A Few Words About Relationship Selling
As ESR continues to dig into the sales-related challenges of our clients’ companies, we often see a lack of understanding around the issue of relationships between sellers and buyers—often referred to as relationship selling.
Here are some points to consider or debate (with me or among your team):
- Beginning in 2000, I heard sales leader after sales leader say that relationship selling was dead. Not all of them said that, thankfully, but a lot did. It wasn’t dead then, and it isn’t dead now. The ability to leverage relationships between sellers and buyers for the benefit of the individuals’ and, more importantly, for their companies’ benefit thrives in many selling environments. If you don’t think it does in yours, you might be mistaken. We know that in some sectors, as perceived and real business risk has escalated, relationships with suppliers has become more important now than it was five years ago.
- Again, sales leaders who believe there is little to no relationship component in their sales approach are often wrong. Conversely, sales leaders who believe that relationships are a significant and critical component to their sales approach often sacrifice the value from other critical factors, such as industry and business knowledge, or competitive selling. It’s not easy to get the balance right. In fact, we sometimes find disagreements among regional managers in the same company. “It’s a technical sell!” “No, it’s a relationship sell!” “No, it’s a business sell!” (It’s most often all three.)
- Relationship selling isn’t just about building and maintaining relationships. It’s about knowing whom to build relationships with, what to base the relationships on (trust is at the top of the list, right?), and how to leverage the relationships to both parties’ advantage. For the salesperson, this requires the right personality traits, specific hard and soft skills, and a strategic view. Skills? Getting your hands on the customer’s organization chart (or reverse engineering it if one is not available) is just a first step. Figuring out where leveragable influence lies in a customer organization is another. Discerning and validating both the personal and business wins for that influencer requires even more skill and experience. Envisioning how to accomplish that and then communicating it to the other person comes next. Ultimately having an influencer or decision-maker convince themselves that being your ally is right for their company and for them? That’s how most of the biggest deals get won.
- Some sales trainers and sales training companies understand these issues. Many do not. That could be risky for you. Let’s say a training company doesn’t really believe that recommenders, influencers, and decision-makers can informally impact the strictest, documented vendor evaluation process. They think, for example, that when you sell in the public sector, you just have to follow the rules and that any policies prohibiting association with vendors overrides any possibility of relationship building. If you yourself don’t know how to overcome that challenge (companies do it all the time!) and the vendor can’t lead you in the right direction, you’re sunk.
- If relationship selling is a critical competency for selling your products and services, then it must be included in the hiring profile for whoever does the selling in your organization. We’re amazed at how companies complain that their reps can’t build leveragable relationships and continue to hire people with the same deficiencies. (Remember, if they don’t have the right traits, training can rarely help.)
What’s your position and approach with respect to relationships? Need an overhaul? Don’t wait.
Photo credit: Fotolia #17064658
Filed under: Buyers, Relationships, Sales Strategy, Sales Training Companies
Tags: relationship
















Dave,
I loved your take on the importance of relationships. After over 25 years in sales and sales management in the Fortune 500, I have found that most sales leadership tilts to process and features.
I am on Charlie Green’s team of Trusted Advisor Associates and appreciated the “trust” link you included in your blog. Charlie is a real thought leader on trust and his training programs (I must admit my bias) are a fresh change from the traditional methodology emphasis.
Don’t get me wrong Dave, a sales methodology is critical, so long as it leads to building trusting relationships rather than getting a “deal”.
Keep sending the message!
A strong methodology must include structure, learning and tools for understanding customer organizations–finding and building relationships with influencers, decision-makers and approvers. Trust is key, as we both said. My concern is those who think they can just go diving into a company, sucking up to some senior executive and hoping to win a deal.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by davidabrock, Craig M. Jamieson. Craig M. Jamieson said: A Few Words About Relationship Selling http://bit.ly/bZIAh [...]
Dave
I agree with your perspective wholeheartedly.
From what I have observed and believe, the relationship is the “glue” holding together a necessary sales process and product/technical training.
However, relationship selling is not “sexy” in the eyes of the executives and bean counters, compared to a sales methodolgy. Reason is it very difficult to measure. Unfortunately, when gurus like Drucker state “what gets measured, gets done,” the world follows.
When I moved to Asia 12 years ago, everybody said “relationship is the most important thing in Asia.”
True. No different than North America.
However I added a twist in my retort-”yes, I understand, but let’s take it one more step. Let’s add value.”
So yes relationship is probably the most important link in a successful sale, however not the only.
Trip Allen, Team Egyii, Singapore
Well, said, Trip. Thanks for the comment.
I agree with you – relationship selling is far from dead.
I think the trend that people who think it is dead see is a move to automated / web systems for procurement.
The reaction is often to try to move to automated systems entirely.
The problem I’ve often seen, however, is that those systems rarely (almost never) run themselves – if anything, they need someone to manage the relationship and manage the systems.
The two combined – relationships and automated systems – well executed, can be a very powerful combination.