former company? Will they be violating a non-compete and/or confidentiality agreement? What is the reputation of their current or former employer and what are their sales tactics? If you are an ethical company who takes pride in their integrity, you want to be very careful about who you hire.

The second one is that past performance is not necessarily translatable into a different industry. The sales person may not have the background necessary to successfully sell your product.or understand that the industry culture may be quite different. He/she may not be able to effectively communicate with decision makers in the target or niche market. For example, a couple of years ago I was working with a former, very successful pharmaceutical salesman with a big expense account who was trying to remake himself as an independent sales rep/consultant. Because the big drug manufacturers were laying off people right and left, he got no traction. However, he was able to convince a new company that sold scalable backup/recovery systems to give him a try. It was a disaster. He had absolutely no technical background at all and didn't understand any of the concepts behind data storage or the reasons why it was needed. He didn't understand that he was no longer entertaining hospital administrators at expensive restaurants but instead dealing with "pizza and beer" technical people. He had no understanding of the tech culture and found it impossible to relate to let alone communicate with these people. The worst part of all was that he chose not to learn and blamed his total lack of success on the company and the "stupid" clients.

While a measurement of past performance can be a valid factor for consideration in hiring it should only be a small factor. It is often better to select candidates with good potential and train them thoroughly in your products, standards, culture and ethics instead of dealing with what might be some very bad habits of more seasoned sales people.

Gail, I agree with your comments but how should we measure potential and what is a good potential?

Bob, those are great questions.

Enthusiasm is a must. What skills have they acquired in other positions that are transferable such as industry knowledge, technical skills, customer service experience and other sales experience or training. Another excellent indicator is whether they have done any research on your company before an interview Do they know your products or services? Do they know your target market or even some of your customers? Do they know who your competitors are? If they have done well up to this point, I suggest you throw in a role playing scenario. You are a customer and they need to sell you a product. The trick here is not only to listen to how they go about it but in your responses to their pitch to also make mention of some other problem you have that you know could either be solved by another product or service or some tweaked version of such. This part is simply a test of whether the potential sales person has listening skills or not. Many sales skills can be taught but true listening skills are very difficult to teach.

The biggest trap is relying on Assessments instead of focusing on their objective qualifications and past experience.

A persons history cannot be fudged or manipulated. If someone has experience - proven extensive quantitative and qualitative experience selling similar products to a similar market group, in a similar type of corporation as your business, there is no doubt that that person can also succeed within your organization.

The biggest mistake you can make is to hire a sales person with a successful track record in transactional sales and expect them to do well in consultative sales.

Gail, thanks.

Karen, why do you presume that employers that use assessments do not focus on applicants' objective qualifications and past experience? I find that employers that use assessments do a very good job of evaluating applicants' objective qualifications and past experience. In fact, that is why they use assessments; relying primarily on objective qualifications, past experience, education, interviews, recommendations, etc., lets too many under performers get hired.

The question that an assessment should answer is, "Which job finalist has the best chance for job success?" User of assessments should know that assessment results should count for about one-third of the selection decision. Employers that don't use assessment are missing an important component of job success; suitability to the job.

Assessments are an important component of an effective selection process. Of course, users need to be careful when selecting an assessment that conforms with the various legal requirements and best practices.

There are no business, legal or moral reasons not to avoid using appropriate assessments. In fact, we owe it to applicants not to hire them for jobs in which job failure is more likely than job success.