Would you rather have a VP of Sales who was a great tactician or sales strategist?

Well, you have to look at what the person is doing. A "Sales Leader" may simply lead a team of salespeople, in which case they should be more tactical in their approach because they are dealing with the day to day, nitty gritty.

On the other hand, a higher level Sales VP is responsible for guiding the sales structure, so they would need a more strategic approach.

Obviously, having someone who understands all levels is the ideal candidate. And, personally, I would never hire the "best of the lot." I would wait until I had found the right person.

In any organization, there must be someone responsible for sales strategy. This individual must be able to derive a sales strategy that fits into company's growth strategy. In my experience it takes specific methods to do this well. Models used to set company strategies do a poor job at the sales level. Marketing strategies are equally ill fitted as a replacement for true sales strategies.

I would agree with those suggesting that who this individual is depends on the type of organization. In smaller organizations it might well be the CEO. This poses some challenges as a CEO might not understand the need and the relevance for a differentiation between a sales growth and a company growth strategy.

In larger organization, I would assume that the individual responsible for the sales strategy is the highest ranking sales officer with whatever title (CSO or VP). Here the challenge is that many sales leaders lack the understanding and training for setting good strategies especially when they came up through the ranks, where tactics are more important.

A good strategist must though also be able to monitor and fine tune the strategy execution without falling inot the trap of micromanagement.

Mission - Vision - Values - Strategy - Tactics - Goals - Tasks... this is how I have always presented the waterfall of an organization through it's Org Chart. Different layers within the Org chart focus on different areas of this waterfall. For instance, the CEO / CSO would be focused far left(Mission - Vision - Values)... the Sales VP would be centered in the middle(Vision - Values - Strategy -Tactics)... the Sales Manager would be further right...(Strategy - Tactics - Goals)... so on and so forth.

To answer your question would be based upon the complexity of the Org Chart... many smaller firms have only one sales leader(whatever their title may be)... those folks try to translate and manage the entire right side, usually reporting directly to the owner or CEO. Larger Orgs have many tiers of Sales Leadership, and each tries to remain focused and execute upon their slice of the waterfall above...

In a larger Org, I would never want my Senior Sales Leadership focused on Goals and Tasks, I hire people to do that...

So if the Org was larger and had more tiers of Leadership I would want a VP to be more of a Strategist... if the Org was smaller with less layers, I may need my VP to be both a Strategist and a Technician...

That is at least the way I would look at the question...

And, oh yeah, by the way, when someone starts to look too far to the right for their Level of Leadership, that is where the whole system begins to break down...

Would welcome some thoughts and ideas about this...?

I want a VP of Sales who asks his people this question. "What can I do to help you be successful here?"

In years and years of sales experience, this question was asked only once. Most sales leaders are so focused on self-preservation, they do nothing to help their salespeople.

Hope that helps,
Jeff Ogden, the Fearless Competitor
Find New Customers "Lead Generation Made Simple"
http://www.findnewcustomers.com

I agree with Miles.

Actually, what I'd really like to see would be a VP Sales whose strategy was linked tightly with the company's marketing plan — which hopefully would be based on strong, clear differentiation from the competition. (But, unfortunately, that's pretty rare!)

Al Shultz
http://www.alshultz.com/

Strategy is important, but if the head of sales doesn't know how to close business, that's a problem. If they haven't closed business in several years, that's also a problem. Complex selling in particular has changed significantly as buyer behavior and environments have changed. Great sales strategy needs to come from a fundamental understanding of what works on the ground, then scaling that across sales teams and customer segments to accelerate sales penetration and growth.

Marketing's job is "strategy." If the position is truly "VP of Sales," then he must be a tactician working within the strategy established by marketing.

Unfortunately, in far too many organizations, it really would make very little difference what kind of individual the VP was. For many enterprises, both "sales" and "marketing" are not driven by processes; they are driven by "mystical mojo" couched in managerial terms.

Frequently, C-level executives are actually afraid to mess with the "mojo" in these departments because there is no "process" to manage. Instead, there is a tacit understanding between these departments and top executives: "Don't mess with us. Don't try to impose a 'process' on us. Because, if you do, you'll disrupt our 'mojo' and things will go badly for the whole company."

If marketing and sales are not compounded into a unified "process," they cannot be "managed," regardless of how many KPIs are bandied about and how many managerial terms are applied to their operations. These departments will remain a kingdom unto themselves as long as top executives are unwilling or unable to create a real and effective process.

Justin Roff-Marsh has written well on this subject in his book, REENGINEERING THE SALES PROCESS and reading it will radically change your understanding of what it means to have a truly manageable sales "process."

Robert,

Would suggest that this depends upon what the organization needs, the market within which it competes and its competitors. It is my belief that any organization with a direct sales force of five (5) or more needs a leader who is focused on strategy and can coach and mentor that sales force to achieve its mission. However, that also depends on the nature of the sale. Sales that are more transactional in nature require a different approach than do solution sales. Ultimately this all goes back to what your organization values, how do you want to be perceived by the marketplace and prospective clients, how do you want to position yourself against your competition.

Cheers,

William

It all depends on the size of the organization. In a large organization a strategic thinker who can measure the ROI on ideas quickly and leave the details to the staff is best. In a small organization the tactical approach with strategic needs in mind works best so something gets done. In a multi pronged sales organization a strategic thinker who can tactically consider ideas across all channels is best. All in all, it depends on the organization and executive needs.

Hi RObert,

A good questions. In general, it is always best to have a strategist. I believe the changing business environment of today requires big picture thinking. The question though is often times answered in how an organization is structured. By default it may be a role of tactician or strategist depending on where the position is within the structure. In my experience, I have seen many a good VP sales who were strategists but were in the role at a tactician level and thus - frustrated.

Tony Zambito
Founder and CEO
Goal Centric
www.goalcentric.com
1-888-972-8937

I agree that it all depends on the lifecycle of the organization. I would say ideally you want one person stronger in strategy but who is also willing and capable of executing on the tactics and then you have another person who is a great executor but who is also capable strategically (who reports to the strategic leader). But if the company is young, the business is small, and resources are light, I would prefer a great tactician who is also capable of thinking strategically. Strategy without execution is meaningless.

Rob

Excellent responses. Miles and Rob's statements in particular about Strategy are on the button.

I wrote a book that includes this subject. I called the section 'unatural acts.' In my experience, when sales organizations are 'driven' by tactics with no tie to a strategy you get yo-yo like results, margins that are all over the lot and sales comp plans, if based on gross margins suffer. Why? Oversimplified, there are no guide posts, just reactions to immediate sales situations.

In summary, while strategy wins the day in my opinion, the real key to goal attainment is a great strategy that is integrated with an innovative set of tactics.

I see the sales strategist as Central Command: where the attack plans are formulated, tested, and put to paper. The tactics side is the general in the field who leads the troops and executes the plan of attack -- and reports back constantly to Command.

You need Central Command first or else you’ll have a General Custer situation on your hands. Sure, it might work for a few battles, but the slaughter is inevitable — especially in these tough economic times.

If you’re big enough to have both — great! But if you’re lean and mean, you need Central Command first and foremost.

Well I think that to start with you need a strategist, particulalry if you haven't got a good strategy or its not clear. Then on day 2 (or month 2) you need somebody with good tactics and a sales plan but then more importantly somedody who can ensure execution of the tactics - the Actions. Once strategy and tactics/plan are developed they should not need constant attention, but the actions do. I use a simple methodology when developing a sales plan. Each level gets more detailed: Goals - Objectives - Strategies - Plans - Actions - as Sun Tzu's distant cousin Ju said, "Strategize too long and the battle will be over and the strategy irrelevant" - !

Great question and great discussion!

As with most of the responses, there are many unknowns... For a small start up, a great sales tactician may be most useful in getting some revenue flowing in the early months. Obviously, in the early days and on-going a good strategist is needed to envision the way forward.

Can I have my cake and eat it too?

Robert, at the risk of being blunt and generalizing: tactician = short term focus; strategist = long term focus. Where would you want the person at the helm of your sales ship to focus?

This depends on the complexity of the sale and breadth of one's offering. If the offering is off the shelf, tactical skills are fine. If the offering requires theorizing or probing for problems to solve with unique solutions, a strategist is a better fit. / Jane

Your business must not depend on just one salesperson must build the system so as to generate income and I think in this case that a salesperson has a strategy and it is ambitious and do it with pleasure.

As others have mentioned, the answer depends on the situation. So how about an easier, analogous question to answer: Which quarterback would you want? One who has outstanding passing accuracy, or one who is superb at reading defenses? Of course, the answer depends on the situation, including the abilities of the opponent, the competencies of the quarterback's team, and the events unfolding at the moment.

Back to sales: the process of selling anything, whether simple or complex, requires skills in abstract problem solving. Even if tactical skills were highly valued (eg winning near-term opportunities), a shortcoming in strategic understanding would be a HUGE frustration (and liability) over time. Tactical skills without strategic understanding would never be a good thing. I'd want both.

Without oversimplifying... I've seen a lot of sales people create a lot of pipeline but not convert nearly enough to closed deals.

I want a VP of Sales that can show salespeople how to create actual deals, not just get excited "sponsors"... and a VP of Sales who knows how to architect a deal and get it to the close.

The biggest problem, and biggest emerging competitor is no decision, stalled deal, status quo, whatever you want to call it. The VP of Sales has to build a team, process and story to win this battle.

How this gets accomplished can be very strategic in terms of working with Marketing to get the right story, working with HR and Training to get and equip the right talent, working with Operations to put the right process and tools in their hands.

But, there's still a fanatical focus on how deals actually get done.