Before You Blame Your Sales Team, Look at What They're Standing On

If four different people fail in the same job, eventually you have to consider the possibility that the problem isn't simply the fourth person.

Imagine a company that has hired four salespeople for the same position over three years.

The first was friendly but couldn't close.

The second had experience but never met expectations.

The third started strong and faded.

The fourth is currently on a performance plan.

The owner has reached a conclusion:

“Good salespeople are impossible to find.”

Maybe.

But after watching four different people struggle in the same position, I'd want to examine something else too.

The position.

The person-closest-to-the-problem effect

When a sale is lost, the salesperson is the most visible person attached to the result.

Naturally, management looks there first.

But visibility is not the same thing as causation.

I call this the person-closest-to-the-problem effect.

The sale wasn't made, therefore the salesperson failed.

Sometimes that's exactly what happened.

Other times, the salesperson is simply standing at the end of a chain of problems created much earlier.

Consider a remodeling company.

You hire a salesperson and explain that the job is to meet homeowners, prepare proposals, and close business.

You provide product training.

He shadows a few appointments.

Then you send him out.

Three months later, sales are disappointing.

You tell him he needs to close more.

He agrees.

Another month passes.

Little changes.

What have you actually diagnosed?

Only the result.

Four things I'd examine before making the call:

Does the employee understand what good selling looks like here?

“Close more” is an outcome.

It isn't a method.

Does your salesperson know how your company expects customer needs to be evaluated?

Does she understand what information must be collected before recommending something?

Does she know which commitments can and cannot be made?

Does she know what an effective follow-up actually looks like?

If the company can't describe successful performance beyond the final number, the employee may be trying to hit a target without a map.

Was the employee trained for this sales environment?

Knowing the product is not the same as knowing how to sell it.

A salesperson can explain every technical feature of a window and still fail to understand which feature matters to this particular homeowner.

Another may be excellent with people but consistently recommend the wrong solution because technical knowledge is weak.

Those are different problems.

Both can look like low closing rates.

Is the environment making good performance unnecessarily difficult?

Suppose a salesperson receives three appointments tomorrow.

One homeowner specifically requested an estimate.

One thought she was scheduling a free design consultation.

One lives outside your normal service area.

The calendar records three appointments.

But those aren't three equivalent opportunities.

Now add incomplete customer notes, constant scheduling interruptions, confusing pricing rules, and salespeople spending several hours a week solving post-sale administrative problems.

The salesperson's results are still their responsibility.

But the environment is part of the equation.

Does the manager know what is actually going wrong?

Suppose two salespeople both close 25 percent of their opportunities.

The first builds excellent trust but struggles when customers raise price concerns.

The second talks too much and recommends solutions before understanding the customer's problem.

Same closing rate.

Completely different coaching needs.

A manager focused only on the number will give both the same instruction:

“Close more.”

A manager who understands the process can actually help.

The shared-field test

Here's a simple diagnostic exercise.

Ask every salesperson independently to describe the sales process, step by step.

Not the philosophy.

Not “we build relationships.”

The actual sequence.

What happens first?

What information needs to be gathered?

When do you present options?

How do you handle a customer who isn't ready?

What happens next?

If five people give you five substantially different answers, you may have five individual approaches instead of one shared foundation.

I call that the shared-field test.

Before judging who is playing well, it helps to know whether everybody is playing on the same field.

When the problem really is the salesperson

This matters:

Sometimes the problem absolutely is the salesperson.

A person may lack the required ability.

They may resist coaching.

They may fail to follow procedures.

They may not work hard enough.

They may simply be wrong for the role.

Good structure should make those situations easier to identify, not easier to excuse.

If expectations are clear, training is adequate, opportunities are reasonable, management is competent, and one salesperson consistently fails where others succeed, you have much better evidence that the issue is individual performance.

That's useful.

Structure doesn't protect weak performers.

It makes performance easier to evaluate fairly.

The replacement test

Before hiring salesperson number five, ask:

What will be different for number five?

Different onboarding?

Different training?

Clearer expectations?

Better lead qualification?

More useful coaching?

A more understandable sales process?

Or will the new employee receive the same tools, same environment, and same instruction to “go sell”?

If nothing changes except the name on the business card, you've changed a variable without changing the experiment.

Perhaps you'll finally find the perfect salesperson.

Perhaps you'll get the same result for the fifth time.

Either way, understanding what your people are standing on makes that much easier to predict.