Salespeople have sales tools which often are not thoroughly thought through enough. These can be flyers, catalogues, slide decks, etc. They can also be proposals, quotations and invoices. Usually the salespeople are given the tools as they are and either don’t ask for improvements or don’t believe the marketing department has much interest in their ideas about the dark art of marketing. Consequently, there are some areas for improvement which go begging.

Flyers, catalogues and slide decks tend to be very evenly arranged. Every page is basically presented in the same way. Yet, as salespeople we know that there are going to be certain products which are more popular than others. These items and corresponding pages should be up the front. It might mean breaking away from the sectional approach, of all the bits and bobs being collected together in their respective places, separate and cordoned off.

Also, on important pages of these most important products or services, there are bound to be key words or key paragraphs that, over time, we have learnt are of the most relevancy to our clients. There will also be key data tables, diagrams or photos which should be drawn to the buyer’s attention. Why don’t we have marketing do something with this information. Maybe make the font larger, or add bold or highlight using colour. This is only a matter of adjusting the layout of the page and getting the next round of printing or soft copy to reflect these updates.

Generally speaking, we don’t want to be handing our materials over to the client, in the first instance. We want to spin the item around, so that they can easily read it. With our nice pen we draw their attention to the areas we want them to see. Not everything on that page has equal value. Some sections will be more important than others. They can read the whole thing later at their leisure, but while we are there with them, we want to go through the content and determine what they need to focus on. When we leave the materials with them the highlighted areas will draw their attention to where we need them to be looking for information.

If this is so easy, why are all the sales materials we see all look the same – flat, undifferentiated and no attempt to direct the eye of the reader? Everyone has their job. Marketing is there to produce the materials, but they don’t know which are the key sections for buyer purview. Salespeople are busy running around seeing clients and just take what they have been given. They never think to make requests to marketing to change the materials.

What if the buyers have different interests? That will be true, but it will also be true that 20% of the key information will suit 80% of the buyers, so we should concentrate on that content. If there are particular sections which are not highlighted, then we can deal with that problem when we are with the buyer.

The other areas for some marketing effort are around how we present quotations, invoices and proposals. We should be advertising our services or goods on the quotations and invoices. Key people in the buyer’s company will see these materials and here is a chance to get our information in front of them. If there are soft copies involved this allows us to add links to the website where more information can be found. QR codes are also good for taking information on a page to a website.

Proposals can be very florid or very flat. Something in the middle is a good idea. We don’t want the presentation of the information overwhelming the messages. We also don’t have to just rely on text. Visual stimulation is very powerful and photos of people are always attractive to us. This is where we salespeople need marketing’s help. We need someone who has great layout skills and knows how to assemble the look and feel of the pages.

Let’s rethink our sales materials and ask what more could we get from them?

I hear some people say translating terms like “nemawashi” into English is difficult. Really? I always thought it was one of the easier ones. Let's just call it “groundwork”. In fact, that is a very accurate description ,from a number of different angles. Japanese gardeners are superstars. There is limited flat space in this country, so over centuries gardeners have worked out you need to move the trees you want, to where you want them. They prefer this approach to just waiting thirty years for them to turn out the preferred way. It is not unusual today to see a huge tree on the back of a big truck ,being moved from one location to another and presto instant garden. The roots of that massive tree will be wrapped up in cloth to protect them. That wrapping process is called “nemawashi”. In business, it means being well prepared for the business meeting – doing the ground work beforehand.

In a Western context being well prepared for the meeting will mean assembling all the data and analysis in order to make an impassioned plea for your idea or suggestion, to be accepted by the big bosses. We all get to the meeting, listen to the different approaches and we make a decision in that meeting. What could be more time efficient and logical? They never do it that way in Japan.

Concepts of time efficiency differ for a start and throwing massive amounts of overtime at a problem is not problem in Japan. The meeting is also a ceremony, because the decision has already been arrived at beforehand and the gathering is just to formalise the outcome. This happens in the West too. Whenever you see global leaders delivering their joint statements or signing agreements, they didn’t arrive at the wording during the meeting. That was all worked out by their minions beforehand, over many hours of debate, negotiation and discussion. The TV cameras just capture the big guys and gals inking the document, after all the “groundwork” has been completed.

I was talking with a Western businessman recently and he was relating how hard it was to get the team behind his ideas. The issue was, he was trying to get it all agreed to, at the key meeting and hadn’t invested the time to do the groundwork. What he needed to do was go to see all the key people, the influencers, the stakeholders with a vested interest and explain the idea. Get their input and agreement and then rinse and repeat with the rest of them. By the time the meeting happens, everyone will recognise parts of their preferences and ideas in the submission. Agreement flows easily in these cases.

In sales, we will probably not have direct access to all of the decision makers, influencers and stakeholders. Our primary contact has to become our champion for sheparding the agreement through the internal nemawashi process. Asking them directly who are these hidden decision makers is insulting. It says, you are a nobody, but I still need your help. We need to be more considerate of their “face” and ask in a way that enhances their face.

Once we have established the trust, have uncovered their needs, shown we can help and have dealt with any hesitations they may have, we are ready to marshal our forces for the final push through to a “yes” to the sale. We explain, we understand that many people will be interested to know about this change in the delivery of product or services. We also know that they will be tasked to explain it to others who cannot join our meetings. We ask how can we help them? This is a rhetorical question because we want to get into the detail of who are the players. So we go straight into asking who do they think would have the most concern about the change and why they would be concerned? We keep repeating this process until we have fleshed out the people who will have the most interest in saying “no”. The next stage is to arm our champion with the tools to deal with the pushback. We try to understand the concerns and then arrive at creative ways of overcoming those concerns.

This is what we mean by nemawashi or ground work. Is it time consuming – yes! Do we have to invest the extra time – yes! There is an internal logic to the way decisions are made in Japan. There is no point railing about how the Japanese business decision making process should be Westernised, so it is more familiar for us. That is never going to happen, so we need to be better and more flexible to understand the system and then become a master of influence within it. We need to become the nemawashi maestro!

Japan is a very hierarchical society. I am getting older, so I appreciate the respect for age and stage we can enjoy here. Back in my native Australia, older people are thought of having little of value to say or contribute. It is a youth culture Downunder and only the young have worth. “You old so and so, you don’t know anything” is reflective of the mood and thinking. As a training company in Japan, we have to be mindful of who we put in front of a class and in front of clients. If the participants are mainly male and older, then it is difficult to have a young female trainer or salesperson allocated to that company.

That young woman is going to be talented and effective as a trainer because our trainer development system is so demanding. She is also going to be highly skilled in sales, because we teach sales. It doesn’t matter. The HR people or the line manager complains, because the class members don’t feel young people have anything to teach them or are qualified to sell them anything.

I was reminded of this recently when trying to allocate trainers and salespeople for certain companies. We have a lot of internal trainers and salespeople who are under 35 and a few who are over 45 and so there is an imbalance. One of my senior guys has suddenly quit. He was performing both functions, so it is a double loss. As our older team members age, they have seen their kids leave the home and then have their aged parents to worry about. The life of a small business owner is always like this. There is never an equilibrium or a period of extended stability with staffing. Just when you think you have it working like a smoothly oiled machine, in goes a wrench and the whole thing comes to a shuddering halt.

The transfer of responsibilities for clients between staff is not that easy. It goes both directions too. We have staff who build strong personal relationships with counterparties and then their interlocutor is moved to another function and a replacement appears. Often, this can mean the end of the relationship with that firm, as the new broom have their preferred suppliers and you are not one of them.

You also imagine that within the client big firms there is a seamless transfer between their staff for that part of the business. Not so. I was dealing with a big multi-national and to my amazement the new person had absolutely no knowledge of what we had been doing for them in terms of training. Obviously there was no hand over of the tasks and things have been going less smoothly as a result.

Normally in Japan, we try to recruit younger people, however we have to also be flexible and look to hire older staff, the venerable grey hairs who can gain the respect of the clients. Trying to maintain the right balance between the generations is not that easy. Also, anytime we have to replace someone as a salesperson, then we can draw a big red line diagonally across each month of the calendar for the next 18 months. They will not be particularly productive for that period of time. Learning the business, really understanding the products and our methodology takes a lot of time. They also have to build their own client base and that doesn’t happen in a hurry.

It takes about the same period of time to see someone make their way through the Dale Carnegie labyrinth of trainer certification. It is an arduous, challenging process and not everyone is suited to become a trainer. The skills for selling and training have similarities but there is also that X Factor of personality needed to become accepted by clients.

The infamous and elusive Plan B needs to be dusted off and then we can move into action. The problem is we don’t spend any time thinking about negative circumstances that require a Plan B. Also, the mix of possibilities across the range of staff is so complex, how can you effectively anticipate what happens next. Nevertheless, I quickly realised I need multiple Plan Bs ready to go, in case of changes in the team complexion. I usually spend a minus amount of time thinking about those myriad possibilities, because I am too busy doing other things in the business.

I will need to do better in this regard and have an update process scheduled throughout the year, rather than leaving it to surprise announcements of staff departure, to stir me to action. How about your case? How are your multiple Plan B development scenarios going?

When we read commentary about how we should be recruiting A Players to boost our firm’s performance, this is a mirage for most of us running smaller sized companies. If you are the size of a Google or a Facebook, with massively deep pockets, then having A Players everywhere is no issue. The reality is A Players cost a bomb and so most of us can’t afford that type of talent luxury. Instead we have to cut our cloth to suit our budgets. We hire C Players and then we try to turn them into B Players. Why not turn these B Players into A players?

This is a contradiction isn’t it, because we always striving and thrusting for the best possible results. If we invest and take a B Player to A Player status, there is a very strong likelihood someone else will admire our handiwork and poach them from us. We have all heard that truism about “what if I develop my people and they leave”, countered with “what if we don’t invest in them and they stay?’. This is correct up to the point of your cash flow reserves. We are not talking about having useless people staying on, sucking up our cash resources.

B Players are very capable and are worth investing in to become even more capable. The additional investment to turn them into A players though, if they have that capability in the first place, may be a case of over investment. Having large portions of your revenue centered around a very small number of clients is recognized as a very dangerous position to be in. In the same way, having one or two people accounting for a disproportionate amount of firm income or expertise is also dangerous.

When the top performers leave it can be very disruptive. Most bosses do not sufficiently explain their departure to the remaining staff. In this vacuum, the other members of the team worry about what the A Players know that they don’t. Is the firm going down and are those most capable of getting another job jumping ship? Will an exodus of A Players introduce fragility into the business? The loss of the contribution of A Players is bad enough, but their departure can be interpreted by staff in ways bosses would never imagine. That is why no matter who leaves, leaders always need to carefully reassure everyone else, that the firm is fine and this was a personal choice by one individual. Don’t allow rumours, imaginings and guesswork to creep into the equation. We need to own the narrative every time.

I have a very carefully designed spreadsheet which allows me to track my sales team’s performance. It includes all of their costs and related costs, to give me a clear picture of what each sales person’s contribution to the company actually is. This allows me to see the amount of leverage they represent. I want to know what is the multiple of their revenue return against their total cost. The bigger that multiple the better, up to a point.

If the multiple is fantastic, but the overall income volume generated is too low, then we can go broke in short order. So there has to be a balance between raw volume of funds coming in and the effectiveness of return on their efforts. This is where B Players can excel. They produce multiples which work for the business and generate a positive profit result. The A Players can have bigger numbers, but their multiples may not be that outstanding. They also point to their big numbers and say rude things like “I want more money”. That pay rise to keep them will hammer the attractiveness of their multiple pretty quickly.

A Players are like an oasis in the desert. The vision through the heat haze can lure small business owners to invest, when that may not be the best idea. It can be better, over time, to build the ranks of the B players from the within the ranks of the C Players. This is the classis bootstrap approach to building companies. We all do it at the beginning don’t we, but then with some success comes hubris and we start to imagine we can extrapolate our genius. Before you know it, the multiples have swung in the wrong direction. For this reason, it is wise to track the multiples down to the last cent and determine to keep on tracking.

When you are small, love your B Players and hold them close. Invest in them, but don’t over invest. Where is that elusive line of demarcation? Experience watching newly minted A Players, who were once your B Players, heading for the exits and more money, helps to establish it in your mind. Monitoring the multiple components will create an algorithm indicating how much is enough and how much is too much. We won’t always get it right, but we can get pretty close if we pay careful attention to the issue. Remember this is art, but with big servings of science tossed into the mix.