Comments on: Can a Kinder, Gentler Sales 2.0 Rep Still Make Quota?

By: Mark Steffenson

Mark Steffenson — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:16:28 +0000

My feeling is that the labeling of “Hunters” and “Farmers” when referring to salespeople demonstrates flawed thinking on the part of management as to the function of Sales in their organization.
Both hunters and farmers are typically roles that function as individuals. And by lableing salespeople as one or the other it perpetuates the idea of the lone salesperson driving sales and revenue.
The reality is that businesses of any size should not leave the most vital function of their business to an individual or individuals.
Sales and Marketing need to be built into the entire infrastructure of a business with strategies, systems and processes that get attention, create an audience, nurture leads and close sales regardless of any one individual and their strenghts or weaknesses.
I think that despite the label of a 2.0 sales rep that is really what effective companies are developing is more of a strategic and relevant engagement and communication stream with their audience and potential customers.

By: Barry Trailer

Barry Trailer — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:49:52 +0000

Your posting raises another question in my mind: whether the titles/distinctions of “hunter” and “farmer” are still relevant today? As you note, process oriented and relationship builders consistently report better results in our research, still leaving room for personal style.

Two quotes from CSOs typify why I think these labels are less useful over time. In line with Phil’s comment above, one CSO said of one of his aggressive top producers, “He leaves a lot of ‘broken glass’ in his wake but it’s easier/chearper for me to pay to have someone (i.e., customer service) follow behind him sweeping up than trying to fix him.”

Another CSO lamented his hunters’ idea of hunting was, “Sitting on the back porch drinking lemonade and shooting whatever happens to walk by.”

In today’s instantly connected, globally communicating world, I doubt the first CSO would continue to find his approach “cheaper,” or that the second would consistently meet quota. As I’ve said repeatedly in talking about Sales Mastery and in writing about Sales Management 2.0, the sales manager’s role is to jointly develop with each (and EVERY) rep, a coaching plan focusing on the single sales behavior that when improved would have the highest payoff.

Once this is done, the NEXT behavior is focused upon, and so on. It never ends, that’s what continuous improvement and lifelong learning is all about–irrespective of personal style and/or current quota attainment.

And this approach applies equally to hunters and farmers, A-B-&-C Players, Eagles and Journeymen and whatever other labeling system you choose.

By: Geoff Alexander

Geoff Alexander — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:06:14 +0000

I think the best reps have elements of both approaches, Anneke. Sometimes “farmers” can be waaay to consultative. Back when I ran a retail operation, I had two reps soliciting our business. One guy kept walking in the door with monster catalogues, expecting me to look through them as I was busy running the shop, working with customers, etc. The other rep called me from New York, said he had product to ship, wanted the address, and gave me the price.It took about 60 seconds. Guess who I ordered from?
For today’s reps, I’d say do your Sales 2.0 stuff well, just don’t forget to get the order.

By: WBeaty

WBeaty — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:52:22 +0000

It’s an interesting debate and one that Phil Lauterjung sums up well.

Just as sales people might tend toward one or the other, so too do the preferences of managers. It’s pretty easy to tell which side of the coin falls on, when somewhat loaded words like “gentler” are used to describe what someone else might describe as “consultative.”

There’s no right or wrong in this debate, but understanding the potential long-term impact of a too-aggressive Hunter (or too-friendly Farmer) is a must.

Good stuff.

By: Phil Lauterjung

Phil Lauterjung — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:35:55 +0000

I have had experience in working with, and managing, both types of sales reps as defined in this article. My experience is that the “hunter” type can be very effective in the short-run, but also ends up putting tremendous pressure on the rest of the organization to fulfill the “promises” made to the customer. The “hunter” usually ends up alienating most of the organization and leaving to go to another company after a few years, or less.

On the other hand, I have also seen “farmer” types also be ineffective as well. They can have a tendency to rely too heavily on incremental increases from existing accounts and not really pursue new business.

My preference has been to find people with a combination of the most positive skills found in each type. They are harder to find with the skill sets in place; but I have also found it’s far easier to teach a “farmer” the positive skills of a “hunter” than the other way around.

Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too, but it takes a corporate structure and value system that supports sales producers while focusing on the customer. Those are usually the companies that CSO Insights calls out as the most successful.