Many sales training curriculums provide the same content at the same pace to all training attendees. There are two primary challenges with this approach. The first challenge is that individual salespeople have different training needs. The second challenge is that people learn at different rates.
To better understand the first challenge, different training needs, consider the following example. Two salespeople, Beth and Bill, work for the same company. Beth is weak in Sales Drive, which makes her reluctant to ask for orders. Bill is weak in Emotional Toughness. This makes him sensitive to rejection and limits his prospecting effectiveness. If both of these salespeople complete a generalized sales skills training course, how much improvement in sales performance should their company expect to see?
The answer is little or none. These salespeople have completely different training needs that are not best addressed by generalized sales skills training. Beth would benefit most from attending an assertiveness training class, plus receiving coaching to help her recognize that failing to ask for orders denies her customers valuable solutions to costly business problems. Bill needs to learn to not take rejection personally. He might also benefit from attending a class that teaches positive thinking and other motivational techniques. Unfortunately, unless their company is aware of their very specific training needs and uses targeted training to address them, it shouldn’t expect much performance improvement.
The second challenge, differences in Learning Rates, was explored in Attributes Required For Sales Success. Do you remember the bucket/milk jug example? When people learn at different rates, but they are taught at the same rate, frustration is usually the outcome. Slower learners become frustrated because they can’t keep up. Faster learners become frustrated because they get bored.
This doesn’t mean that companies should never put their entire sales team through the same training curriculum. If an entirely new skill is being taught, such as a technique for prospecting to C-level executives, a standardized training curriculum may be entirely appropriate. However, individual learning rates should still be given careful consideration. If training attendees are grouped by learning rate and taught in separate sessions, the pace of curriculum delivery can be tailored to each group. If circumstances require all participants to be trained in a single group, slower learners should be given the opportunity to participate in voluntary “extra” sessions. Either approach will provide all participants with an opportunity to learn at a pace that is comfortable for them, maximizing their absorption of training content…and thereby maximizing training ROI!