Start With a Free Sales Funnel Consultation
|
If you're reading this, you've been handed a high-stakes decision. Maybe you're a VP of Sales who's been through this before and watched expensive training initiatives fail to deliver. Or perhaps you're an HR professional tasked with finding sales training despite never having sold anything yourself. Or you’re an Enablement professional seeking the best provider to partner with. Either way, you're facing the same challenge: there are TONS of sales training programs and most of them sound the same. They are all claiming "transformational results" and "proprietary methodologies." Lately they're pushing AI hard too with "AI-powered role-play!" "ChatGPT for sales scripts!" Meanwhile, your company thinks yet another tech solution will solve everything. It won't. Technology creates efficiency, reaching more people, tracking more data, but not effectiveness. Even sophisticated AI can't replace human judgment and genuine connection in complex B2B sales. This guide offers something different: a clear, research-based framework to cut through the vendor noise and make a defensible decision. You'll learn exactly what questions to ask, what red flags to avoid, and how to define success before you write a single check. Most importantly, you'll be confident in your decision, armed with the tools to choose training that actually delivers results.
|
When someone says "we need sales training," that's not a diagnosis. It's a symptom.
The real question is: What business problem are you trying to solve, and why does it need addressing right now?
If an organization has identified sales training as necessary, something has changed. Perhaps regulations shifted. Perhaps a competitor emerged with a disruptive offering. Perhaps the market came under stress. The critical question remains: What makes this problem worth solving right now?
And when sales leaders want training, the default answer is typically adding another tool to the technology stack. Tools can improve efficiency, and that matters. But efficiency and effectiveness are not the same thing.
Efficiency multiplies effort (you can send more emails, reach more people).
Effectiveness multiplies outcomes (you close more deals, increase deal sizes, improve margins).
Technology cannot replace the human skills required for effectiveness in complex sales.
Consider this: 43% of salespeople surveyed recently said their preferred method of customer interaction is email. Why? Because email is comfortable. It doesn't trigger rejection. Getting ghosted doesn't feel personal. Email is a "comfort answer", not an effectiveness answer.
To achieve true effectiveness, you must focus on the human factor. There is a large body of work proving that a single factor contributes most significantly to job satisfaction and productivity: task clarity.
As a leader, you can't just define the result you want (e.g., "sell more" or "make quota"); you must also clarify for your sellers how to do it. If sellers don't know how, they need training. If they know how but aren't executing well, they need coaching. Sales is a person-to-person business, and technology alone won't provide the clear path to mastery.
Understanding what drives sales results helps clarify where training can make a difference.
Rather than defaulting to "we need training," start by diagnosing which variable is actually constraining performance. The relationship is straightforward:
(Skills + Process + Company Knowledge) × Effort = Results
• Skills represent how salespeople do their work. Can they effectively discover customer needs? Can they handle objections without becoming defensive?
• Process defines the step-by-step approach and tools used to move opportunities forward systematically.
• Knowledge covers what salespeople know about their products, their customers' industries, the competition, etc.
These three elements are additive. But they're all multiplied by Effort, where sales managers and coaches become force multipliers. When managers understand coaching principles, they amplify the impact of skills, process, and knowledge.
This diagnostic framework reveals the right intervention point. Sometimes the constraint isn't skills at all. Sometimes it's improving manager coaching capability. Sometimes it's a clarifying process. The equation helps organizations avoid investing in the wrong solution.
Before evaluating any sales training vendor, answer this question: How will we know six months from now that we made the right decision?
If the answer sounds like a platitude ("we'll have more revenue" or "our close rates will improve"), the work isn't done. Success requires specific, measurable targets combined with observable behavior changes.
Define success in two categories:
Observables
Changes in behavior are visible before they show up in revenue metrics. For example, are salespeople asking different questions? Are they creating more comprehensive account plans? Are managers conducting regular coaching sessions? In other words, are their behaviors changing? These can be validated through call reviews and pipeline inspection.
Measurables
Quantifiable outcomes proving business impact. Forecast accuracy improved from ±15% to ±5%. Stalled deals dropping from 40% to 15%. Average deal size increasing by 20%. Quota attainment rising from 30% to 85%.
Often, observables evolve into measurables. Changed behaviors become habits, which drive performance gains that show up in KPIs.
The most effective approach: Choose the vendor that can isolate the smallest set of behavior changes that will produce the largest measurable business outcome.
One of our coaching clients came to us with a clear problem: "We have too many deals stalling in our pipeline and disappearing to no decision. We're consistently missing growth targets. Fewer than 30% of our salespeople are hitting quota."
Investigation revealed less than 20% of pipeline deals were legitimate opportunities. Salespeople rushed prospects into demonstrations before those prospects understood what problem they were solving. Sellers couldn't articulate what customers wanted to fix, accomplish, or avoid.
The training focused on qualification skills and systematic opportunity progression. Six months later: 85% of the team was at or above quota, the pipeline had minimal junk, and forecast accuracy was consistently within ±5%.
A similar situation occurred at a merged company where sales teams added numerous deals requiring technical resources for scoping. The organization burned through expensive resources on opportunities that weren't progressing. The solution established better qualification criteria and guardrails before engaging technical resources. Result: dramatic reduction in wasted effort and improved funnel velocity.
Both cases prove the same principle: Define the specific business problem, identify the smallest behavior change that will solve it, measure whether that change occurred and whether it produced the expected outcome.
Today's sales training market is flooded. With no barrier to entry, thousands of companies claim they can solve any sales problem. Four criteria separate legitimate training from expensive disappointment:
• Research-based content
• Reinforcement systems that create habits
• Tailoring to your sales reality
• Delivery flexibility
The most dangerous phrase in sales training: "I was a great salesperson, and I can teach you to be just like me."
It's a lie. They may even believe they can train someone to be like them, but it isn't true. Even genuinely successful salespeople rarely understand what actually drove their success.
Early research for Xerox Corporation illustrates this. Researchers interviewed top and average performers about their approaches. The groups described different behaviors. But when researchers observed both groups in real sales situations, they discovered top performers weren't doing anything they claimed in interviews. What they actually did was distinctly different from average performers, and they weren't even aware of it.
If elite performers don't recognize what drives their success, how can they teach it?
Legitimate sales training must be rooted in statistically valid research proving correlation between specific behaviors and sales outcomes. When vendors talk about "proprietary methodology," ask about its origin. If the answer involves war stories or the founder's sales career, be skeptical.
Today's market is crowded with acronym-based methodologies: SPIN, SNAP, MEDDIC, BANT. These can be useful as memory devices, but memorizing an acronym teaches nothing about application. Sales requires reading situations, adapting to buyer responses, building trust, and listening effectively. Static models don't capture this complexity.
Ask vendors:
• What research validates this approach?
• Can you show data demonstrating correlation between these behaviors and sales outcomes?
• How was this methodology developed?
If they become defensive or hammer their acronym without addressing research, that's a red flag. One word of caution: every sales training company claims their methodology is based on research. Dive deeper into what method of research was used. Things like interviewing sales managers to determine what their best are doing that the average fail to do, it is likely their results will miss many important elements.
Most people can't recall much from their college courses unless their career demanded ongoing application. That's human nature.
Changing behavior requires far more than attending training. It requires adoption and mastery built on practice, coaching, and reinforcement.
Organizations would achieve better results from mediocre content that's well-reinforced than exceptional content never addressed after the initial training has been completed. Yet most training follows this pattern: Salespeople attend training, return to their territories, get overwhelmed by daily urgency, and within two weeks revert to old habits. Beware of the vendor that offers a short “Manager Coaching course as the path to generating adoption.”
Effective behavior change follows a predictable ladder:
First, salespeople adopt new behaviors.
Second, through repetition and coaching, those behaviors become habitual.
Third, measurable improvements appear in KPIs.
Fourth, the organization can certify that salespeople have achieved mastery.
This reveals why post-training support matters more than training content. Ask vendors:
• What tools do managers receive to coach these new behaviors?
• How is reinforcement built into the weekly rhythm of sales management?
• What tracking systems help managers monitor adoption?
• What does your certification process measure: attendance or application?
If vendors focus exclusively on content delivery without addressing adoption systems, they're selling training, not results.
Adults learn best in context. Generic training produces generic results.
If role plays involve selling bulldozers, but the sales team sells SaaS solutions, salespeople mentally check out. Effective training must use the language and terminology the sales team uses daily. It means understanding their products, competitive landscape, and target buyers.
When role plays feel like a day at the office, learning accelerates. Salespeople leave with a tailwind because they've practiced in realistic contexts.
But tailoring extends beyond surface customization. It requires understanding the fundamental nature of the sale.
Companies selling into mature markets face different challenges than companies selling disruptive innovations. In mature markets, buyers understand the problem category. The seller's job centers on differentiation.
Sellers of innovative offerings face a different task. Buyers have no mental framework for what's being offered. The first job is creating a vision of possibilities buyers didn't know existed.
These situations require the same fundamental skills applied in radically different ways.
Ask vendors:
• How will you adapt this content to our specific products and markets?
• What process do you use to understand our buyers?
• How do your role plays mirror our actual sales situations?
If they respond with "our methodology works everywhere," they're selling one-size-fits-all training.
Modern technology enables flexible approaches beyond traditional classroom training:
Remote live delivery uses platforms like Zoom to bring facilitators and participants together virtually. Sessions run shorter and spread across multiple days, allowing time for application between sessions.
Hybrid approaches combine self-directed online learning with live virtual sessions. Participants complete online modules covering core concepts, then join live sessions to practice skills and discuss application.
Each approach has advantages. Classroom training creates focused intensity. Virtual delivery eliminates travel costs. Hybrid provides flexibility while maintaining accountability.
The key question isn't which format is universally "best." It's which format matches the organization's situation, budget, and learning culture.
Buying sales training means buying hope. Unlike purchasing equipment, training involves changing human behavior, an inherently uncertain outcome. Acknowledging this emotional reality helps buyers evaluate more objectively.
Warning signs triggering skepticism:
• Vendors who won't show training content before purchase
• Vendors hammering their acronym as though the mnemonics produces results
• Vendors making extravagant claims without supporting data
Confidence grows when vendors:
• Demonstrate genuine interest in understanding the business problem
• Provide clear definitions of observable behavior changes and measurable outcomes
• Show proven processes for reinforcement and coaching
• Position themselves as counselors, not sellers pushing for signatures
Two companies, similar in size and industry, both decided they needed sales training at roughly the same time. Their paths diverged dramatically based on how they approached the decision.
Company A assigned their HR director to find training. She gathered proposals from five vendors, all of whom sounded remarkably similar. Each promised "transformational results" and "proven methodologies." Under pressure to make a decision quickly for the upcoming sales kickoff, she selected the vendor with the most impressive client roster and the slickest presentation. The training featured an elegant six-letter acronym that salespeople were supposed to apply in every customer conversation.
The kickoff went well. The trainer was dynamic and entertaining. Salespeople left energized, armed with workbooks and quick-reference cards explaining what each letter of the acronym meant. Two weeks later, the VP of Sales asked her managers what was different. They shrugged. Nothing had changed. Salespeople were too busy closing quarter-end deals to think about applying a new methodology. The workbooks sat on shelves. The quick-reference cards disappeared into desk drawers.
Six months later, when the VP reviewed pipeline metrics, forecast accuracy, and quota attainment, nothing had moved. The company had spent six figures on inspiration that produced zero lasting impact.
Company B took a different approach. Their VP of Sales assembled his leadership team to answer one question: Why are we losing to a particular competitor more frequently than a year ago? The answer was clear. The competitor had introduced disruptive technology that made the traditional approach seem outdated. Company B's salespeople were defending their existing solution rather than helping buyers envision new possibilities.
The VP defined success specifically: "Six months after training, I want to observe our salespeople opening conversations by exploring business outcomes buyers didn't know were achievable. I want to measure a 25% reduction in losses to this competitor. And I want forecast accuracy to improve because we'll stop chasing opportunities where buyers are simply validating decisions they've already made."
With these criteria clear, the VP evaluated vendors differently. He eliminated those who couldn't explain their research. He dismissed those offering no reinforcement system. He chose a vendor who committed to tailoring every role-play to mirror actual competitive situations and provided a detailed manager coaching guide with weekly prompts tied to the new behaviors.
The training rollout was unremarkable. No standing ovations, no flashy acronyms. But something different happened afterward. Every Monday morning, sales managers spent 15 minutes in team meetings discussing one element of the new approach. They reviewed real calls, identifying successful applications and old habit reversions. The vendor conducted monthly virtual workshops where salespeople discussed actual opportunities and received coaching.
Three months in, changes appeared. Salespeople opened conversations differently, exploring business outcomes instead of leading with product features. Four months in, competitive losses began declining. Six months after training, the company hit every success metric. Competitive losses to that competitor dropped by 30%. Forecast accuracy improved by 12 percentage points. And the sales team had adopted the behaviors so completely that new hires learned them through observation before attending formal training.
The difference between these companies wasn't training content quality. Company A's vendor had fine material. The difference was how each company approached the decision. Company A bought training. Company B bought behavior change supported by a system for adoption and mastery.
Previous negative experiences are understandable. Most past initiatives failed because of missing reinforcement systems, lack of tailoring, or no clear success metrics.
Don't let past disappointments create blanket skepticism. Approach the next decision differently. Focus relentlessly on what salespeople will be doing differently six months after training ends.
When vendors cite client success statistics, ask:
• What specific behaviors changed?
• How was behavior change measured?
• What reinforcement system supported adoption?
• What role did the client's management play?
Legitimate vendors welcome these questions.
Being assigned to select sales training without sales experience can feel overwhelming. The four criteria don't require sales expertise. They require discipline in asking the right questions.
Start with fundamentals:
• What business problem is this training meant to solve?
• Why does this problem need addressing right now?
• What will we observe six months after training?
• What will we measure to validate business impact?
With those answers clear, evaluate vendors systematically. The vendor providing the most specific, substantive responses deserves serious consideration.
Organizations frequently use sales kickoffs to launch training. This can be effective if handled properly.
The advantage: Kickoffs create focused time when attention is concentrated. The risk: Time pressure undermines evaluation rigor.
If launching training at a sales kickoff, insist on:
1. Success criteria defined before the kickoff
2. A detailed reinforcement plan for post-kickoff coaching
3. Vendor commitment to post-kickoff support
Don't let kickoff timing override good evaluation.
The vendor who provides the most convincing answers to these questions should earn your business:
• How does your research validate the behaviors you teach?
• What system will you provide to help our managers reinforce and coach?
• How will you tailor this content to our sales environment?
• What observable behaviors should we see changing in 90 days?
• What measurable outcomes should we expect within six months?
Before committing, verify claims with references. Ask specific questions about behavior change, reinforcement systems, and measurable business impact.
This guide has equipped you with the framework to evaluate sales training systematically. Now it's time to see what research-based, practical sales training actually looks like.
Funnel Clarity is offering free access to a lesson from our award-winning Fearless Prospecting© program. This isn't a sales pitch disguised as training. It's a practical preview of a piece of the overall approach to filling a sales funnel with qualified opportunities. Like the entire library of best practice each of Funnel Clarity’s methodologies is rooted in research and designed for immediate application.
The 3x3 Research© approach demonstrates exactly what this guide advocates: specific, practical skills that produce measurable behavior change. The technique is simple: Find 3 unique pieces of information about a contact or company in less than 3 minutes that will surprise the contact that the seller can highlight. This creates curiosity in prospecting outreach and differentiates your salespeople from the dozens of generic emails prospects ignore daily.
This preview gives a “peek in the window” of training that meets the four criteria:
• Content based on research? The 3x3 Research© methodology emerged from studying what actually makes prospects respond to outreach, not from anecdotes about what worked once.
• Reinforcement and adoption support? The lesson includes practical application tools your team can use immediately, not just concepts to remember.
• Tailored to reality? You'll see how the technique adapts to different industries, company sizes, and sales contexts.
• Delivery flexibility? The online format lets you experience it on your schedule, from anywhere.
Experience the methodology firsthand and evaluate it against the four criteria before making any commitment. Start Your Free Training Preview.
