Which selling metrics (aside from revenue) matter most in evaluating sales performance?

In addition to all the previous responses, a few thoughts:

We should be aware, that we only measure what really matters regarding the whole selling system. Often, organizations measure a variety of KPI's that CAN be measured without asking, if and why a specific KPI does matter or not.
Then, we should measure results, not activities. Less is more.

Regarding the ROI of the selling system, we should consider KPI's on effectiveness (input/output conversion rates) and KPI's on efficiency as cost/ per xy.

Other than revenue, I would have to go with two:

Conversion of leads to engagement, generally an initial meeting with a potential buyer. 

Number of those who engage that actually move to a discovery process.

If you can't get with prospects and compel them to exchange information with you, little else counts. As a manager if I can focus and help you improve these two area, I can positively impact other key arrears of your sale and selling. 

Mark: I fall smack dab between Gary + Tibor. I favor metrics on Return on Effort, especially ones that act as leading indicators of the kinds of impacts Tibor's after. An example: what % of all sales conversations were good conversations as verified by the actions buyers took after the conversation ended. Typically when this and other forms of Return on Effort improve, so do sales results. From what we're seeing, the path to such improvement is paved with better sales execution. Doing a lot better at a lot of little things that make a big difference to the buyer experience. Trust this adds some value. - John

Let’s go back to Kaplan and his Balanced Score Card (BSC), just for a moment. Metrics and Management go together like a Horse and Cart, like Simon and Garfunkel (look it up). They are inseparable! From the cliché:
“What you don’t measure, you can’t manage” through to
“What gets Measured gets attention”.
We can drown in wisdom sayings.

So, how come despite, SF.Com charts, tables and graphs, despite more ‘measurement’ than ever Sales Productivity is dropping?
Partly, the problem is a jumble of “outcomes” ‘Lagging’ Measures and confused “inputs” or alleged ‘Leading’ indicators.

Let’s try a few BSC analogies, a Pilot can’t only rely on his Altimeter, so why would a Sales Manager rely only on her “Pipeline”? Yet for 25 years I have listened to Sales Managers explain that their poor Revenue figures will soon improve as their ‘Pipeline’ has grown!

It is common to ‘measure’ Salespeople’s Activity, but as any researcher in this area knows doing ‘more’ of the wrong thing, doesn’t increase Sales!

Sales Trainers are fond of measuring Selling Skills, and then putting forward a Training Solution.
But, did they measure Functional Selling Skills or Dysfunctional Selling Skills?

Are they proposing a development of functional selling skills or are they going to compound the problem by implanting dysfunctional behaviours which aggravate the problem? This is one of the biggest problems in selling today, not that salespeople are unskilled, but that they have been, and are being, taught Selling Skills which don’t work!

How do we measure Sales Strategy? Or, Sales Attitude? Research shows clearly that Strategy and Attitude are Leading Indicators of future Sales Failure, they are akin to Hertzberg’s Hygiene Factors, they disable Sales success when wrong, but may not bring success even when right!

If, as a Sales Consultant, I am asked by a CEO to measure “How well am I doing, NOW?”
I measure, Profitability, Margin (Sales Contribution), and Revenue. To make these measures “relative” I measure Market Share Gain/Loss, and Revenue per Sales Head compared to their competitors.

If the CEO asks me the different question:
“How well am I likely to do in the FUTURE?”
then I have to measure trends.
How skilled is their sales force are they becoming more or less skilled?
How much Revenue Generating Activity are they doing is it trending Positive or Negative?
Is their Product/Market Knowledge up-to-date or out-of-date?
Is their Sales Attitude Positive or Negative?
Is their Sales Strategy aligned to the CEO’s Goals, their Product/Market or themselves?

The biggest error made in Sales Metrics is to focus on the late Pipeline results and activity, panic over the results then close-off the business. This inverse focus simply compounds the Sales problem and unbalances the Revenue Flow.

http://brianmaciver.blogspot.com/2010/08/check-your-sales-performance.html

For anyone interested in this discussion and passionate about examining, rethinking, and revising the metrics they use to assess sales health and sales performance, I strongly recommend that you review David Brock's Friday blog series, "Performance Management Friday" which includes discussions of measuring average transaction value, pipeline volume, funnel churn, funnel balance, the sales cycle, and overall activities (I know David but do not work for him; I recommend him and his work because I think highly of him).

Here's a link to his latest entry:

http://partnersinexcellenceblog.com/performance-management-friday-wallet-share/

glad to see this conversation continuing!

I guess I'm stuck on your comment that "attaching a number to some of the subtle elements (that matter so much) may be too cold." If your concern is with trying to make "objective" things that are inherently "subjective", using scalar values allows you to rate things as "better" or "worse" without forcing them into a number. That's usually enough to effect change.

If you're concern is over measuring quality (e.g. the quality of a lead, or the quality of a piece of business), there are usually excellent proxy metrics that work (e.g. close rate as a proxy for lead quality, scales for intensity of need, etc.) As a rule, subjective (e.g. descriptive) "metrics" to rate quality usually result in working towards the metric rather than the results, so avoid these.

Remember that the goal is the change (i.e. improved sales, ROI, etc.) Whatever metrics you use are just tools to get you there. Does that help you feel less "cold"?

Useful to consider the problem with sales metrics. It is often difficult to identify whether they are measuring the sales person's ability, or the perceived value of the product in the eyes of the prospect. It's sort of like putting a great race car driver in a bad car, or an average drive in a great car. Both scenarios may deliver equal results, but I'm going to waste an awful lot of time effort and money if I don't know which scenario I have. Focusing on driver training will achieve little if I should be making the car faster.

So, what metrics clear evaluate sales ability vs product?. As Gary discussed, Admin vs Sales time is critical. Tibor's leads to engagement is good.

The bottom line is that it's critical to be sure which component your metrics are measuring: sales ability, or inherent company, product and messaging constraints

David: great points. It is really tough to precisely measure the share of an improved result that's due to sales practices vs. other factors (like an uptick in market conditions, or a new product, or ... ). Having said that, one of the keys to honing sales practices is some verifiable proof that the practices we're engaged in are helping us connect with buyers. When it's clear that we are 'connecting', buyers open their doors to further conversations. When it's clear that we're not 'connecting', sellers open their minds to improving their practices. Either way, both buyers and sellers benefit. Buyers get help they need, when they need it, on issues that matter to them. Sellers learn how to hone their craftsmanship and create more buyer value. Trust this adds some value. - John