I'll give a sales analogy.
If I have a salesman who generates a lot of leads and has apparent potential but doesn't close as much as he could, that might look good to someone comparing those leads totals to coworkers, but let's say I need my staff to focus on certain regions and clients, and to close deals above a set price point. I have a very specific set of requirements to fit the overall global strategy and we need full buy-in.
Let's say the leads hero also doesn't see the need to follow some of the boss' directions, and isn't making calls or conducting follow-up as requested, and/or is being lazy about the sales channels or territories he's responsible for.
The guy with a ton of leads for small, low % opportunities might have a big pipeline but ultimately few real prospects or deals, and will fall short of the goals we've set.
What message does it send to the rest of the sales team--who I need to be putting in at least the minimum effort in the right markets-- if I keep letting this guy shirk his duties, just because he has "potential"?
So the leads and potential aren't all that valuable by comparison to salesmen who are putting their focus where I need it, even if they're also closing at a similar rate.
What I'm hearing here with Mantha is the equivalent of "the answer is to fire the sales manager because lead generation and potential are more important than anything else".
Wow, you're burning a lot of calories defending something with no more evidence than the people you're arguing with. The "We don't know so trust the process" argument would be more compelling if we weren't playing like shit.
I'll give a hockey analogy.
If I have a hockey player that generates the exact kind of results any reasonable person should expect from his deployments and punish him for it, I might be wrong to do so.
I'll give another hockey analogy.
If I have a hockey player that demonstrates no chemistry with any linemates and appears to torpedo the lines he's on as a result but bench a string of other, better players instead of him, I'm might be wrong to do so.
I'll give another hockey analogy,.
If I have a hockey team that goes unbeaten for like 15 games and break up the forward lines most responsible for that success for no reason and the team immediately starts playing like they're having spastic fits, I might be wrong to do so.
The two shuffles before this sucked out loud. The 4th line was the only one doing anything good. So the latest shuffle appears to be another key player to the bench and breaking up the only like working. Instead of, you know, maybe going back to the lines that had you on a 15-game points streak.
Super tight division race, we can't spare any points, and he's throwing away the easy ones.
Absence of inside knowledge doesn't preclude one from analyzing the evidence there is and justifiably asking, "WTactualF?"
