dulciusexasperis

I don't know what 'in previous role I managed a team of salespeople' is supposed to mean deniah. The question was are you a salesperson; bean counter; something else? In other words, what do you consider yourself to be based on your background? I have seen companies where someone who came up through the Engineering side or Accounting side of a company was put into a VP Sales position even though they had no actual sales experience themselves. So did you function at the pointy end of the Sales process or not? If you did not, then your perspective is not that of a salesperson regardless of how many actual salespeople you managed.

I went up through the ranks of Sales and first, last and always, think of myself as a Salesperson. So what are you deniah? A sales guy; production guy; accounting guy; engineering guy; etc.?

As for your anecdote, I fail to see what it has to do with anything. One person who did not do well for whatever reason means what? No one is suggesting that some individuals in whatever roles can act unethically. Office clerks regularly take home pens, pencils, staplers, etc. etc. and all of it is unethical. It also has no bearing whatsoever on a discussion of sales or expenses.

MaxBuck

Not really true.

Salespersons who sell primarily to government must operate under more rigorous (I don't accept "higher") ethical standards than those who sell to most private company cohorts. The notion that purchasing decisions are made purely on objective bases, though, even in government purchasing, is naive. If they were, there would frankly be little use for salespersons.

Sales is a relationship business. To the extent enjoyable experiences can be shared, that helps build relationships. If legal constraints are in place, those obviously must be obeyed. But talking about enjoyable shared experiences as though they're synonymous with "bribes" smacks to me of a particularly unpleasant form of priggishness.

dulciusexasperis

I can agree there are differences in terms of what kind of business people are in. We all know the image of 'used car salesman'. But I'm wondering if you kinda choked a little when suggesting government employees are held to a higher standard cbn42. There is hardly a day goes by that the media isn't reporting on some government employee (which includes every politician) having been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Government employees have as many unethical players as anywhere else.

What I hear you saying is that there is a culture of distrust that you find yourself having to work in. In your own words, "people are going to jump to conclusions. It's very difficult to prove that there was no undue influence." That indicates that you are deemed untrustworthy and deemed guilty until you prove your innocence. I would not want to operate in such a culture. By the way, you might want to use my term, 'inordinate influence' rather than 'undue influence'. Undue influence is a legal term that has to do with someone using position power to force a decision on another person. Not the same thing really.

Government employees are notorious in the private sector for having bad work habits and an ingrained expectation to be told what to do; watched while they do it and given no leeway to exercise judgement. In many companies, there is an unwritten rule that you don't hire ex-government employees. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would hire an ex-government employee for a sales role. I'm not saying that government employees don't try to do their job as best they can, I'm saying they have an entirely different idea of what that means and how they are supposed to do it.

Regarding 'his own ethics', yes that is what I am saying. But I am also saying, although I may not have made it clear enough, that I know that everyone is biased in their perceptions and that cannot be avoided. You write, "That is why we have fixed standards for ethics, rather than going based on perception." You may believe that but even with all the rules regarding not accepting any favours etc. that you operate under, you are still biased and will act based on your own perceptions and no one else's if you can. The difference is you rarely get to exercise your bias and that is not a good thing.

The problem with government spending is that you operate with your hands tied or at least believe you do. John Glenn famously replied to a question about what he was thinking when he climbed into the space capsule, "I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract."Attributed to John Glenn

Don't imagine for a minute that having 'fixed standards' and 'not going based on perception' is necessarily a good thing. Nor was John Glenn necessarily right. I never particularly liked working with government departments because they were simply 'hard work'. Harder than the private sector. But there are ways around their 'rules'. A government buyer is putting together a specification to go out to 'tender'. He has 3 salespeople calling on him for months in advance, pitching their product for the job. He perceives one of them to be a 'snake oil salesman' and he does not trust that the product he is pitching is as good as the other 2 and will do as good a job. So what does the buyer do? He writes a specification that includes something the other 2 can do but the third can't. He does that based on his perception and subsequent bias. I have had government buyers ask me, 'how can I keep company X out of the running?' Simple, add a requirement they can't meet.

Now, if the government buyer does that, did he act unethically? Or did he act in the way he believed was best for the government and the public they serve? I say he acted ethically given the rules he is forced to act under. Would you buy a part for a space capsule you didn't trust to perform as required? 'Not my job to make sure it will work, just my job to accept the lowest bid.'

Regarding 'inordinate', again we all are influenced and act on our perceptions. They cannot be avoided. Therefore by definition, there is always an influence caused by our perceptions and yes, as long as it is not 'excessive' it is perfectly fine. As above, if you think a salesperson is going to sell you an inferior part if you let him, you have a choice to make and that choice has come about because of your perception of that person. It would only be if you let your perception of that person become an 'inordinate' influence in your buying decision that it would be wrong. If his product and every other measurable factor was as good as anyone else's but you simply didn't like him personally, that is not a reason to not buy the product. But not liking someone is not the same as not trusting someone is it.

As for delivery, interest and quality all being business concerns, that is correct. But they are not the only business concerns, they are simply some that are the more obvious and measurable more or less. There are other equally as important business concerns that are not necessarily as apparent and/or measurable. If you as a government buyer buy a product because it is the lowest bidder, how do you justify the ethics of that to yourself if they use child labour to attain that lower price? If your government puts a company on a 'blacklist' for political reasons, how do you ethically justify to yourself not buying their product if it is superior and at a lower price? And tell me, if someone (your boss/government) uses 'undue influence' to force you to make that kind of decision, does that not impact you personally? It should. Or should the buyer fall back on, 'well, that really wasn't my decision to make and my conscience is clear.'

Business Ethics as a subject is one that is not studied by many students before entering (or after) the workforce. Perhaps it should be. It is not a simple subject and certainly not 'black and white' as some here seem to think it is. There are plenty of links on the topic of Ethical Sales that can easily be found using Google. Here is one: https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesm...es-management/

The first paragraph may surprise some people. As might this comment in the article, "Taking a customer to play may be a different story; such a game may be a time to strengthen a relationship, as long as the customer does not feel manipulated or obligated."

Note the 'customer does not feel' cbn42. His perception, no one else's.

dulciusexasperis

I think you are avoiding the question I asked. But somehow, I'm not surprised by that.

dulciusexasperis

I think what many posting here have difficulty understanding and may be naive about MaxBuck, is the 'relationship' part of the equation. They seem to think you just show up, show a product, quote a price and that's it.

I also think that in some cases of comments made here even by those who are in 'sales', they aren't even aware of the differences within the broader umbrella that 'sales' covers.

I have sometimes tried to explain the difference for example between a salesperson who is an 'order taker' vs. a 'real' salesperson. A pharmaceutical salesperson for example may travel around a given territory calling on a given number of buyers and 'taking their orders' on a regular basis. They don't actually 'sell' anything other than in the broad sense of the word, they just take 'orders'. I'm not suggesting all pharmaceutical salespeople work that way, I'm just giving an example of an 'order taker'.

A good example of a 'real' salesperson at at level many would not expect to encounter it, happened to me some years ago. I needed to take a client to see an example of a product working in the same environment as the client's situation. It happened that to do so we needed to fly to Dallas, Texas. I asked my secretary to book flights for the client and myself. She jokingly said to me, 'Oh, that's where Neiman Marcus is. You would put a big smile on my face if you brought me back a gift from there.'

So the client and I visited the site to see the product etc. and before catching the flight home, I had some extra time to kill. I remembered my secretary's little joke and thought to myself, 'why not visit Neiman Marcus and get her a little something. Play out her joke and have a little fun.' Off I went to Neiman Marcus. I had no idea what to get her of course. So I headed over by the perfume and cosmetics etc. area of the store and then thought, 'perfume, no too personal and too expensive. I just want something relatively small, inexpensive and fun.'

A saleswoman approached me and said the usual, 'can I help you?' I explained my secretary's little joking remark to me and my wish to play it out, as well as my criteria. She said, 'I think I may have the perfect answer. She then showed me a package with 3 tubes of toothpaste. Three different coloured tubes with different flavours, all in a flashy metallic finish and with the store's Neiman Marcus name written boldly along the length of the tubes. An 'exclusive' Neiman Marcus product priced at $25 for the package. She then said to me, 'if she is going to have a smile on her face, she'll want to show off her sparkling teeth.' I laughed and said, I'll take it.'

She then said to me, 'if you would like, I can have them put in a Neiman Marcus gift box and gift wrapped for you at no charge in our Gift Wrapping department. It will just take about a half hour if you have any other shopping to do or just want to look around.' So I agreed to that also.

So what did this salesperson really do? First, she ascertained what I wanted in terms of a problem to be solved. It was not a gift, it was to play out the joke. Then she took that joke and came up with an 'out of the box' solution that fit perfectly. Toothpaste for the smile. While doing this, she sold me 3 tubes of toothpaste for $25! But it was a win/win nevertheless. I got exactly what I wanted and when we get what we want, we do not mind the other party getting what they want. In this case, her company made a tidy profit no doubt on 3 tubes of toothpaste. How many people do you think could sell you 3 tubes of toothpaste for $25?

But then she took it even farther with her offer of free gift wrapping. She got me to stay in the store for an additional 30 minutes! Time in which while wandering around, there was a reasonable possibility that I would see and purchase something else. Again, a win/win. I got free gift wrapping and her company got an extra 30 minutes of my time in their store.

That young woman was a 'real' salesperson, not just an order taker.

Needless to say for anyone who wants to know the end of the story, my secretary loved her present and went around for at least a week with a big smile on her face. First because she appreciated the joke and second because she could tell all the other secretaries the story as if she was telling them about the 'joke' when in reality she was letting them know how she was treated vs. how they were treated. Jealousy or making someone else jealous is a great motivator. Do you think I didn't know what she would do with the story and that I wasn't consciously 'selling' her on my own behalf as being 'a great boss'? But that was just another win/win. She won, I won.

Of course it didn't make me too popular with the bosses of the other secretaries. LOL

gfunkdave

I love the story about the toothpaste!

Here's an example: I recently issued an RFP for construction services for a town that has won federal funding for its telecom project. Our government contact for the funding told us we couldn't specify any brand names as being required, but another company that has already won the service contract for the project really wants a specific brand of equipment installed. The government told us that their preferred way around this was to write the requirements such that only the preferred brand would fit them. Which is what I did.

In my experience, bureaucracy is an organization's defense mechanism that evolves where the organization determines average employees can't be trusted. I agree with @dulciusexasperis on this: sales is about relationships, and taking people to dinner, tennis, golf, etc are perfectly valid ways of building those relationships.

Eltham

mdkowals

You highlighted a point I was trying to make earlier. It is the person spending the "real" money, i.e. the customer, that sets the ethics of the situation.

If ABC sales corporation wants to spend $500/person trying to woo reps from company XYZ, let them. They're accountable to their shareholders. Shareholders who would be absolutely ecstatic if that few thousand dollars help land a multi-million dollar contract.

Now, if the shareholders of company XYZ catch wind that a few thousand dollars worth of extras spent on some mid-level manager is what swung the decision to spend a few million dollars of their money, they may be pissed. But, it's up to the managers and employees of XYZ to manage that. In fact, company XYZ will probably set rules on what can be received as entertainment - as part of their obligation to their shareholders. Violation of those rules will get you in trouble with the company, not the law. Of course, the training on these rules fit in with all other 'ethics' type discussions that actually do have legal implications (don't bribe officials in Western countries, don't fill in quality data you don't actually know the values for, etc...), but entertainment and relationships with sales?

XYZ will set the policies on what employees can receive, and how high up in the organization you need to be to bypass them (the reason all sports stadiums have skyboxes - mostly for corporate entertainment). But this has to do with controlling the actions of lower-level employees, under the name of 'ethics' more than anything.

Now, if company XYZ is a government agency this becomes a problem. Because now the shareholders are the entire taxpaying public, who don't really have the choice to sell off shares of their government if they don't like how business is conducted. Also, since this is government, things that are just a matter of policy at private company XYZ, are in fact laws at government agency XYZ - just be definition.

dulciusexasperis

And you have avoided it yet again. It is not off topic at all. Someone's perspective is based on the world they live in and see things from. My perspective comes from my background in Sales. Where does your perspective come from Eltham? Are you concerned that if you say what your background is it will affect your credibility? If so, you're right, it will. But so does being unwilling to disclose it.

dulciusexasperis

My bolding above.

Back in the days of desktop computers (laptops were not common yet), I put together a Word Doc. that was titled 'Typical Specification'. I called on many consulting engineering companies and in-house Engineering Departments of major companies in fields like Pulp and Paper; Oil Refining; Steel Manufacturing and others in the Process Industries. Many of the individuals I called on were required to write Specifications to be used when going out for bids on control systems for their processes. Many of them would be starting from scratch as the technology being used was transitioning from Electronic to Digital technology.

So I would often offer to give them a 'floppy disc' with the 'Typical Specification' on it and tell them that as it was a Word Doc. they could use it as a beginning template to edit to fit their own requirements. It was indeed a 'typical' document which saved them the time of figuring out layout etc. and let them get right to specific requirements. They just had to slot them in to the appropriate places and/or edit what was already there. For example, it might include 'all data is to be transmitted and constantly updated to the operator at no less than .5 seconds.' More often than not, they would leave that in their final Specification. It eliminated some major players systems.

It didn't mean they couldn't bid, it simply meant they had to take 'exception' to that criteria and provide their alternative answer. So in their bid under Exceptions, they had to write something like, 'Section 4.10, data transmission to be provided at a speed of 2 seconds per update.' Or, 'updates will be transmitted to the Operator when a change in reading occurs.' Thus highlighting their lower update speed or lack of constant updates. It would be up to the Customer then to decide if that was acceptable or not to them. It also provided the Customer with an easy way to justify a choice of one Supplier over another.

Needless to say, the 'Typical Specification' had quite a few of these kinds of things included in it. Served me well for a couple of years until most potential users of it had got up to speed on having a 'boilerplate' cut and paste Specification of their own. Of course, some people might consider this a 'dirty trick'. But it did help the Customer and any of my competitors was free to do the same. It did not in any way result in a Specification that would not get the Customer a system designed to do what they wanted it to do. It was indeed a win/win for the Customer and for the company I worked with. The only 'losers' were our competitors. That's part of what my job was. Never confuse win/win as including competitors. Win/win is between a buyer and a seller only. LOL

Speaking of Specifications, I once had to respond to a Specification that included a requirement that no system could meet. Not ours, not any competitor's system. The Engineer who wrote the Specification simply didn't realize he was asking for something that did not exist. That meant that all those bidding on the project would have to take exception to the requirement. It isn't easy to write an exception to a requirement in a way that can be made to sound positive or acceptable obviously. But if you know none of your competitors can meet that requirement any more than you can, it's easy to not worry about it too much and just go ahead and write something simple like, 'Item 4.10 not included in this proposal.'

Before taking exception, I phoned the engineer who wrote the Specification and asked for clarification. I asked, 'when do you require this part of the system to be implemented?' His answer was, 'we will need to collect data for a year and then begin this reporting function.'

I went to our R&D Department and asked, 'how long would it take you to develop an answer to this requirement. Could you have it available in a year'? As it happened, this requirement was in fact a sensible next step in the evolution of the product line and they were already working on it.

In our bid, under Exceptions, I wrote, '4.10 to be provided not later than X date and at an additional cost of $Y.' I had to leave the addtional cost out of our base bid as it would obviously have put our price considerably higher than the competitors bids. But we were the only bidder to include the requirement at all rather than just saying, 'don't have it, can't do it.' We got that order and delivered the additional requirement on time, one year later. That order was known in company lore as, 'The product we didn't have Order'.

After the bids were in, the Engineer who wrote the Specification called me to arrange for me to come to a meeting and expand on our response, to the people involved in the buying decision. Large ticket items are usually decided not by one person but by several people in a company. At that meeting I told them quite honestly that we did not have that functionality in our system 'on the shelf' at present. But we were already working on adding it and were confident we would have it within a year. They would be the first to use it, putting them ahead of their competition in that regard and as our first user, we would expect to provide support above and beyond the norm to insure we got anybugs out of it as quickly as possible. That additional support would be provided by us at no additional charge as we would view it as being our responsibility under 'Beta Testing.' We got the order and not only got the order but if you think about it, we got a larger order with no competitive bids for the addition! We also got a test platform for a new product. It is often hard to get a company to agree to be the 'guinea pig' for a new product.

Here is the key point though gfunkdave. They would not have given us the order if they did not trust us to deliver as promised. Sales is as you say, about relationships. Decisions are made by people and if they do not see you as playing win/win and trust you, they do not buy from you. Developing those kinds of relationships is often done at lunch or on the golf course etc. and not in more formal business meetings.

pinniped

LOL. I got one of those a couple months ago on a $20 lunch receipt. The worst part was the entire date *was* on the receipt in one place, but there was a 2nd place on the receipt that just had month/day and the auditor couldn't be assed to actually look at the entire receipt.

So basically, the guy was accusing me of visiting that exact city exactly one (or more) years ago for non-business purposes, having lunch across the street from our office, filing away the receipt for a year (or more), and then plotting a trip back to this location at exactly the right time to use it on this expense report.

Eltham

cbn42

Salespersons are still needed to inform buyers about relevant products, answer questions, and prepare bids for evaluation. With the government, the lowest bid that meets the stated specifications almost always wins. If it doesn't, there has to be some valid reason and a process has to be followed to make an exception. This is about as objective as you can get.

If the "enjoyable shared experience" has a legitimate business purpose, then that's fine. If a salesperson takes a buyer to dinner to discuss a product, I don't see anything wrong with that, within reason. If a salesperson takes a buyer golfing at a fancy club, I can't see that as anything other than a bribe, because it has no bona fide business purpose.

The difference is that government employees have a harder time covering their tracks. Expense reports, bids, and sometimes even private communication such as e-mail are considered public information and can be obtained through freedom of information laws. The media loves a juicy corruption story, so it's much harder for government employees to get away with these things.

You think that having to justify how you spend someone else's money creates a "culture of distrust"? I call it a culture of accountability.

Of course we all have biases and there is no way to completely eliminate bias. However, the idea is to minimize it as much as possible.

Why is it not a good thing that you don't get to exercise your bias? By definition, bias is undesirable.

Agencies usually have staff that evaluate products to make sure they are up to standards. Requests for proposals usually have a detailed set of requirements that products have to meet, and the contract will include penalties if the products do not perform as claimed. Buyers, who usually have no technical knowledge, should not be deciding which companies are trustworthy. While this system is certainly not perfect, I think it's much better than the system you describe, in which you get to exercise your own bias.


How exactly does playing golf with someone help you determine if you can trust them to deliver a product as promised?

If you want to know whether someone is trustworthy, you would ask them for examples of their prior work, contact their other customers for references, etc. Playing golf together may help you decide if the person is likeable, but likeable does not mean trustworthy. And even if the salesman is trustworthy, that doesn't mean his employer is.

Proudelitist

I don't disagree. I see the need for a categorization for "ENTERTAINMENT", especially in sales. However, it should be strictly regulated and come from a set budget that keeps the sales people from abusing it, or taking it to a level that could be construed as an unfair business practice in a court. What's more, it should never be used to woo government contracts. Trade laws are VERY strict on this point, and government employees are forbidden from accepting such things.

In terms of employee abuse, it some business cultures it is the rule, not the exception. If you allow your sales people carte blanche in the name of winning sales, you are going to see that open policy be used for their personal lives. If you allow them frequent expensive dinners, you are going to see those dinners with their FAMILIES as guests, not potential clients or customers. You are going to see their cards used while they are on vacation. You are going to see their personal bills paid with the cards. I have seen all manner of abuse come out of the sales side: Cruises, vacations, family meals, parties, prep school tuition..

And no, it doesn't matter if you think you are entitled to it because you are an amazing sales person and bring in X amount of dollars to the company. What matters is what THE COMPANY thinks you are entitled to. They set the rules, you don't get to decide that you are entitled to it.

dulciusexasperis

Nonsense. Please provide a link to where I wrote that I believe, 'it is OK to get anything through expenses'. You're becoming ridiculous in your attempts to twist things to fit your accusations. I said a salesman knows how to get anything through expenses. Nothing more, nothing less. That does not say anything about doing something unethical.

You seem to have the perception that saying a good salesperson can get anything through expenses let's you assume somehow it is saying they will get unethical expenses through and I think that is OK. That is apparently your perception but it does not make your assumption correct. If you perceive the ability to do something unethical means the person will do something unethical, all you are doing is jumping to a conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever as to that person's behaviour being ethical or unethical. If you say you can pick up a gun and shoot someone, should I conclude that you will do so? You have the ability to do so, does that mean you will do so?

Nor does your perspective come from your morals and ethics. Your perception of things comes purely from your mind and while most people often simply accept a common perception of something, others control their perceptions. You may see a mountain as an insurmountable obstacle. Someone else simply sees a bump in the road. They are both seeing the same thing but one chooses to ignore the common perception and find a way to look at it differently. Perception is within the individual's control. Most people of course don't control their own lives, they let others control it for them. But I'm not here to teach you how to control your perceptions. That's entirely up to you to do or not do.

https://www.elitedaily.com/life/moti...tive-runs-life

This ability to control perception in sales is easily illustrated by a simple 'sales story'. Two competing shoe manufacturers each sent a salesperson to look into the potential for new sales in some far off country. One salesperson sent a message back, 'no potential market here, no one wears shoes.' The other salesperson sent his company a message that read, 'unlimited market here, no one has shoes'.

A salesperson is paid to find a way to look at what most see as a mountain and reduce it to a simple bump in the road. In regards to expenses specifically, they are never more than a bump, easily overcome when necessary. The salesperson may may think the bean counters are putting a mountain in the way of getting the salesperson's job done by asking them to produce a receipt for a $6 lunch as one poster above wrote about, but it is only a mountain if the salesperson sees it as one. When someone starts a post about 'expense scrutiny', they are suggesting they see expense scrutiny as a mountain. I have never seen expense scrutiny as a mountain. Scrutinize my expenses all you want, you will not find anything unethical and if you try to get in the way of my doing my job, by asking about a $6 lunch or even a $300 bottle of wine, you will discover what it would be like to get run over by a train.

So what I am saying to those who are having difficulty with their expenses being scrutinized, is stop seeing that as a mountain and start figuring out how to change it to a little bump in the road which is hardly even noticeable at all.