Last post I proposed that if the ratio between the new back foot % time representing the activity base of the sales team is still more than 20% as a ratio against the front foot activity time %, ie: more than the equivalent of a day a week, then better to split the roles and not have hybrids, for better B2B sales process performance. But here comes the twist. Don’t split by farmers vs hunters .
Better to base the rationale of splitting role types between the role type that will execute the activities that are proactive, pre-emptive and programmable. Gear these team members to get onto the front foot and focus on growing new business…both by hunting new customers and farming existing. Create the other role type to execute the activities that are largely back foot responsive and reactive. This will mean that these team members will be visiting , to varying degrees, the same existing customers that the aforementioned role type will be also visiting. The ratio and number of members you will need of each type will be unique to your organisation and to some extent influenced by your unique version of the benchmark >80% proactive, pre-emptive and programmable activity base vs <20% responsive and reactive activity base, that helps you decide whether to split roles or go hybrid single role.
Why do the carve up this way instead of the traditional and classical hunters vs farmers for better sales process performance ? Come back next week for the final in this series.
Refresh last weeks post: Hunters & Farmers…Or Hybrids…Critial decision for the viability of your B2B sales process (part 4)