DC Strategy ArticleStrategy

Most people reading this article will be glad to see the back of the year that was 2009. Like many other businesses, yours was probably characterized by one word: survival. But while the past year saw the acronym GFC (global financial crisis) come into daily use, over the coming financial year, history will be re-written and that acronym will morph into the GFO - global financial opportunity.

Let us begin with a quick overview of 2009. The survival mentality that characterized the GFC can be broken down into some specific behaviours that characterized businesses. The mantra 'risk rules the bank' was bandied around the financial sector, but most industry verticals shared the following attributes:

Risk aversion. Every business needs to take risks to grow and stay relevant. An attitude of conservatism may see business staying the course in terms of profitability in the short term, but the impact on medium to long-term growth will eventually hit mard. Businesses that fall into the trap of not investing in innovation and growth will be unlikely to recognize the need to change themselves due to inertia, but will be forced to do so by competitors. However, change ar this point in most dynamic industies could be too little too late as the mindset of an organization still reeling from a year like 2009 could be difficult to alter without drastic measures.

Downsizing by attrition. An interesting phenomenon happened during 2009. During most economic shocks, companies in serious financial difficulties are forced to slash expenses as quickly as possible and the line item that dominates most profit and loss sheets is salaries and wages. During 2009, however many companies did not choose the knee-jerk reaction of retrenchments, but chose instead to let staff expenses naturally decrease through attrition, as well as employment of other strategies such as reduction of work hours or pay.

Cost control. The need to maintain profitability saw a relentness drive towards cost reduction as most businesses saw their sales figures decrease. Apart from the abovementioned staff expenses, businesses scrutinized their expenditure in more detail that they ever did before. Creditor finance saw payable days stretched to the limit and training travel were significantly reduced, if not completely expunged, from many organizations.

It seems like an obvious thing to say, but the road to recovery in the new financial year will be led by one thing alone: an increased focus on sales that is genuinely understood and embraced by every department in an organization.

The recognition of sales as the key driver of business growth is recognized and actioned by only some departments: sales, marketing, the executive and business unit leaders (those that manage a full profit and loss). The rest of the organization understands the need for sales, but does not truly embrace it or demonstrate behaviours that are in full support of it. Production can resist sales due to the increased workload. Customer service can believe they are left to 'clean up the mess' after empty promises are made by sales. Human resources may not see how their department can assist with a sales effort. Even finance, a department that is closer to the figures than any other, can think of itself as a support centre that relies on the 'hunters' rather than a department that can measure and motivate.

So how does an organization engender a sales focus across every department? By changing the key metrics of every department so that they align with and support key drivers of sales. When an organization needs to grow through sales, often the measures and incentives are only implemented in the sales department, but every department has KPIs (key performance indicators), most of which remain fundamentally unchanged even when the focus of the organization has significantly shifted.

For example, how could a production department achieve more of a focus on sales? KPIs for production typically focus around time, cost and quality. Time and quality are usually linked in that the time to complete a given job is reflective of the level of quality that is required of the finished product. However, for the same amount of resources used, if the KPIs for time and quality were relaxed, a greater number of jobs could be completed within the same timeframe.

This man sound at complete odds to most organizations' philosophy; surely a reduction of quality might result in more capacity, but will ultimately lead to dissatisfied customers - a short-term gain for long-term pain. However, this view fails to consider a few key factors that will shape the new financial year. Companies and the people within them will have a propensity to spend, as they have held off on investment for too long, therefore, the market opportunity for all industries will increase. If you can increase capacity without capital expenditure, you clearly stand to gain significantly.

Also, the KPI change does not need to be written in stone. Many businesses made themselves extremely unpopular by cancelling Christmas parties in 2009. However, no-one is expecting this practice to continue in financial year 2010/11 simply because it happened the previous year. Similarly, with a change in KPIs, no-one wants to be producing poorer quality products or delivering poorer quality service for an extended period of time, but there are few better ways of increasing the war chest than increasing revenue with no commensurate increase in cost for a period of time. And that increase in cash will provide the company with the opportunity to invest in its people and capital, revert its KPIs back to what they were previously and, hopefully, demonstrate to all departments that the need to be flexible and change behaviours to suit the wider environment actually produces results that can pay dividends for that firm that can be ultimately repaid to that department.

Rainmakers in any organization are a double-edged sword; their ability to generate sales is undisputed, but the heavy reliance on individuals (most of whom completely eschew even the concept of structuring, let alone documenting their sales process) means the organization does not capture their knowledge. In the worst case scenario, if they were to leave the organization, not only would they take their future revenue and possibly current clients, but more importantly, the organization loses the ability to learn from them, 'bottly' their strengths and ultimately replicate it across the organization.

What is the best way to go about this? Firstly, understand that the aim is not necessarily to apply structure to the top sales performers in any organization. This approach will inevitably be counterproductive; top salespeople are notoriously unstructured and any attempt to apply process may result in a decrease in performance, or worse, resignation. The aim is to observe, document and measure the things that these people do day in, day out, with the aim of assisting average or below-average performers to lift their game.

If the answers to these questions are non-existent, vague or unsatisfactory, then it is probably a good indication that the sales force (whilst possibly meeting targets) is heavily reliant on individuals and the lack of structure means sustaining their success without key people could be exeedingly difficult. Additionally, and perhaps more problematically, attempting to replicate their ability accross the entire organization - including external parties such as channel partners - become a near-impossible task. Sturcturing the sales process can begin as easily as asking these few key questions and then setting the challenge for the sales force to permeate their influence across the rest of the organization - a challenge surely no salesperson would refuse given half the opportunity!

This is true at every management level in the organization. Now is the time to critically review the quality of leadership, as the first quarter of any calendar year sees the game of musical chairs play out in most industries. The challenge is in keeping the talent you want to retain and seeking to transition or replace indiciduals that have not demonstrated an ability to grab opportunity themselves and also inspire their teams to do the same.

To illustrate how this can be achieved, let us use the above example of engendering a sales focus across the entire organization. One way to implement such a strategy from the top down is to survey middle management and solicit ideas for how they would implement a sales focus in their department. The responses should emonstrate who in the organization will embrace the opportunities the new year will provide. Tardy response times, 'box-ticking' answers or justifications as to why changing KPIs is less than desirable are good indications of managers who are either burnt out or lack the mindset or motivation required to grow a business.

For simplicity, managers can be divided into two camps: the enablers, those who have the belief and drive to make the growth vision happen; and the disablers, those who will let status quo or past behaviour preside over the pressing need for the company to grow.

Enablers should be retained at all costs during this phase, with either promotions or incentives, but care should be taken to link any incentives to the successful execution of the sales vision to ensure people are rewarded for results, not for effort.

Disablers, on the other hand, could cause more damage to the vision, not only by their lack of participation but also because of the potential influence on their teams and their peers. It is a difficult thing for any organization to let people go, particularly when most of the senior management communication will need to have a positive slant to support the vision of growth. However, dealing with disablers swiftly and before any communication regarding the new growth plan is delivered will ultimately signal to the organization that the changing of the guard heralds a new era for the company and those who choose to remain and drive the growth will ultimately participate in the spoils.

Seeking new channels and optimizing the focus within channels to market should be areas of focus for any organization, despite the prevailing economic conditions. However, channel strategy is particularly important for companies embracing growth, as the sales effort (now supported by the entire organization) will maximize results if applied to the largest and most profitable channels to market.

Continuing our example above, the organization is now focused on sales at all levels and has the right leadership team in place to execute. How does it tackle the market? First, an identification of channels to market is necessary. Many organizations are very good at segmenting their customer base (typically the role of marketing), but very few companies are as good at defining their channle strategy (typically the role of sales). Simply listing a scompany's channels to market is a good place to start; let us assume we employ a direct sales force, channel partners and online. Next, a breakdown of sales by channel can identigy where most of the revenue is coming from. Finally, an analysis of cost of sale (direct sales expenses divided by number of units sold) for each channel now produces margin by channel. This high-level approach usually identifies the low-hanging fruit; the channel with the greatest revenue should generally be the one that is expanded, whereas the least profitable channel should either be optimized by reducing the cost of sale or possibly even closed if those resources can be easily diverted elsewhere.

In the above example, if our sales force drives the majority of our sales and our channel partners are costly due to the incentives that need to be offered to motivate them, then the sales force should be expanded and channel partners either need to be refreshed or the incentive scheme that drives their performance should be reviewed, preferabley by an independent party.

Anatural question to ask regarding the above scenario is what about products? Surely some products work better through some sales channels than others and an enhancement or expansion of a product line may bring new revenue opportunities. Whilst this is true, product strategies (whether it is upgrades, enhancements or new product development) generally take time and a significant amount of investment. This is a luxury few companies can afford in the first half of the new financial year as the competition for customers intensifies.

There is plenty of opportunity in the marketplace, particularly when the growth in 2010 leading into the new financial year looks to be a self-fulfilling prophecy since so many people are willing it to be a better year than 2009. One thing is for certain: strategies employed to keep companies afloat in 2009 simply will not work over the coming twelve months, as cost cutting in most organizations has seen them cut to the bone, which means the only way to continue to drive profitability will be through a growth in sales.

Additionally, people within an organization will simply move on if they do not believe that there is room to grow within the company, which could mean that those with the most motivation to drive a sales plan could be the first to depart.

Implementing practical solutions such as the ones outlined above could make the difference between the first half of this year being an extension of what took place in 2009 or a true start to a financial year bursting with opportunity.

George Argy

George Argy is a Senior Consultant at DC Strategy.

DC Strategy is the region's leading specialist consulting and legal firm. Our specialist teams in Strategy, Franchising, International and Legal have developed the networks and brands of many of the region's most successful businesses. Contact George Argy at george.argy@dcstrategy.com

www.dcstrategy.com