This is a very important question and one that not everyone will see eye to eye with me on this. But personally, it has never failed me up until now. There are a few elements that are common to candidates that have been proven to be successful: The first is tenacity. It is that inner hunger to learn new topics or master new skill sets. One who always finds ways to be proactive and push boundaries. When talking to candidates, I always look for a potential team member whom I will need to restrain rather than one I will need to nudge forward. The second is communication skills. A great seller is someone who you talk to and immediately comes off as connectable and relatable. Someone who has a clear understanding of the person in front of them. The third aspect would have to be very strong social and emotional intelligence. This goes hand in hand with having a client first mentality. A great candidate is one who will give the client the true sense that he puts their interest above anything. Earning that trust is key to building a long-term, healthy relationship.

To effectively define the metrics for which you should hold sales accountable, I look at a few things: 1. Understand the "Sales Math" of the business across some core universally applicable SaaS Sales metrics 2. Compare the performance of the top 1/3 AE's against the bottom 1/3 AE's and look for which metrics contribute the most to high performance. 3. Go deep in those categories and correlate the activities top performers do differently to achieve these results. Quantify these activities to define supporting metrics which will lead to success. To break this down, let's understand the foundational "Sales Math." This is the equation to hit quota. The equation is fairly simple, but everyone's vernacular is different. It is actually extremely important to have very well defined steps in the equation to get consistency across your entire team. For example, we use opportunity stages with clear exit criteria for the buyer & seller to provide consistent insight into our Sales Math. So I would actually use a Stage 1 Opp Created - instead of Discovery Call, and Stage 3 Opp instead of Demo. For the purposes of this article, I'll use general sales terms that each business should be able to use as a starting point and customize from there. Here are the metrics that go into the Sales Math equation: * Activities to create a Discovery Call * # Discovery Calls per quarter * # Demos per quarter * Discovery Call to Demo conversion ratio * # Closed Won Deals per quarter * Demo to Closed Won conversion ratio * Average Deal Size * Average Deal Cycle These metrics will allow you to create the math to hit quota. If the current team's metrics do not consistently lead to the results you're looking for, then the Sales Math may be aspirational. If your team is executing against plan, then this may be your actual current metrics. Regardless, this is what you should feel confident telling AE's is the realistic, attainable and surpassable way to hit quota. For example, it could look like: $250k Quarterly Quota Average Deal Size of $84k 3 Deals to hit quota Close ratio of 33% 9 Demos needed per quarter 60% conversion ratio of Disco to Demo 15 Discovery Calls needed per quarter 50 Activities to create a Disco 750 Activities needed per quarter* *one note on activity. It's a metric I'll always track to understand a baseline level of effort, but I will often leave this out of the Sales Math when dealing with higher complexity sales and more senior AE's. Up to you if this should be in your Sales Math equation. Now take your Sales Math, and map your high performers against your low performers to look for which metrics have a high correlation with success. This exercise can be extremely surprising, so be open to what the data shows you, and hold your strong opinions loosely. Let's extrapolate this exercise across two different scenarios: Scenario 1 - Enterprise Here's how the exercise played out when running it against a more enterprise business (numbers are directional): 1. Activity, Discovery Calls and Demos were almost identical across high & low performers. This told me that pushing "more activity" was only going to have so much impact on performance. 2. The Closed Won conversion of top performers was 46% vs. 25% for the low performers. This was a huge gap, and had major implications on the Sales Math. 3. The Average Deal Size of top performers was $160k vs. $70k for low performers. This is also a huge gap compounded the success or struggles of each group when combined with the stat above. So the key metrics to optimize were Average Deal Size and Demo to Close Ratio. We wanted to maintain our activity levels, but really lean into increasing ADS and strategies to help with Deal Execution. Based on this knowledge of what would have the biggest impact in high performance vs. low performance, we added in some metrics & activities that would contribute to these results: * Updated our account prioritization to ensure a focus on the top deals & tracked activity against Priority 1 accounts * We blocked off time each week to prospect into our top accounts & scheduled strategy sessions to help get more meetings with these accounts * We tracked # of Discos with P1 accounts * # of Demo's with $100k+ Opportunities For Deal Execution * We tracked multi-threading in each account * Have we made an executive connection? * We created a cross-functional meeting to lean into competitive differentiation strategy * We set a threshold for accounts that needed a key deal review & updated our process to improve efficiency and make room for more accounts reviewed each week. Scenario 2 - Transactional Here's how the exercise played out when running it against a more transactional business (numbers are directional): 1. There were two camps of high performers. Those with extremely high activity, and those with higher disco to demo efficiency. Our most consistent top performer was a combination of both. Low performers fell into a similar pattern of either low activity or low conversion of discos to demos. 2. Deal size and win rate didn't have dramatic differences outside of 1 AE who closed the largest deal in segment history. This wasn't repeatable so we eliminated that result instead of putting too much time in hunting whales. 3. Average Deal Cycle for top performers was 39 days vs. 52 days for lower performers. Top AE's were closing deals faster, which allowed for more time to close more deals. From this data we defined additional metrics and activities to drive better results: * Upped the baseline activity volume expectations - there is a diminishing point of returns, but higher volume was almost always a component of success. We raised the bar, but also coached our highest volume AE's to lean more into their efficiency metrics instead of pushing to just do more. * Managers went deep on quality of discovery calls coming into the funnel * Title & Seniority level of Prospects - lower conversion was correlated with lower titles. * Was the company in our Ideal Customer Profile? Quality of company greatly impacted conversion * Why now? Did we offer someone a gift card or just bug them until their defense was worn down? Or was this call predicated on funding, a new hire, an inflection point in the business, intent or some other business catalyst? * Managers inspected quality of prospecting messages * Managers inspected quality of discovery calls * We rallied around creative promos to help the team close deals faster * We replicated decks top AE's were using to build value and establish trust faster In both Scenario 1 and 2 - we started with the baseline Sales Math, and through comparison of top performers vs. low performers we were able to lean into the 2 key metrics that had an outsized impact on performance. We then defined key activities and additional metrics which we could hold the team accountable to, that we knew would correlate towards greater success across the team. How easy was that? :)

I am a firm believer of meritocracy. So when it comes to pay raise especially in sales roles it should be very black and white for a sales rep to determine when would they qualify for a pay raise. It should be very easy for sales people to chart out their salary hikes based on their performance. The more consistent you are in delivering and over achieving your targets, the faster you should get to your pay raise. Needless to say, that there is no compromise when it comes to ethics and integrity when you are achieveing your targets.

It's a great question. I believe that all reps are continuously motivated by earning potential and career growth opportunities, regardless of the stage of the company. To get more nuanced, you'll see earlier hires more motivated by the combination of equity and cash, and you'll also see earlier hires hoping to leverage their early arrival to accelerate their career growth (vs later hires). As an aside, one of the real joys of leading and scaling sales teams is rewarding those deserving early hires with promotions, additional equity grants, etc. We've had the opportunity to do a lot of this at Vanta. More broadly, my advice is to spend a lot of time thinking about the design of your compensation plans (revisiting them at least annually) and also to map out levels and definitions for career growth sooner vs later. Make sure that you're putting your team in a spot where they believe they can hit their goals, and where they understand intimately what career growth means for them, and how to unlock it. Easier said than done. :)

Be transparent and share the “why”: Each SDR should be able to articulate the purpose of their role, the rationale behind their goals, and the methodology used to calculate key performance indicators (KPIs). While many teams have robust processes to determine these factors, they often fail to provide transparency to their teams. When metrics are perceived as being dictated without explanation or “handed down”, they become less motivating. Encourage individuality- Find areas where SDRs can flex their creativity, contribute to experiments, and express their opinions. When you go overboard with processes on an SDR team, it takes away the joy from the work and lowers the possibility of discovering impactful ideas. Create a team that defaults to collaboration and praises readily- While a slack channel, shout-out specific application, or kudos google form can be well intentioned, they often go underutilized. We know that if our team has downtime, they are probably using it to update Salesforce. Make giving praise part of an essential process that is already done!

From a mental perspective burnout is definitely a real challenge in sales. I answered another question in how to handle burnout, as a career in sales is a marathon not a sprint. From a tactical perspective, one of the biggest frustrations I have experienced as an AE are constant book-of-business (BoB) or territory changes. AE's can really hit their stride when they can consistently work their BoB, and sudden, unexpected changes can be disruptive to productivity and revenue. Building a strong BoB is one of the hardest part of sales, once the foundation is set I like to give things time, watch reps cook and allows the “magic” to happen. *This is of course if the current BoB/Territory alignment is working.

When it comes to determining the timeline for involving internal stakeholders in an opportunity with a customer, several key considerations come into play. Firstly, we need to ascertain if the customer has a genuine business problem that needs solving, if there's a dedicated champion within their organization, and if they have the budget allocated for the solution. Our internal resources are valuable but limited, so it's crucial that we allocate them judiciously. My AEs are tasked with the responsibility of validating that the organization they're working with not only has the capacity but also the capability to execute before we bring in additional resources. During our forecast discussions, I encourage my team to break down the steps they'll need to take to progress an opportunity, including the internal resources required for success, and ensure that the customer is aligned with this approach. While C-suite engagement isn't typically necessary for the opportunities my team handles, we consistently collaborate with customer success, IT, product, legal, and sales engineering teams. Salesforce has a unique structure where some individuals on each selling team focus on a single product. This means that AEs often serve as the initial point of contact, investing time in understanding and qualifying the customer's business problems before involving additional resources. This approach ensures that our efforts are targeted and efficient, maximizing the impact we can make for our customers.

By conducting a bi-annual survey and constantly checking in with them regularly. Attending their weekly meetings is a great start to becoming part of their team and really begin to understand what they need and how you can provide it to them. It is also a great idea quarterly to interview about 15-20 sellers to stay connected to their requirements.

Good question as it is important to understand specific industry challenges to tailor made your solution to your customer. The more compelling your story is the more likely you will stand out of the plethora of outbound messages customers receive daily. First of all be aware of the overall economical situation and the effects on the industry your prospect works in. Second dig deep into industry researches of consultancies and agencies to understand the specific trends and how you can help. Third it is all about researching the specific challenges of the prospect via interviews, reports and presentations.

There is a give and take with standardizing KPIs but also having enough variance to account for things segment, (Strat, Ent, MM, Growth) number of accounts, and so on. The easiest way to have consistency and also provide a lens to inspect forecast is by implementing standardization when possible. No matter what segment you're in or how many accounts you have, if a deal is 345 days old... that's going to tell me something about the forecast accuracy of the stage it's in. I am a big fan of ensuring reps are training that in the mid point of the quarter or month, whatever your quota and cadence is, deals with a close date in quarter or in month must be in Best Case, Commit, or Closed. Nothing can be in "Pipeline" or "Omitted"