I have been hearing a lot of excitement from clients lately about the idea of delivering "virtual" sales training sessions. It has been coming up a lot in conversations, frequently enough that it is already time to raise some red flags. We need to be careful with this excitement, and not allow the it to overwhelm the reality, nor, importantly, to overwhelm the impact of these sessions. (In the interest of full disclosure, before I begin, some of the excitement is, indeed, coming from me.)
Let's define what I'm talking about first. When I say virtual sales training (VST) sessions, I am talking about replacing face-to-face training/coaching/in-field support, with a virtual interaction. This generally takes place via a Web-Ex- or NetMeeting-like technology, allowing individuals to gather around a common desktop or slidedeck. The session is synchronous, meaning that the attendees are all present at the same time, all can contribute, discuss, ask questions etc. That's enough of a definition for now.
One more thing, though: I don't want to get caught up in the argument of "Good virtual learning is better than bad face-to-face," or vice versa. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that we're discussing good versions of both. Arguing that good skills development programmes are good, and bad ones are bad, is something that takes up a surprising volume of space in blogs and discussion groups, but gets us nowhere. Onward.
Probably the first, and largest, red flag is the context in which VST is discussed. Most of the time it comes up around a discussion of doing more with less, and virtual sessions are immediately introduced as a way to save money. This has been particularly true during the global financial crisis (or, as Saul Eslake rightly calls it, the North Atlantic Financial Crisis) where budgets have been cut, costs slashed, people retrenched. VST comes in to save the day: we can do the same amount of training, but save heaps on travel and room hire, etc. 'Not only that, but the team doesn't need to be out of the field for 2 days in a row! We can run 4 x 2-hour sessions and get the same result!' (Yes, I have heard virtually that same quote from a client).
The second red flag comes when people start talking about how VST delivers the same thing as face-to-face interaction. Through the magic of technology, we hear, the experience is the same. One client even said that the only difference between VST and a classroom session is that with VST you can't have drinks together afterward! Someone in the room suggested they could have virtual drinks instead - ha ha!
The third flag comes when people discuss how easy VST is. People are used to virtual sessions, now, they say, and the results just come. This is a variant of the classic 'If you build it they will come' argument, tweaked to say, 'If you VST it, their behaviours will change.'
And the final flag (for now) pops up when people discuss that they have moved their course from face-to-face to VST. This is worrying when the discussion implies that it is a straight port across, or that all they had to do was eliminate a few things that "wouldn't work virtually".
So what's my point? I'm a big fan of VST, and I think it is a very useful past of a sales development programme. But we have to be realistic. Many conversations I have heard with clients or with people in the sales effectiveness space sound an awful lot like the conversations we had back in 1999: face-to-face training is dead, long live online training. The truth was, and is, much more complicated.
Here's the truth: VST is hard, just like any effort to build the skills or change the behaviours of salespeople is hard. And VST will fail, just like other approaches, if it isn't combined with good upfront communication, defined measures goals and metrics, coaching and reinforcement, systemic support, and reporting. So instead of jumping on the bandwagon and declaring that VST is the answer to all questions, and the solution we've all been looking for, focus on making sure that VST fits into a larger picture plan of how you're going to support whatever you're doing via VST, and change behaviours in the field.
Above and beyond the above, VST requires thought. Creating VST is not just a process of using the same slide deck, the same discussions, the same exercises. Effort needs to be put into creating a session that works in a virtual world, leveraging the advantages (and avoiding the pitfalls) therein. There will likely be lots of commonality, but a sure path to poor results is when your VST session maps 100% onto something done face-to-face. VST is different – and that’s a good thing – and needs to be thought through.
Thinking of VST as a cheaper way of doing things condemns us to the same mistakes as was made a decade ago with online training, and 20 years ago with Computer Based Training. It *may* be cheaper, and it *may* be overall more cost effective, but the key thing is not the cost, it is the outcome. Again, VST is *different* and needs to be understood and discussed as such. The focus needs to be on getting good outcomes from the inputs, not just saying 'VST is cheaper'. There’ll be lots of space in other posts to discuss some of the keys to what makes VST different, and how to take advantage of that.
The deeper truth, of course, is that VST is one element that probably has its place in almost any sales development project. It should be included as a possibility in most programmes, and eliminated or included on its own merits. The more tools and technologies that we use to develop skills and embed behaviours, I believe, the better.
But my honest and heartfelt warning remains: don’t just jump on VST because it is the latest thing, or the cheapest thing, or the only thing that you can afford. Look deeper, think harder, and you will more than likely be on the right path.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment