This is a tough question to answer! Though not intentional, as a Post-Sales RevOps leader, I can share - clearly understanding the drivers of churn and especially breaking down what is addressable and what is not is something that is often not prioritized. Having a clear framework to categorize churn - product driven, experience driven, customer driven, macro-driven etc helps an organization design plays to address the addressable, improve overall CX and this can go a long way in delivering the right outcomes to both customers and the business.

This is a common scenario especially when you are talking about global teams, with members from multiple countries and cultures. I will share one example that hopefully brings to life my approach to this type of situation, when there is a gap in communication styles. When I worked in Europe, I realized I often had difficult e-mail exchanges with one of the regional sales leaders. As much as I tried to be clear and precise with my words, they were always met with misunderstanding and resistance. To the point that friction became the norm, and the relationship was fractured. During one of those heated e-mail exchanges, I decided to stop the e-mail back and forth, and call the person directly. Although I was nervous about how the conversation would unfold, it ended up being surprisingly positive and constructive. We were able to listen to each other points of view and come to an agreement. More importantly, we realized that when talking over the phone, a lot of the tension that took place in our e-mail communications did not exist. We agreed that, when discussing controversial topics, we'd always favor a phone call over e-mail. That simple step was essential for me to build a trust-based relationship with this stakeholder. Having an open and deliberate conversation with a stakeholder about communication style, channels and ways of working in general, is a helpful instrument to build trust-based relationships and effective collaboration.

Successful outcomes for a RevOps function / leader typically includes: * Better cross-functional alignment as part of annual planning process and throughout the year to execute on annual plan * Driving unified approach to revenue generation across Sales, Marketing & Customer Success * Increased revenue growth (higher win rates, larger deal sizes, improved retention) * Enhanced operational efficiency (shorter sales cycles, streamlined processes) * Data-driven decision making As AI transforms RevOps, the metrics for success evolve and expand: * Generate more accurate sales forecasts * Predict customer behavior and needs with greater precision (for eg, identifying potential churn risks before they materialize) * AI powered deep & actionable insights from vast amounts of data * Improving sales rep productivity through AI-assisted tools and insights (and increasing productive time for sellers) * Automation of routine tasks (e.g., lead scoring, data entry, follow-ups) to reduce operational costs and human error

When hiring someone without RevOps experience, I focus on transferable skills that predict success: * Analytical, Data-Driven Thinking – Can they break down complex problems logically? A good test is a case study with simple and well documented data that requires idea generation, prioritization, numerical reasoning, and recommendations. Dry-run it with high performers, mentors, and non-RevOps folks. * Curiosity – Do they have a strong drive to learn and a structured approach to self-teaching? Ask: “Tell me about a time you learned something difficult on your own.” or “What’s the last skill you taught yourself?” Look for perseverance, resourcefulness, and efficiency. * Communication & Stakeholder Management – Can they convey ideas clearly and influence decision-makers? An interview with a senior non-RevOps leader helps assess clarity and conciseness. You can also use conflict resolution questions (even from academic settings) or ask for comms approach in "tricky" scenarios (e.g., giving tough feedback, owning a model mistake, troubleshooting a tech issue). * Adaptability – Are they comfortable with ambiguity and shifting priorities? Add plot twists to the case study or ask counterfactuals like, “Would your answer change if growth was the only goal, not margin?” Having candidates walk through a major professional/academic change and how they handled it can be highly valuable as well. Dig deeper into their thought process through uncertainty. Quick note on assignments: in my experience those work best to set the scene, not as "take-home exams". Treat them as step 1 of a business case. For example, provide a dataset and ask for 3 insights + 3 follow-up questions as output. This helps assess data hygiene and hypothesis formulation, but the real value is in the live discussion: dive into problem-solving choices and logic pathways. Use extra data live in the interview to pressure-test assumptions, explore second-order effects, and test their comfort in pivoting on new data.

Getting any senior leader on board is critical for any change, whether marketing automation or anything else we do in RevOps. Whenever we are dealing with larger initiatives, I like to use a decision-making framework (I prefer RAPID but RACI/DACI and others work as well). In most cases, for the big picture things RevOps teams are going to play the role of the R (and probably the P) whereas the sales or marketing exec will be the D. Within that program, you can be the D on specific implementation decisions. So one suggestion for you is to revisit the approach to the project with your marketing leader and introduce a decision framework for the major components. At the highest level, they get to decide (D) the strategy which has already happened. Below that, you can align on which elements they need to be the D vs. an I, A, or maybe nothing. For something like selecting a MAP product, you can probably be the D, as one example. You could then work through these various changes and see which ones you can own and which they want to be involved in. It will also be helpful to understand why they want to own some of these decisions. Are there things they are nervous about? Do they have context from something else you don't have which might influence them? I would seek to understand as much as possible so you can work through an approach. They might also not understand the challenges of these changes from an operational perspective which you can clear up and then set expectations around how and when decisions have to be made. I would also have a path to escalate any places you cannot reach a decision. There's no point in spinning over and over on the same issue. Depending on your org structure and who you report to, you can go together to escalate the decisions, explain your respective views, and get a decision from higher up. They key to this is doing it together so it's a collaborative way to break the impasse rather than you going around them.

I hate to type this, but the first gauge of autonomy for a candidate is: How involved are/were their parent(s) in the process? The candidate, individually, should be scheduling interviews, asking/answering questions and making employment decisions. Personally, if I have to engage with someone's parent, then I'm not offering the person the job. I may make an offer to the parent, though (kidding!). Outside of that, I listen to how candidates respond to scenario questions and observe any noticeable response trends: * Are they constantly referring to having someone double-check their work? * When asked about independent decisions they've made, and the outcome of those decisions, do they have an example? Does that example involve cross-checking responses with a manager/supervisor? Sometimes the best way to gauge a candidate's autonomy is to structure questions that specifically speak to that issue. If I get a sense that, beyond nerves, a candidate is not exhibiting autonomy, I'll ask questions like: * What do you see as your level of authority/responsibility in a project team? * Please give me an example of a time when you went to your supervisor for help with an issue. Why you needed to escalate the issue? * Please tell me about a time when you had to adjust a stakeholder's expectations about a project. What did you do? Why? How was it received? From there, I assess how well their answers demonstrate the level of autonomy required for the role. An entry-level position will require less initial autonomy than a senior manager.

I prefer to frame the challenges I face as a Revenue Operations manager not as frustrations, but as crucial considerations that influence how I allocate my time and resources over the coming months. A common issue is that Revenue Operations teams are often under-resourced relative to the size and needs of the organizations they support. It can take years to build a team with the capacity and expertise needed to scale operations effectively alongside rapid business growth. * The ongoing challenge is aligning the needs of the business with the capabilities of my team, deciding which initiatives are most critical for short-term success while planning for long-term scalability. This often means making tough decisions about prioritizing tasks that will deliver the highest value. Invariably, the needs of the business will outpace the capacity of the team at times, necessitating a strategic evaluation of what's truly essential. * The most successful Revenue Operations leaders excel in articulating the business value of expanding their teams. They effectively communicate the potential risks and opportunity costs of understaffing to stakeholders, ensuring that resources are allocated to support growth adequately. This isn't unique to Revenue Operations—every functional leader must assess whether their team can meet the business's needs and advocate for the necessary resources to succeed. This aspect of the role requires a nuanced understanding of how to balance immediate operational demands with strategic investments in team capability. It involves ongoing communication with other leaders to align on priorities and ensure that the Revenue Operations team can continue to support the organization's growth and adapt to changing market conditions.

In my humble opinion, there * Did we hit our number? * Did we predict the outcome (+/- 5%)? * Are we on track to keep hitting our numbers? If a RevOps leader can answer yes to all 3, he/she will be one of the most critical and successful leaders in any company. PS: The prompt asked for 300 characters but I do think the answer is this simple so I'm adding this PS to fulfill the minimum characters requirement :)

Titles mean different things at different companies, so I'll answer the question more along the skills you need to be promoted to more senior roles within revenue Ops. The big skill is the ability to think big and think ahead. It's very easy to spend your entire week or month fire fighting as a line manager. As you grow your role and scope, you need to allocate time to think about the future and innovate. How can the company accelerate growth? Reduce costs? How does the team further the goals of the business? How do we measure the strategic programs? How do you retain and develop talent? These are questions that great managers start thinking about and they are table stakes for "senior managers / directors."

Rev Ops will continue to shift from reacting/responding/executing to proactively offering insights and training business users how to self-serve their data needs. it will about activating process and tech vs. doing all the work for your partners. AI tools will become critically important. Learn it, know it, use it. It may seem counterintuitive to a RevOps professional to put self service in the hands of business, but shifting mindset to the benefits - opening you and your teams up to perform more valuable and impactful work will set you up for success in this field.