BUSI 372 Week 7 Discussion Board Forum 4 Example

Discussion Board Forum 4: Managing the Sales Team

BUSI 372 Marketing and Sales, Discussion Board Forum 4 Thread and Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The forum prompt and the classmates' threads are composites; the research cited is real.

Salesperson turnover is the most costly problem many dealership sales managers face, and it is not simply the price of a demanding job; it follows from hiring, training and pay decisions that managers control.

Dealers routinely underestimate what turnover costs. Shaw et al. (2005) studied turnover across organizations and linked quits to weaker workforce performance and found the harm steepest at low turnover levels, when the first seasoned employees walked out. On a sales floor, each departure takes with it customer relationships, product knowledge and the trust of the remaining team, and the replacement will need months to reach the same level. A store that loses half its salespeople each year is constantly operating with beginners, and customers notice when the person who sold them a car has left before their first service visit. The manager, meanwhile, spends hours interviewing and training replacements instead of coaching the people who stay.

Training can shorten that learning curve, if it is designed well. Arthur et al. (2003) combined dozens of training evaluations and found solid average gains in learning, job behavior and organizational results, with effects that depended on how the training was designed and delivered. A new salesperson who spends the first week shadowing experienced colleagues, practicing the walkaround and learning the store's pricing policy will perform better and feel more confident than one handed a desk and told to watch the lot, and confidence in the first weeks is often what keeps a new hire from quitting.

Pay structure matters as well. Lazear (2000) showed that a switch from hourly wages to per-unit pay at an auto glass installer lifted output substantially, partly because the plan attracted and kept more productive workers. The same logic cuts the other way for dealerships: a pay plan that offers new hires little predictable income drives away people who might have become excellent salespeople before they have a chance to learn. A commission-only plan selects for people who can afford to wait, not for people who will sell best.

Two remedies follow. First, a ninety-day onboarding program with a written schedule: product and process training in the first two weeks, supervised customer contact after that, and a weekly coaching conversation with the sales manager throughout. Second, a transition pay plan that guarantees a modest draw or salary for the first three months, phasing into commission as the new salesperson builds a customer base. Both cost money up front, but they are cheaper than replacing salespeople every few months. Managers should track ninety-day and one-year retention of new hires as closely as they track units sold, so the program can be judged by results.

Reply to Jordan

Jordan, your thread recommended sending new salespeople to the manufacturer's product training before they meet customers, and product knowledge clearly builds confidence. Research suggests one addition that could make the training pay off. Blume et al. (2010) reviewed studies of training transfer and found that conditions at work, above all supervisor support and the opportunity to apply new skills, were closely tied to whether training carried over to the job. A salesperson who completes product training but returns to a floor where the manager never asks about it may forget much of it within weeks, especially details about trim levels and options that customers ask about most.

That points to pairing formal training with coaching. Arthur et al. (2003) found that training effects on job behavior depended on design features, so a manager who follows the manufacturer's course with ride-along walkarounds and role-plays reinforces what the course taught. Even fifteen minutes a day of practice on the lot, with a manager playing the customer, could greatly increase the value of a week in a classroom. A month with a seasoned mentor would give each new hire the peer support the research points to.

Your plan to track product certification is a good start, and it gives the manager a clear record of what each salesperson has learned. Could you add a measure of whether trained salespeople actually use the walkaround with customers, perhaps by asking customers in the delivery survey whether the salesperson demonstrated the vehicle's features?

Reply to Abigail

Abigail, your thread argued that new salespeople need daily feedback from their manager, and frequent contact is valuable in the first months. Research adds a caution about how that feedback is given. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) reviewed a large body of feedback studies and found that feedback improved performance on average, yet a sizable share of feedback interventions made performance worse, especially when it focused on the person instead of the work. Telling a new salesperson they are not a natural closer may do more harm than saying nothing.

Feedback works best when it is specific and tied to behavior, and when it is delivered soon after the event while the details are fresh. A manager who reviews a lost deal and points out that the salesperson never asked about the customer's trade-in gives the salesperson something to change. Feedback also affects whether people stay. Rubenstein et al. (2018) found that factors such as job satisfaction and the quality of relationships at work were among the meaningful predictors of whether employees left, so the tone of daily feedback shapes turnover as well as performance. A new salesperson who hears only criticism in the first month may decide the job is not worth the struggle, even if the criticism is accurate.

Your daily huddle idea could become the place for this kind of feedback. Would you have managers share one specific improvement and one specific success with each new salesperson every day, and record them so progress is visible over the first ninety days?

References

Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234

Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Lazear, E. P. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review, 90(5), 1346-1361. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.5.1346

Rubenstein, A. L., Eberly, M. B., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2018). Surveying the forest: A meta-analysis, moderator investigation, and future-oriented discussion of the antecedents of voluntary employee turnover. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 23-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12226

Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 50-68. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.15993112