Home > Education > Do You Agree With This?

Do You Agree With This?

I read this recently on an author's blog:
"Given the facts, there is no logical reason to believe that a purchase will follow from our selling behaviors."
Do you agree with that statement? - by Gary A Boye
Absolutely!

According to Kierkegaard a 19th Century philosopher and many others, we function as if we are two people: the objective "Bob" and the subjective "Bob." The objective side sees the logic and the subjective side sees the meaning and feeling. Others use different terms but the result is the same.

How often do we hear salespeople say they gave the prospect everything they asked for and, accompanied with selling behavior, with them still walking away saying, "I'll get back to you?"

Selling behavior does not logically flow into a purchase. Our observable behavior is the effect of our hidden internal subjective cause. This is a major reason that traditional sales training often lacks effectiveness. They are based on observable facts. - by John Voris
John, how about if we flipped the statement?
"Given the facts, there is no logical reason to believe that a sale will be lost from our selling behaviors."
Would you agree with that? And--on what premise would you base your agreement or disagreement? - by Gary A Boye
That is also true. I have known many very rude, aggressive, and socially inappropriate, sales people who were very successful.

Facts, logic, reason, and behavior are connected by the uniqueness of individual idiosyncrasies.

That is, the facts, the reasons we use and behavior, are all external factors to who we are internally. This is what Kierkegaard meant. It is this internal motivation that is the hidden cause of these external factors.

This is why I often thought my selling behavior blew it then made the sale. I also thought my behavior was on target and lost it.

As you know—communication is in the “unsaid.” Verbal and Body language are only tools used by the need to communicate. - by John Voris
That is also true. I have known many very rude, aggressive, and socially inappropriate, sales people who were very successful.
What are these rude, aggressive people doing right if they're not using typical selling behaviors? - by salesjunior
I read this recently on an author's blog:
"Given the facts, there is no logical reason to believe that a purchase will follow from our selling behaviors."
Do you agree with that statement?
What facts and what selling behaviors? - by Jeff Blackwell
What are these rude, aggressive people doing right if they're not using typical selling behaviors?

Some people want to be lead.

Some people feed off of the power of others

Aggressive people often look in control and very confident.

We all know that what is "rude" or "aggressive" is dependent on opinion. What's rude to you may not be rude to me. This of course, is true with every human trait and how they impact others.

Still, if someone is being authentically themselves, a great deal is forgiven provided their intent is not mean spirited.

___________________

For example:

I was buying a car at a dealership and kept prodding the sales rep for a better deal.

The sales agent was a man of about 60 years old, over weight, very rough looking from New York (I live in California) and had a very thick accent.

With a serious tone he said, "Hey, what are you do'in to me here. Your a roach! You're noth'in but a roach"

"What, you like feed'in off others?"

"You don't like me pay'in my bills?"

Then he reached in his back pocket and pulled out his wallet. He opened it in my direction and fanned through receipts until he found a few 1 dollar bills.

Then he said, "This is what I got for my lunch today. Can you survive on 4 dollars?"

He saw I was getting uncomfortable and then he said with a slight grin, "OK--you win, anything to get you off the lot. You're kill'en me. Let's go for a test drive."

I wanted the car way too bad to walk away. I later learning that he was the best salesman on the lot.

_____________________

Being yourself is so important. I personally know of car salesman who are on criminal "probation" for assault, robbery and drug use. They try to follow scripts and come across so phony you want to laugh. - by John Voris
John, I unintentionally trapped you with this second question:

"Given the facts, there is no logical reason to believe that a sale will be lost from our selling behaviors."
Would you agree with that? And--on what premise would you base your agreement or disagreement?
I disagree with your answer, but I think the comparison between the two questions is a lesson for devotees of strategy. According to its principles, we cannot guarantee winning (Re: Question # 1), but we CAN put ourselves in a position that if we lose, it will not be by our own hand (Re: Question # 2).

So, yes, there are certainly reasons to believe that a sales will be lost from our selling behaviors. In the example you provided, the rough looking guy from New York would have lost me because of his behavior. And--I'm FROM New York. - by Gary A Boye
John, I unintentionally trapped you with this second question:



I disagree with your answer, but I think the comparison between the two questions is a lesson for devotees of strategy. According to its principles, we cannot guarantee winning (Re: Question # 1), but we CAN put ourselves in a position that if we lose, it will not be by our own hand (Re: Question # 2).

So, yes, there are certainly reasons to believe that a sales will be lost from our selling behaviors. In the example you provided, the rough looking guy from New York would have lost me because of his behavior. And--I'm FROM New York.
Well Gary, even I would disagree with my answer depending on the point of reference.The question is deceptively complex.

We have to address:

Facts
Logic
Reason
Behavior

Each of which is a major influence.

Another shift occurs based on either an objective or subjective analysis.

So--in the end I was trapped. :cu - by John Voris
What facts and what selling behaviors?
The author did not clarify what facts and what behaviors. - by Gary A Boye
The author did not clarify what facts and what behaviors.
That does not help. ;)

It seems to me that there is no shortage of sales training material suggesting that when engaged in personal selling if you do "X" then you can expect "Y" as a result.

The quote, "Given the facts, there is no logical reason to believe that a purchase will follow from our selling behaviors" appears to run contrary to that suggestion. - by Jeff Blackwell
That does not help. ;)

It seems to me that there is no shortage of sales training material suggesting that when engaged in personal selling if you do "X" then you can expect "Y" as a result.

The quote, "Given the facts, there is no logical reason to believe that a purchase will follow from our selling behaviors" appears to run contrary to that suggestion.
Jeff, if I was engaged in a formal debate on this topic, I think I could take either the affirmative or negative position and I would manipulate context to make my points.

Experientially I know that certain behaviors will produce sales (plural). I also know you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior.

I haven't revealed the author's name, but I am aware of her context, and in that light I agree with her. Perhaps the ambiguity that occurs from her statement is just plain poor writing. Not all thought leaders are good writers (Ouch!).

And you thought YOU were mischievous. - by Gary A Boye
Experientially I know that certain behaviors will produce sales (plural). I also know you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior.
My experience yields the same certainty. ;) - by Jeff Blackwell
My experience yields the same certainty. ;)

How about certain states of intuitively-being-aware of the behavioral patterns of others, generates a behavior of "doing" for you that is consistent with that intuitive interpretation.

The behavior of any two people talking are always the visible effects of a prior cause.

So, while you see that certain behaviors will produce sales for you, the same behavior produced by someone else cannot guarantee a sale for them because the cause is missing.

A visible chess move is the effect of the mental cause of the player. No one can learn chess based on just watching the moves (behavior). Knowing the mental reasons that causes those moves are essential.

This begins to explain why behavior has meaning subjectively (cause) and naturally lacks the same meaning objectively (effect). - by John Voris
So, while you see that certain behaviors will produce sales for you, the same behavior produced by someone else cannot guarantee a sale for them because the cause is missing.
This does not run contrary to the idea that, "certain behaviors will produce sales (plural)" or "you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior". - by Jeff Blackwell
This does not run contrary to the idea that, "certain behaviors will produce sales (plural)" or "you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior".
My point is that behaviors are not doing much in the big picture, they are the effects. Behavior alone cannot produce predictability--that is the illusion.

Rather the minds is the cause of that behavior.

Make up a sentence like "let's go out to a movie tonight." That is part of behavior.

Now watch the meaning change when asked by:

your wife
your son
your boss
your friend
your grocery clerk
your accountant
your doctor
your mother
your father

You have a different attitude with each even though the behavior is the same.

Essentially behavior is a tool used by the thinking mind to convey information.

This also explains how a prospect can demonstrate every possible positive behavioral signal that he or she will buy then walk away saying, "I'll get back to you."

It is the mind that generates those certain behaviors that will produce sales. - by John Voris
Behavior alone cannot produce predictability--that is the illusion.
Agreed. I see this as the fallacy embedded in the suggestion that selling is a science.

Rather the minds is the cause of that behavior.
Agreed. To quote Michael Hall, "We manifest our beliefs in gestures, talk, emotions, behaviors, thinking, etc.".

Now watch the meaning change when asked by:...

You have a different attitude with each even though the behavior is the same.
Agreed. Again I refer to Michael Hall's words, "We say that meaning is context dependent. That is, what something means depends upon the context of who said it, when, where, how, why, etc.".

"And when meanings changes, so do our responses, beliefs, and behaviors."

It is the mind that generates those certain behaviors that will produce sales.
Agreed. As I mentioned previously this does not run contrary to the idea that, "certain behaviors will produce sales (plural)" or that "you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior". - by Jeff Blackwell
This does not run contrary to the idea that, "certain behaviors will produce sales (plural)" or "you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior".
The behavior of any two people talking are always the visible effects of a prior cause.

So, while you see that certain behaviors will produce sales for you, the same behavior produced by someone else cannot guarantee a sale for them because the cause is missing. That cause is your mind independent of your behavior.

So, my point is that behavior, in and of itself, does not cause a sale rather, from your perspective it seems your behavior is causing the sale. It is the prior cause, which is the silent mind others cannot hear that causes the sale, which you physically express.

These positions are diametrically opposed.

In fact, a behavior "produces" nothing. At best it is an effect that may cause reaction in others but not with reliable consistency. - by John Voris
The behavior of any two people talking are always the visible effects of a prior cause.
Agreed.

In fact, a behavior "produces" nothing. At best it is an effect that may cause reaction in others but not with reliable consistency.
Agreed.

Again, this does not run contrary to the statement, "Experientially I know that certain behaviors will produce sales (plural). I also know you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior".

Allow me to clarify my interpretation of Gary's statement.

In my opinion Gary's statement can be broken down into two ideas:
  1. "Experientially I know that certain behaviors will produce sales (plural)."
  2. "I also know you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior."
Your posts so far and to which I have been agreeing appear to be addressing idea#2.

In my opinion idea #1, given the qualifier "sales (plural)" means something different. For example, it is reasonable to believe that certain behaviors (i.e., sending Girl Scouts door to door asking residents if they want to buy a box of Girl Scout cookies will result in sales (plural)). I agree there may be no way to tell "How Many" sales or "Who" will buy which is where idea #2 comes in to the discussion. - by Jeff Blackwell
OK--I'll play along.

What if that girl is spiteful, obnoxious, and demanding at the door?

What if she is in a Mormon area of Utah and is plastered in sexually explicit tattoos, facial piercings, and uses foul language?

So, sending her around produces nothing.

________________________________

Besides what is actually "producing" the sale?

Now, let's say she is perfectly nice and dresses well.

Can a cookie make someone buy? What would the cookie say?

Is it her clothes?

Is it how she stands?

If it is in what she says then by repeating the same line, she would always sell and never hear a "no." Well, that's not true.

So, what is making the sale? Is it the visible behavior or what produces that behavior.

_____________________________

I have a perfect analogy I got from you.

You told me the story of a photographer who whenever he showed his friends the pictures he took, the friends would ask,
"What camera did you use?"

It was as if the camera is utterly responsible for the photo.

However, the camera is the physical aspect of taking a photo.

You told me, it was the abstract mind behind the camera that was ultimately the real source of the photo quality.

That's all I am saying as well. Physical behavior is just like the camera. It is the mind that generates the meaning behind the tool that generates the results.

A camera sitting on a table cannot produce photos anymore than behavior alone, can produce sales.

I think experientially we are on the same page its just that language often gets in the way of meaning. ;bg - by John Voris
I want you to know that the cookie example was for effect only.

Separating the domain of the physical from the abstract is not that easy to explain or often understand by anyone. That's why I liked your camera example. That was on target.

Now place that same girl with the tattoos in a more progressive neighborhood and have her behave the same. The outcome will be different.

What really made the sale? It was the abstract connection of ideology between buyer and seller.

If it was the behavior, the same behavior would produce the same results.

I hope that helps a little. :cu - by John Voris
Hello John. :)

I do believe we are on the same page. Allow me to post/repost the following comments in an effort to convey my thoughts on this matter.
  1. IF “Selling” was an “Art” we could say that selling was a process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements (e.g., Language) in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect. Against this standard “Selling” does qualify as an “Art”. (Note: An artist might not achieve the desired audience response from his/her Art but that does not disqualify it as Art.)
  2. To sell/make a sale is to cause (motive: causing or able to cause motion) somebody (oneself or another) to accept/approve/adopt a certain idea/attitude/course of action.
The "Sale" always rests with the Buyer; the Seller's behavior is a "stimulus" which often aims to influence the Buyer's behavior which is easier said than done given the subjective nature of reality and the structure of meaning.

Staying with the Photography reference let us say that:

(*) Subject Matter = Vision/Perspective/Message
(*) Photographer (e.g., abstract mind behind the camera) = Seller
(*) Symbolic Elements = Seller's behavior (e.g., Language)
(*) Photograph = Sensory signals perceived.
(*) Viewer = Buyer

The meaning (e.g., quality or value) assigned to a photograph is always "produced" in the mind of the viewer and is subject to the viewer's frame of reference (context).

This explains how a novice photographer can pick up a point-and-shoot camera without any conscious manipulation of symbolic elements and "produce" a photograph that some people will like.
  • "Experientially I know that certain behaviors will produce sales (plural)."
Of course "How Many" and "Who" like it cannot be accurately predicted due again to the subjective nature of reality and the structure of meaning.
  • "I also know you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior."
With that being said, some photographers (Sellers) come to conclusions (informed or not) about which sensory signals are likely to "Influence" viewers (Buyers) and "Manipulate" symbolic elements to that end. However, the photographer still cannot guarantee that a photograph will move (motive) any one viewer.
  • "Behavior alone cannot produce predictability--that is the illusion."
As mentioned earlier, I see this "predictability" (i.e., if you do "X" then you can expect "Y") as a fallacy embedded in the suggestion that selling is a science.

Are we on the same page? - by Jeff Blackwell
In my opinion Gary's statement can be broken down into two ideas:
  1. "Experientially I know that certain behaviors will produce sales (plural)."
  2. "I also know you can't guarantee any one particular sale as a result of certain behavior."
It's important for me to comment here with regard to the source of those "ideas."
First, they are entrenched in principles of Strategy, derived from Sun Tzu's treatise on the subject.

Sun Tzu said:
Learn from the history of successful battles.
Your first actions should deny victory to the enemy.
You pay attention to the enemy to find the way to win.
You alone can deny victory to the enemy.
Only your enemy can allow you to win.
Gary Gagliardi, in his interpretation of Bing Fa, referred to in the west as The Art of War, put the principle into the sales realm with The Art of War The Art of Sales.
Learn from your past successes.
Your first actions should ensure that you don't lose the sale.
Pay attention to your prospect to find a way to win.
Only you can create the situation where the sale is lost.
Only the customer can make the purchase.
I highly recommend Chapter Four of Sun Tzu's work as a life long study. It is impossible, in my view, to understand the complete essence of this current discussion without embracing the strategic principle that applies here. - by Gary A Boye
Hey Jeff,

There is a flood of illumination to take in here. cl2;

Nevertheless, topographically we are on the same page.


I always keep in mind that Conventional Sales Trainers are, and can only sell behaviors. For that reason, they must convince us that sales is ONLY generated from behavior.

However, when we change our behavior according to their advice, our income either stays the same, drops and occasionally increases.

(Statistically, conventional training generates over 70% failure)

Therefore, there is no valid connection exists between selling and behavior to the exclusion of all other variables.

Actually, people are always looking past our behavior to our intrinsic state of being. There is where the selling is done.

This is also why two sales people can repeat the same script with one selling and the other never making quota. And, why a prospect can give every physical (behavioral) sign that they will buy yet, walk away never to return.

This is really a very complex topic and difficult to fully address here. In fact this is a course in itself.

I believe you would deliver an exciting seminar. msnwnk; - by John Voris
I highly recommend Chapter Four of Sun Tzu's work as a life long study. It is impossible, in my view, to understand the complete essence of this current discussion without embracing the strategic principle that applies here.
More excellent advice Gary. I have both "Sun Tzu The Art of War" (Griffith) and "Sun Tzu's The Art of War Plus The Art of Sales" (Gagliardi) and welcome future discussions relating to these texts. - by Jeff Blackwell
In my opinion, the suggestion that sales is ONLY generated from behavior (to the exclusion of all other variables) reflects one-dimensional thinking and should be avoided.

Most, not all, of the sales training content I have researched lacks depth, focusing on "surface" behaviors (e.g., say this, do that) while ignoring deeper understandings such as those discussed in this thread.

This is really a very complex topic and difficult to fully address here. In fact this is a course in itself.
Agreed. With that being said I hope to see more discussions on this topic at SalesPractice.

I believe you would deliver an exciting seminar.
Thank you! - by Jeff Blackwell
Weekly Updates!
Questions and Answers about Selling
Subscribe to our mailing list to get threads and posts sent to your email address weekly - Free of Charge.