Home > Education > Brain surgeons have an 80% fail-rate.

Brain surgeons have an 80% fail-rate.

1 What if newly graduated and trained brain surgeons generated an 80% fail rate in surgery performance? What would you think? What would you recommend?

2 What if 80% of the mechanics just entering the field, failed to perform adequate repairs? What would you say is missing or required to change this situation?

3 While your at it, know that most surveys show that over 80% of sales trainees fail within the first 6 months!

Why do we tolerate this fail-rate in sales but would never tolerate it in the mechanic or medical fields? - by John Voris
Why do we tolerate this fail-rate in sales but would never tolerate it in the mechanic or medical fields?
Hello John, it appears that you are equating performance with outcomes. - by Jeff Blackwell
Hello John, it appears that you are equating performance with outcomes.
Hey Jeff,

Well, I am targeting the concept of our "social tolerance of industry performance" that is being provided structure through our expectations of outcome.

What if after a brake-job, 80% of the customers had their tires roll off while driving?

What if 80% of the brain surgeries resulted in the wrong section being operated on?

This would not be tolerated regardless of the performance leading to the failure and something would be done. This is my first point.

My second point, is this failure rate is tolerated in traditional sales environments.

So, what needs exploring is why is this tolerated!

What if we transfered this low tolerance of failure in the first two fields and applied them to sales? We just might find the real culprit. - by John Voris
Hi John,

If a mechanic completed the repairs correctly and 80% of the customers had their tires roll off while driving then I would say the problem may be with what is deemed a correct repair. Is that in line with your first point? - by Jeff Blackwell
Hi John,

If a mechanic completed the repairs correctly and 80% of the customers had their tires roll off while driving then I would say the problem may be with what is deemed a correct repair. Is that in line with your first point?

Yes! The low success average would demand looking into what is being taught as one aspect contributing to the 80% fail-rate.

We would start looking into what is "correct repair" just as what is the correct sales training model and does it really currently exist?

Keep in mind this is on a national level.

There are many here on salespractice who have a good understanding of sales and how to train which makes this forum so valuable. - by John Voris
Yes! The low success average would demand looking into what is being taught as one aspect contributing to the 80% fail-rate.
In your opinion, what else is contributing to the "80% fail-rate"? - by Jeff Blackwell
I don't accept the life or death analogies being used here as appropriate for examining competence among salespeople.

Why do we tolerate a high fail rate in sales? That's the specific question here, correct?

It depends on who is doing the tolerating.

I suspect that the vast majority among the "we" doesn't know any better.

So that's one answer. But lets examine some other groups that make up the "we."
  • Would be sales "trainers might see incompetence among salespeople as dry tinder to apply their trade.
  • Business leaders fettered in the counter-productive "X" theory of management inherently abandon hope that their underlings could ever rise up or above their own initiative and understanding.
  • Peer competitors often delight in staying one notch above because it dims the light that would expose their own flaws.
  • The general consuming public, both b2b and b2c, have come to expect less from salespeople; evidence that incompetence grows legs.
  • People in sales who realize that their task isn't to change the world, nor to be their brothers' keeper, who make a decision and a commitment to be the very best they can be, and, know that the commitment is a never-ending journey.
- by Gary A Boye
In your opinion, what else is contributing to the "80% fail-rate"?
There is a dialectic here whereby two opposite defining qualities (tolerance and intolerance) are molding different attitudes and behaviors toward sales as opposed to most other professions.

So, we announce we are cold because we know what it is to be warm and visa versa. Tall people are defined by the short, loud by the quiet. Nothing unusual here.

However, it continues into every facet of what it means to be human and everyday behavior.

By exploring our lack of "tolerance" for a theoretical 80% fail rate in the medical and mechanical fields, we can begin to see what standards are not being applied to sales. The question is why? And is it justified?

If we cannot be able to apply the same standards regarding medical performance to sales, maybe we can borrow a few and augment others.

Through this process, I believe your question can be answered. - by John Voris
I don't accept the life or death analogies being used here as appropriate for examining competence among salespeople.

Gary, your right but I purposely used extremes to make a point.

I suspect that the vast majority among the "we" doesn't know any better.

Ah--that's right. Should that situation be changed?

So that's one answer. But lets examine some other groups that make up the "we."
  • Would be sales "trainers might see incompetence among salespeople as dry tinder to apply their trade.
Most likely, this would not be tolerated in the medical field.
  • Business leaders fettered in the counter-productive "X" theory of management inherently abandon hope that their underlings could ever rise up or above their own initiative and understanding.
Could this be applied as a criteria for entering into sales?
  • Peer competitors often delight in staying one notch above because it dims the light that would expose their own flaws.
Could these 'one notch above" performers set the standards for the rest?
  • The general consuming public, both b2b and b2c, have come to expect less from salespeople; evidence that incompetence grows legs.
That's right. But why is this tolerated? If 80% of those entering into sales eventually fail, customers are on average, exposed to low sales performance 80% of the time.
  • People in sales who realize that their task isn't to change the world, nor to be their brothers' keeper, who make a decision and a commitment to be the very best they can be, and, know that the commitment is a never-ending journey.
Maybe they don't realize the full impact of their role in society. - by John Voris
Hello John. In your opinion, what would a 100% success-rate in sales look like? - by Jeff Blackwell
Hello John. In your opinion, what would a 100% success-rate in sales look like?

IMO---People who find true well-being, happiness or life-contentment, are the ones experiencing 100% success-rate.

This is possible only if that person is following and expressing their innermost sense of self: personal meaning, values, and virtues, all within the embrace of integrity.

This success-rate also includes having the "correct" problems and challenges that are present which makes the goal worthwhile.

Anyone can feel this success in any profession, provided he or she is complying with his or her inner life-motivation as the expression of self.

The lack of success occurs in the disconnect between their "chosen" career and this inner motivation which eventually sabotages personal happiness. - by John Voris
Hello John. If customers having their tires roll off while driving represents failure in the field of mechanics, what represents failure in the field of sales? - by Jeff Blackwell
Hello John. If customers having their tires roll off while driving represents failure in the field of mechanics, what represents failure in the field of sales?

That's easy:no sales.

Tightening lug bolts on tires is part of what it is to be someone who works on brakes.

When the tires fall off 80% of the time--that's a fail-rate that would not be tolerated.

Engaging prospects for the purpose of selling is part of what it is to be someone who works in sales.

When the sales agent fails to generate sales 80% of the time--that's a fail-rate that is tolerated.

So--why is one tolerated and the other not? Maybe there is a legitimate reason and maybe not! - by John Voris
Engaging prospects for the purpose of selling is part of what it is to be someone who works in sales.

When the sales agent fails to generate sales 80% of the time--that's a fail-rate that is tolerated.
Buyers "generate sales", catalyzed by needs, wants, economics, distribution, marketing, market positioning, and availability.

Salespeople play an integral role--so much so that a huge profession has been built where the rewards are great for those who are able to get their share of the action.

Call them winners if you will, and all winners in every endeavor share one thing in common. They know what causes losing.

An eighty percent failure rate would be linked primarily to people losing by their own hand. The buying will go on, with or without them.

Is that the whole picture? Of course not. I did not create the industries I've worked in. I've brought innovations--yes. I saw needs, I saw wants, I saw distribution, and, I saw opportunity. I made decisions to be part of the action (right person, right products, right reasons), and built a prophylaxis against losing by learning what causes losing. Do that, and you will distance yourself so far from the 80 percent, you'll think they're on Mars. - by Gary A Boye
Buyers "generate sales", catalyzed by needs, wants, economics, distribution, marketing, market positioning, and availability.

Salespeople play an integral role--so much so that a huge profession has been built where the rewards are great for those who are able to get their share of the action.

Call them winners if you will, and all winners in every endeavor share one thing in common. They know what causes losing.

An eighty percent failure rate would be linked primarily to people losing by their own hand. The buying will go on, with or without them.

Is that the whole picture? Of course not. I did not create the industries I've worked in. I've brought innovations--yes. I saw needs, I saw wants, I saw distribution, and, I saw opportunity. I made decisions to be part of the action (right person, right products, right reasons), and built a prophylaxis against losing by learning what causes losing. Do that, and you will distance yourself so far from the 80 percent, you'll think they're on Mars.

I've brought innovations--yes. I saw needs, I saw wants, I saw distribution, and, I saw opportunity. I made decisions to be part of the action (right person, right products, right reasons), and built a prophylaxis against losing by learning what causes losing.

Ah--Excellent!

The major contributers to the 80% fail-rate are the wrong people selling the wrong products for the wrong reasons or a combination of ill placed "rights and wrongs."

(Everyone can sell something to someone some of the time. The question is, can they make a living at that rate?)

I have sold for many cold-call based companies who seldom consider the right person. After all for them, there is no right person. They advertise that everyone sells.

There product is never the wrong one. If you can't sell it, that's your problem. What's wrong with you?

And for them, there is no wrong reason. In fact, early in training, new recruits are told there is only one reason to sell and that is money. However, that is never the right reason if happiness and well-being is your long-term goal.

This is a major reason why the fail rate is tolerated by the traditional sales industry and public at large. They do not follow your advice.

Call them winners if you will, and all winners in every endeavor share one thing in common. They know what causes losing.

This is why I posed the question in an either/or format.

While no one seems to agree as to what causes success, many can agree as to what causes failure.

So, rather than adopting techniques used by sales gurus who usually have nothing in common with you , focus on essentials that avoids failure, and your natural abilities will drive you to succeed by default. After finding this foundation, then fold in guru techniques that conform with your intrinsic discoveries. - by John Voris
Hello John. What "fail-rate" in sales would you expect if the right person was selling the right products for the right reasons? - by Jeff Blackwell
Hello John. What "fail-rate" in sales would you expect if the right person was selling the right products for the right reasons?
Well, if we take the term "right" to encompass all known and unknown variables then, failing as a sales rep would be an impossibility.

That does not mean every attempt at selling would be a success rather the sales rep would realize his or her full potential. That's all we can expect.

A successful basketball player can still miss shots. - by John Voris
John, I want to reference your comments describing the companies who tolerate and expect failure among salespeople, and do nothing to prevent it.

I had a fast start in sales success, but I still had the naivety of a young man. It took much longer to reverse my belief that I could depend on whatever company I worked for to pave the road for my earnings or success.

Nothing is going to change the following: There are good companies to work for, less than good companies to work for, and companies you should run from.

A salesperson has to manage his/her own career. Prime objective: Getting Better. Second important objective: Creating one's own infrastructure.

I've mentioned many times here, that career management in sales centers around continually asking oneself, "Am I the right person selling the right product for the right reasons?"

That's imperative!

I've expanded on that for the benefit of those who take their career seriously. The advice here is to never take your eyes off of three things which will be the major external contributors to your success: Proximity with Distribution, Proximity with Profit, and Utilization of Adaptive Technology.

Ask yourself how many salespeople you know that have shown any tendency for awareness of those career determinants. - by Gary A Boye
John, I want to reference your comments describing the companies who tolerate and expect failure among salespeople, and do nothing to prevent it.

I had a fast start in sales success, but I still had the naivety of a young man. It took much longer to reverse my belief that I could depend on whatever company I worked for to pave the road for my earnings or success.

Nothing is going to change the following: There are good companies to work for, less than good companies to work for, and companies you should run from.

A salesperson has to manage his/her own career. Prime objective: Getting Better. Second important objective: Creating one's own infrastructure.

I've mentioned many times here, that career management in sales centers around continually asking oneself, "Am I the right person selling the right product for the right reasons?"

That's imperative!

I've expanded on that for the benefit of those who take their career seriously. The advice here is to never take your eyes off of three things which will be the major external contributors to your success: Proximity with Distribution, Proximity with Profit, and Utilization of Adaptive Technology.

Ask yourself how many salespeople you know that have shown any tendency for awareness of those career determinants.
I imagine there are very few trainers who would; know to be aware of these qualities; less who would know to demand them from trainees and; less who could identify this tenuous skill-state of "tendency," leaving salespeople at a loss.

If salespeople had this tendency, someone would still need to teach them the proper application.

IMO, while failure is ultimately in the hands of the sales agent, they are unaware of what to be aware of making them ripe for intellectual abuse.

There are good companies to work for, less than good companies to work for, and companies you should run from.

Unfortunately, trainees lack the experience to identify the qualities you mentioned.

Also, the "run-away" group know what their doing when they promote big money potential, working part-time, and will train you for free. - by John Voris
When the sales agent fails to generate sales 80% of the time...
Hello John. Please elaborate. - by Jeff Blackwell
Hello John. Please elaborate.

Hey Jeff,

My two basic criteria is...

1 When a sales rep fails to close 80% of the qualified buyers.

2 When they become part of the statistical number of 80% who leave the sales industry within 1 year, caused by failing to earn a sufficient income. - by John Voris
When a sales rep fails to close 80% of the qualified buyers.
Just to make sure we are on the same page... how are you defining a "qualified buyer"?

When they become part of the statistical number of 80% who leave the sales industry within 1 year, caused by failing to earn a sufficient income.
For clarity, are you attributing their failing to earn a sufficient income to failing to close 80% of the qualified buyers? - by Jeff Blackwell
Just to make sure we are on the same page... how are you defining a "qualified buyer"?

For clarity, are you attributing their failing to earn a sufficient income to failing to close 80% of the qualified buyers?
In this discussion, a "qualified buyer" is one who meets upper management's minimum requirements which has been shared with trainees.

For seasoned sales agents however, they may sell 100% of what they term "qualified buyers" due to their very stringent definition of what it means to be qualified.

On the other hand, I have seen many in sales work for just above minimum wage and do it for decades. They are not part of the 80% fail rate but they should be because they are wasting their true potential in another industry.

It is amazing how little people are willing to earn just to stay in the sales industry.

So, they can have a sales ratio greater than 20%, and still fail to earn a sufficient income. - by John Voris
Hi John.

I am not sure we are on the same page so I will post a few of my thoughts/opinions to check for alignment.

First, I believe comparing the failure to perform adequate mechanical repairs to failing to close sales is like comparing apples to oranges.

Second, failing to close 80% or more of the "qualified" buyers one encounters in many scenarios is realistic and tolerable.

Third, many salespeople spend relatively little time in front of qualified prospects which often plays a significant role in their failure to earn a sufficient income in sales.

Is that in line with your train of thought? - by Jeff Blackwell
Second, failing to close 80% or more of the "qualified" buyers one encounters in many scenarios is realistic and tolerable.
Yes. It depends on the industry. We have had life insurance people here and we have had at least one person who ran plumbing service calls. Imagine owning a plumbing company and the representative failed to garner orders from the vast majority. That would be intolerable. On the other hand, conversion ratios substantially lower would be more acceptable in the life insurance field.

Failure and failure rate are not synonymous. - by Gary A Boye
Just to make sure we are on the same page... how are you defining a "qualified buyer"?

For clarity, are you attributing their failing to earn a sufficient income to failing to close 80% of the qualified buyers?

Jeff,

The question was: Why do we tolerate this fail-rate in sales but would never tolerate it in the mechanic or medical fields?

First, I believe comparing the failure to perform adequate mechanical repairs to failing to close sales is like comparing apples to oranges.

The focus is not on "the failure to perform" but why we tolerate failure on any level or even expect it? In that case, the notion of "tolerance" applies to both mechanics and sales.

Second, failing to close 80% or more of the "qualified" buyers one encounters in many scenarios is realistic and tolerable.

Yes, it depends on the industry. Nevertheless, who is qualified is basically determined by how skilled the sales agent is in making that determination. When sales agents quit because they cannot make a living, there is a serious problem somewhere.

In some cases I can imagine that a 5% close rate could be considered outstanding. But they would also be able to make a living.

Third, many salespeople spend relatively little time in front of qualified prospects which often plays a significant role in their failure to earn a sufficient income in sales.

Yes, but we have been talking about "qualified" prospects. If a sales agent cannot close more than 20% of prospects they have personally determined to be qualified, then we have captured an aspect of the very issue of tolerating failure.

So, regardless of how we define failure, marketing studies have been reporting an average fail rate of 80% and it seems to be OK.

Why?
- by John Voris

Failure and failure rate are not synonymous.
Yes, my punctilious friend.

Someone can be a success with a high fail-rate.

Someone can also have a low fail-rate and still be a failure. It depends on the industry as you said.

However, is our general tolerance level of failure in sales reasonable or indicative of a deeper issue?

Could the answer as to why we tolerate failure in sales, offer the secret to reversing that state in the industry?

Hiring managers flippantly say, " that's just the way it is" rather than exploring this anomoly in human behavior i.e. no other industry offers their employees motivational seminars in order for them to follow the career of their choice. - by John Voris

So, regardless of how we define failure, marketing studies have been reporting an average fail rate of 80% and it seems to be OK.

Why?
People who know me know that I evolved into a philosophy of selling that I named and trademarked as Twice as Good as 2ND Best.

Although I eventually was able to examine my results and determine what truly caused my success ( I thought I knew, but I had been wrong ) and was able to start sharing what we call Four Understandings, my philosophy arose from competing in a fiercely competitive environment.

I once described it like this:
Earlier in my career, when I was competing in an arena always with the ominous presence of at least four competitors, I realized that my goal was never to get my "fair share", because a fair share meant 20 percent and that was unacceptable to me. As was my nature, I coined the expression, and made it my inner mantra to "Be twice as good as second best." whoever second best was. The other three, whoever they were, in my mind, were merely wallpaper. That was symbolic of how I taught myself to compete.
That was my use of percentages which was unique to my circumstances, unique to my industry, and unique to my own aspirations.

Perhaps I might add the word "unique" to my thinking simply because I can't, and won't, get past the notion that there are NO one-size-fits-all percentages that define success, failure, or tolerance in sales. The industry is just too diverse. As a point of fact, what we call the sales industry is actually several industries with variants from one another miles apart. - by Gary A Boye
People who know me know that I evolved into a philosophy of selling that I named and trademarked as Twice as Good as 2ND Best.

Although I eventually was able to examine my results and determine what truly caused my success ( I thought I knew, but I had been wrong ) and was able to start sharing what we call Four Understandings, my philosophy arose from competing in a fiercely competitive environment.

That was my use of percentages which was unique to my circumstances, unique to my industry, and unique to my own aspirations.

Perhaps I might add the word "unique" to my thinking simply because I can't, and won't, get past the notion that there are NO one-size-fits-all percentages that define success, failure, or tolerance in sales. The industry is just too diverse. As a point of fact, what we call the sales industry is actually several industries with variants from one another miles apart.
Exactly! Those new to sales and salespractice, should follow your footsteps and examine their mental state within the sales environment.

Through examining what caused your success, the potential causes of failure became implicit. There was both a tolerance and intolerance level within your internal exploration. This is what I have been pointing to. For everyone..." to examine my results and determine what truly caused my success.'

National sales training cannot address the unique aspects of selling. They must deliver a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

In your opinion, how much does this contribute to the overall fail-rate.

"... unique to my circumstances, unique to my industry, and unique to my own aspirations."

In your opinion, if more trainees went through this process, would the fail-rate drop?

While I agree we cannot really define; success, failure or tolerance, we know it when we feel it or see it.

When a sales agent cannot pay his or her bills, that at least contributes to our understanding of what failure looks like. Maybe that's a start? - by John Voris
National sales training cannot address the unique aspects of selling. They must deliver a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

In your opinion, how much does this contribute to the overall fail-rate.
It's easy to polarize failure and success. I don't see failure on the part of sales training in general because I don't see much in the way of initiative by that "industry" to effect the success/failure ratio. Simply put, you have to try before you fail.

The initiative among most of that severely flooded sales training industry has been to sell their products with their proprietary secret sauce ingredients with little regard for benefiting the buyers (trainees).

Why do I say that? In a nutshell, if the majority offering sales training were to quit focusing on how to be effective in fictional selling and, instead, examined the real world of what takes place between buyer and seller, two things would happen:

First, it would force a lot of people out of training who don't have the level of consciousness to be in it. Second, it would attract competent people who know how to sell and know how to teach.

Then, the focus would be on results. Good for that success/failure ratio. Good for the economy.


"... unique to my circumstances, unique to my industry, and unique to my own aspirations."

In your opinion, if more trainees went through this process, would the fail-rate drop?
If you're asking me whether it pays to be a thinking person if you're in sales, the answer is obvious from the hundreds of contributions I've made on this forum. - by Gary A Boye
I hate to say it but for me this thread does not seem to have a clear point so I will post some of my thoughts.

With "Selling" I differentiate between performance and outcomes. My very best performance as a salesperson will not necessarily result in a sale. Selling is NOT black and white: IF you do A (performance) then you can expect B (outcome). There are too many dynamics involved to make such a connection.

Auto mechanics on the other hand... not so much, which is why I would have different expectations and why I would not expect a low success-rate to be tolerated.

Regarding salespeople leaving the sales industry within 1 year, caused by failing to earn a sufficient income... First, I would question the statistic. Second, I would question the cause. Third, I would question the knowledge, ability, and skills along with the perceptions, beliefs, and actions of those leaving the industry. Not necessarily in that order. - by Jeff Blackwell

If you're asking me whether it pays to be a thinking person if you're in sales, the answer is obvious from the hundreds of contributions I've made on this forum.
Actually, I was exposing the lack of focusing on the unique conditions within the thinking process.

Why do I say that? In a nutshell, if the majority offering sales training were to quit focusing on how to be effective in fictional selling and, instead, examined the real world of what takes place between buyer and seller, two things would happen:

First, it would force a lot of people out of training who don't have the level of consciousness to be in it. Second, it would attract competent people who know how to sell and know how to teach.

Then, the focus would be on results. Good for that success/failure ratio. Good for the economy.

Gary, the above is golden.

Yet, we began with the exploration into failure-tolerance. It may have been a circuitous route but we certainly found the edge of the envelop.

In my opinion, your prophecy is accurate. It may not happen any time soon but this emphasizes the need to stay away from "canned training" and or those who will not take the time to train with real world material.


These discussions offer good information to expand on the effectiveness of current sales training and how to improve it.
- by John Voris
I hate to say it but for me this thread does not seem to have a clear point so I will post some of my thoughts.

With "Selling" I differentiate between performance and outcomes. My very best performance as a salesperson will not necessarily result in a sale. Selling is NOT black and white: IF you do A (performance) then you can expect B (outcome). There are too many dynamics involved to make such a connection.

Auto mechanics on the other hand... not so much, which is why I would have different expectations and why I would not expect a low success-rate to be tolerated.

Regarding salespeople leaving the sales industry within 1 year, caused by failing to earn a sufficient income... First, I would question the statistic. Second, I would question the cause. Third, I would question the knowledge, ability, and skills along with the perceptions, beliefs, and actions of those leaving the industry. Not necessarily in that order.
Jeff, good insight.

Sales is not black and white as you said. And performance does not predetermine outcome. And... There are too many dynamics involved to make such a connection.

Yet, the average trainer takes the opposite stand. They will not say that you should sell everyone but insists on you meeting their quotas.

That is, they have a black and white perspective: either sell the minimum or your out. Quotas were designed as a line in the sand to weed out the "bad apples" and they must eventually be met.

1 As far as failing standards are concerned, research from many marketing firms determine success and failure based on the length of time in sales. Some use 6 months while others use one full year. And, they focus on only whose who are not taking a draw.

I would expect your success rate with those you train to be much higher due to your experience, philosophy of sales, and skill. I always try to be clear that these comments are not directed to anyone here. For me, this is a major reason why salespractice is valuable. Successful people often have a hard time with fail-rates.

2 The cause of people leaving is the lack of sales. If they made the money they projected why would they leave. Some may say they left because they didn't like sales but they didn't like sales because they could not see themselves reaching their financial potential. Many also enter sales for the wrong reason as we know.

3 I would question the knowledge, ability, and skills along with the perceptions, beliefs, and actions of those leaving the industry. Not necessarily in that order.

Many people do stay in a career that does not really conform fully to who they are but only if the money is adequate. This emphasizes the money aspect for me.

Possibly, those who leave never acquired adequate knowledge, maybe they lacked certain skills, and abilities. They did not have the appropriate perceptions and beleifs nor effective application of sales techniques.

Another way of saying this--these people should have never been hired in the first place.

This is one major reason why failure in sales is tolerated--no one industry adequately knows how to filter out those who fail to meet minimum requirements.

It does not matter what Personality Profile test is used the average is the same. In fact, this fail rate has been with us since 1940 when seminar statistics came into being in Chicago.

A hometown hospital emergency room offers far more complexities than sales. Yet, what would happen if 80% of the patients died? Would that be tolerated?

What I am doing is comparing sales against other comparable careers and exploring the tolerated fail-rate and asking what makes the difference.

When all the variables are accounted for, what is left? - by John Voris
They will not say that you should sell everyone but insists on you meeting their quotas. That is, they have a black and white perspective: either sell the minimum or your out.
Generally speaking, I do not take issue with this.

Quotas were designed as a line in the sand to weed out the "bad apples" and they must eventually be met.
Generally speaking, I do not take issue with this.

As far as failing standards are concerned, research from many marketing firms determine success and failure based on the length of time in sales. Some use 6 months while others use one full year. And, they focus on only whose who are not taking a draw.
To each their own.

The cause of people leaving is the lack of sales. If they made the money they projected why would they leave.
In my opinion, more times than not people fail to achieve their desired outcomes (e.g., income goals) because (1) they do not know what to do or (2) they are unwilling or unable to get themselves to do what is necessary to reach their desired outcomes.

Another way of saying this--these people should have never been hired in the first place.
I do not necessarily agree. The age-old debate about Nature vs. Nurture immediately comes to mind.

What I am doing is comparing sales against other comparable careers and exploring the tolerated fail-rate and asking what makes the difference.
I do not view Medical and Mechanical as "comparable" to Sales. In addition, "fail-rate" in Medical and Mechanical is relatively cut and dry. The same cannot be said about Sales. - 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.