When you think of sales enablement, do you think of it as a more tactical or strategic endeavor?

Bryce,

I think Sales Enablement has first a strategic component. The goal is to enable sales people to have the right conversation with the right people at the right moment (sales fluency). To achieve this, there are several stakeholders often working within their own silos that need to cooperate; namely sales, sales operations, content marketing and product marketing sometimes also known as offer portfolio management. This is definitely a strategic undertaking.

Yet strategies are only delivering results if they are executed. Thus SE must have also tactical components. I think for example of content governance etc.

I agree to Christian's view - sales enablement is first of all a strategic topic, but has to be executed, of course.

It's all about how to enable a company's client facing people to have valuable conversations with their customers at each level of the customer's problem solving process and at different messaging levels at the customer, which depends of course on the products, solutions and services to be sold.
Additionally it's important to take into account that the ROI of the whole selling system (yes, sales is a function, but selling is a system!) has to be optimized. Defining a sales enablement strategy, the customer is the design point, not an internal function! That's really mission critical, because it's the root cause. Fixing that design point from the very beginning, you will establish a competitive advantage and from a short-term view - it's much easier to get sales and marketing aligned.

Getting started with sales enablement from a strategic point of view means to look at the whole sales support supply chain end2end, not looking at functions only – working cross-functionally and to collaborate is key to success.
Identifying all redundancies along the whole sales support supply chain, will be an eye opener! For instance, different product portfolio views, often not consolidated, a variety of different sales portals, content often not structured and not defined from a customer's point of view, a variety of groups that offer trainings - trainings on what to sell and on how to sell, etc.
Fixing these redundancies, means contributing immediately to the selling systems' ROI!

Next, the different fields of action can be tackled from an operational point of view, as e.g. broadcast messaging, sales content (derived from strategy, role-based governance including content inventory, content categories, RACI, internationalization, etc.), knowledge management, skills and trainings and how to measure the success. Additional fields of action are sales and engagement models, the sales and the sales operations processes – they have always to be considered and integrated!
Executing all these activities successfully requires leadership, change, communication and sales adoption.

It may be of interest, that my scepticism of Sales Enablement has recently been greatly reduced. I have been working for more than six months with two clients one IT and the other Communications, where SE had NOT delivered the expected results.

What’s interesting is like ‘the curate’s egg’ the SE results were good in parts. I have spent six months discovering WHY their SE works or does not work. The Strategy behind SE is important, as I am sure are the Tactics.

We can say with Common Sense, if the Strategy is poor, the results will not be good. And, if the Strategy is flawed then the Tactics, however well executed, will not bring the results of a ‘good’ Strategy even when poorly executed!

The Key difference in successful SE execution appears to come down to:
WHO owns the Problem and
WHO helps them solve the problem.

Where Sales Enablement ‘Consultants’ arrive with a Solution then ask or TELL sales to help them implement (their) the Consultant’s Solution, Sales Enablement does not appear to deliver Revenue results.

However, simply by changing the ‘Problem Ownership’ back to Sales and asking Sales Enablement Consultants to HELP them, improves Revenue Results, and quickly. Sales with the help of SE Consultants are able to identify problems and blockages (Sales Knowledge Content, Systems: CRM and SFA, lead generation and Skills or Competence shortfall).

Neither of the SE implementations I audited were bringing results, Sales Commitment and motivation were both low, a lot of money had already been spent and was being spent for no return.

However, by giving Sales “ownership” (and responsibility for the ‘numbers’) the Process (the HOW was SE being implemented) changed, it became more focussed, better adapted to their situation. The pace of change picked up and results were measurably better in two months. Sales are motivated and committed to changes which THEY identified and the SE Consultants are HELPING them fix their problems.

The interesting thing is that the WHAT, the Sales Enablement, is remarkably similar, but one Process works and the other Process does not work as well. I have spent far more time on HOW SE was to be done rather than WHAT SE was done.

The use of ‘Strategy’ as the planning or thought process and then the ‘Tactics’ as the execution or implementation process, IMO, is not a viable model. Sales Strategy, must have both the plan and the implementation (with the given) resources ready from the beginning. SE which fails is flawed both at planning and execution (the execution is a part of the Strategic plan!).

This discussion, particularly Brian's comments about where he has found sales enablement getting results and not getting results, reinforces my belief and personal experience that it's critical to have sales enablement working very closely with and/or reporting to sales executives.

Where I have reported directly to a VP of Sales, the strategy was clear and the SE tactics linked directly to the strategic objectives. We cut out a lot of activities that weren't contributing to the bottom line.

Where I have reported to marketing, I have found success in bridging the gap between sales and marketing and successful projects though sometimes our outuput looked like we had swallowed too many marketing presentations.

Where I have reported to HR or Enterprise Sales Training that owned SE, I have found many more solutions 'done' to the field sales force that provided little to no bottom line value and few benefits. In my experience this setup has also produced many more 'training' (disguised as sales enablement) or sales enablement by the pound projects.

Daniel, you have my agreement to your view:
"Ultimately, sales enablement needs to be about enabling the execution of a company's sales strategy in the field at the point of a salesperson's interaction with their prospects and customers."

But, does everyone agree with:
"From this perspective, sales enablement is very strategic."?

Sales Enablement is a Strategic endeavor with tactical projects driven beneath it based on an enterprises specific goals and objectives.

For example, sales enablement objectives may be focused for a business on any one or more of the following:

- Driving increased revenue through improved cross-sell/up sell
- Moving from point (product) sales to a solution selling model
- Improving sales execution / driving a consistent / repeatable sales process
- Optimizing and improving efficiencies to shorten sales cycles
- Decrease on-boarding time to drive reps to become more productive
- Improving ability for sales managers to be better coaches
- and the list goes on....

Focus and not trying to boil the ocean is critical for success and change management always needs to be considered to ensure you bring the people, process and supporting technologies together. So based on the most pressing needs at hand you want to drive the appropriate tactics beneath the identified strategic goals.

@ Richard,
from your linkedin Profile: you love "applying proven sales enablement". And, you have ‘Philosophy’ as part of your degree, so allow me to ask you a few questions.

A priori
what is the difference between strategic and tactical?

How, from a Sales Enablement point of view, do Salespeople define and apply: Strategic endeavour, as distinct from strategic goals
or tactical projects from appropriate tactics?

How do you distinguish between the Sales Strategy and the Sales Strategic Plan?

You list Sales Enablement objectives (as examples)
The first four and the sixth are gerunds; Driving, Moving, Improving, Optimizing and Improving.

Could they be summarised as ‘Changing’?
Are they not simply objectives?

Are some of your (SE) objectives contrarian?
For example, at Big IT Corp. we have extended the ‘on-boarding time’ and are enjoying the reward of greatly increased Productivity, as compared to the ‘Half-baked’ shortened “on-boarding time”.

Or at Big Telco where we are looking to extend Sales Cycle time by about 6 months, by gaining access and involvement with Prospects in the “early” Buying process

I wrote a very wry blog on this

http://brianmaciver.blogspot.com/2011/03/shortening-sales-cycles.html

@Brian Thanks for your reply and visit to my profile. :) With regard to your (many) questions, I’ll do my best here (but I just learned through my initial reply that there is a 4000 character limit! So I hope no one minds that I make it 2 posts to reply and happy to carry on the conversation offline).

Q: Difference of Strategy vs. Tactics:
This could be a long, deep discussion, which I’d be happy to connect with you directly on and discuss further, but for a quick reply here. The difference (from my perspective) is that Strategy is focused the “big picture”, a plan to achieving goals/objectives where as the tactics are specific projects, measurable outcomes, tasks or activities that drive within the strategy aimed toward accomplishing your goal(s). (e.g., the indicators in the 747 helping the pilot to accomplish the goal – within a planned/strategy (the route to take and avoiding trouble) – for getting from Chicago to Boston). And since you brought up my Philosophy background, I’d be remiss not to provide a quote. Sun Tzu, “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” Good read with respect to this topic here: http://marketingqi.com/blog/2011/02/sun-tzu-on-business-strategy/

Q: How, from a Sales Enablement point of view, do Salespeople define and apply: Strategic endeavour, as distinct from strategic goals or tactical projects from appropriate tactics? And How do you distinguish between the Sales Strategy and the Sales Strategic Plan?

Well this might depend on the type of salesperson and business we’re talking about, but for practical purposes here, let’s say a salesperson understands the strategic goal they are working towards, such as increase revenue/win rates/meet or exceed their quota. They may apply, or distinguish their activities (moving through tactics of a defined sales process/strategy) to achieve that goal. For example, distinguishing between the proven sales process and steps (tactics) within that process, such as understanding buyer needs/buyer process, which in turn results in conducting research, asking relevant questions and delivering targeted information to advance within the process. I think in this case it would be important for the salesperson to understand the strategy of the sales process for a particular selling situation and align their tasks appropriately.

Q: How do you distinguish between the Sales Strategy and the Sales Strategic Plan?

Is this a trick question Brian? ;) There may be no distinction depending on your definition of strategy vs. plan, but if I think about your question - again practically, I might consider defining a sales strategy relative to a particular company’s business model (e.g,. SaaS vs. Premise) and apply the appropriate Strategic Plan (although I might say these are the tactics) to carry out that Strategy. Sales Strategy – we have the right model and we need to drive repeatable proven process = the plan might be how we implement it. What do you think?

Q: You list Sales Enablement objectives (as examples)
The first four and the sixth are gerunds; Driving, Moving, Improving, Optimizing and Improving Could they be summarised as ‘Changing’? Are they not simply objectives?

I like to think in action words. Yes they are objectives/goals, and strategic in nature. The sales and marketing leaders I speak to daily are looking to deliver on these very objectives and in turn apply the appropriate sales enablement strategy and define specific projects/tactics toward achieving them. (con't next post)

(con't from previous post)
Q: Are some of your (SE) objectives contrarian? For example, at Big IT Corp. we have extended the ‘on-boarding time’ and are enjoying the reward of greatly increased Productivity, as compared to the ‘Half-baked’ shortened “on-boarding time”.
Or at Big Telco where we are looking to extend Sales Cycle time by about 6 months, by gaining access and involvement with Prospects in the “early” Buying process

Sure, they could be in some cases….but in a large majority of customers I work with they are not contrarian. For example, today it takes Big IT Corp 6mo to ramp up a new sales rep, if I could apply a better process and technology to reinforce their training on the job, which gets them to that same level if not improved productivity in 3 months, would I not want to do this?

Or at Big Telco where while I may extend my Sales Cycle time by gaining access at the same time reduce sales cycle time by providing productivity efficiencies to make up for the fact that it takes a sales person too long to generate a proposal, or find the resources they need to be successful, or garner the appropriate resources to address the buyers needs. So could I not gain access earlier in the buying process while still driving a shorter or maybe in your case equal sales cycle? Personally, I find one of the biggest challenges here for sales people is proper qualification early in the process.

I see your point, but over the past few years my experience with most businesses, who have in previous efforts optimized their backend operational processes and systems (in large part due to the economic environment) are focusing on optimizing the “front end” of their business (Sales and Marketing process/systems) because they are trying to meet the same revenue goals/objectives with fewer resources.

@Brain, thanks for making for a fun, thought provoking Friday afternoon discussion! I really enjoyed the discussion, your questions and I would look forward to discussing / learning more from your point of view and others. Again, happy to connect and chat more on it! On to some Hockey! Cheers!

@Rich Thank you for your very comprehensive replies, I will find some time over the WE to read them in detail.
On to some golf! Have a good weekend!

Q: How do you distinguish between the Sales Strategy and the Sales Strategic Plan?
Is this a trick question Brian? ;)

Definitely not! :) I have sat through many (100’s?) Business meetings where a Sales (Strategic?) Plan was presented; inevitably I would ask,
“If that’s the plan, then what is the strategy?”
Show me the Formulation?

(Implementation) Plans are ‘maps’ from A to B, they have Routes, Milestones and Calendars. They may have alternatives in case of roadblocks, or they may not. Plans often have ‘Budgets’ of people, resources and equipment; as well as ‘Activities’ and events. In the case of a ‘Sales Strategic Plan’ you would expect the “Strategy” to be explicit, but it isn’t.

Lets take a simple strategy, The “Acquisition Strategy”. This strategy would be the out put of the ‘Market Reality’, how I stack up against Competitors, in a specific Market and would, as it emerges, be HOW I would achieve the Acquisition of Customers and Revenue. The Result of the acquisition may be defined as Revenue, or Boxes sold or Customers acquired. However the strategy is the process by which this will be done.

Is it “Strategic” to acquire by Lower prices?
Or, a better product?
Or, by ‘enabled’ Sales People who sold “better” than their Competitors?

Is a Price discount, just a tactic?
Or, an extra widget, another tactic.
Is using a Sales Portal to inform Salespeople at the ‘point of sale’ simply a tactical deployment of current information? Or, were they all “Strategic Sales Enablement?”

30 years experience has taught me (and Henry Mintzberg) that Strategic Planning doesn’t work, in Sales.

But, a thoughtful, ‘initial’ Sales Strategy, different from the ‘current’ Strategy can become our new ‘Deliberate Strategy’, much of which will not “work” and will have to be modified “in-flight” by Sales. This then becoming the ‘emergent strategies’ finally ending as a (hopefully) successful ‘Realised Strategy’.

The words I like to hear in Executive Business meetings are ‘Adaptable’, ‘Appropriate’, ‘Contingent’ and ‘Fit’. Look at any five year old “Strategic Plan”, then ask what actually happened? And, ask why do they need a new “Strategy”.

Hence, in Sales Enablement a Key Skill is ‘Flexible’ Planning which to many, especially out with of sales, is an oxymoron like a ‘Pregnant’ Virgin. There are those who still believe their plan should be executed (for Sales Enablement) as it was defined before it was implemented, just as they planned. Ignoring the actual Market and Competitive Reality.

Every failure in Strategy Implementation
is a Failure of Strategy Formulation!

Richard's response to

“A priori what is the difference between strategic and tactical?”

Is couched in "(from my perspective)" The difference is that Strategy is focused the “big picture”, a plan to achieving goals/objectives where as the tactics are specific projects, measurable outcomes, tasks or activities that drive within the strategy aimed toward accomplishing your goal(s).

The difficulty here is using “perspectives”,
“big Picture” vs “little Picture” may indeed describe some of the feelings we have. But, does it let a Business Strategy leave a Boardroom, enter Sales where it transforms into Sales Strategy and arrive at the Account where the Salesperson can then implement “the Strategy”?

The double meaning that “Strategy” is a “Plan”, leads to the confusion that a plan is a strategy. Similarly, that “Tactics” are Tasks (which they often can be).
But, how “in the Strategy” do tactics need to be?
Some tactics will definitely not be ‘in the Strategy’, and they, when successful, often Change the Strategy in flight!

(Given your use of Sun Tzu, I am thinking of ‘armoured piercing’ Arrows from Tactic to Strategy)

No, I don’t believe we have a priori defined Strategy and Tactics, which to answer the question as asked we may have to do. Any thoughts anyone?

I have found that sales enablement is most helpful when, as Robert put it, "bridging the gap" between sales and marketing on projects. Too often sales and marketing teams do not see eye to eye on certain issues, which can lead to confusion when planning presentations and sales pitches. I've found sales enablement tools to be very helpful in providing "alignment" for sales and marketing teams. I recently read a great blog post about sales and marketing alignment which I think many of you might find very interesting.
http://www.stratascope.com/blog/bid/54323/Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment-is-ab...
Personally, I've found Stratascope Inc.'s sales enablement services to be some of the best out there.