Skip to content

decisions

What An MBA Didn’t Teach You About Sales

The sales profession is challenging. You need to work hard at it to succeed. You need to learn from the best. You need to improve your skills continuously. If you think you can sell since you are a hit at parties and have a lot of friends, you may soon find that you are a failure as a salesperson. Blunt truth:

because the sales profession is so hard, you have to focus on doing everything in sales very well, or you will be considered a failure.

I call this blog, Skinned Knees because I try to relate all of the learning that I have done over the past 4+ decades (while skinning my knees in the learning process).

I hope that you learn from my mistakes so that your business will grow!

AI Prospecting Agents: Build More Pipeline Without Adding More SDRs

One of the more frustrating realities in modern sales is that a company can invest heavily in technology and still leave its best salespeople doing work that should never require their time.

The CRM is open. So is LinkedIn. There is an intent-data platform in another tab, a contact database in another, a sales engagement platform somewhere else, and perhaps a conversation intelligence tool running in the background.

The company has a technology stack. What it may not have is a prospecting system.

That distinction matters.

A collection of tools still depends on someone remembering which accounts matter, noticing when a former champion changes jobs, deciding which buying signals deserve attention, researching the account, moving information between systems, writing the message, and following up. When people are the integration layer connecting all those systems, the company has not really automated prospecting. It has simply given its salespeople more software to operate.

The Prospecting Advantage Has Changed

Traditional outbound sales was built around scarcity. Finding contact information, researching a company, and uncovering a credible reason to approach someone required significant effort. That made volume difficult and valuable.

Artificial intelligence changed those economics.

Today, generating another email is nearly free. Finding another prospect is relatively easy. AI can produce hundreds or thousands of messages faster than a sales team could ever review them. That does not make those messages valuable.

When volume becomes inexpensive, volume stops being a competitive advantage. Relevance becomes the scarce resource.

We need to evolve our systems away from asking, “How can we send more outreach?” Rather, we need to be thinking of, “How can we identify the people who deserve our attention right now and give our salespeople something useful to say when they contact them?”

A modern prospecting system therefore has to answer five questions continuously:

  1. Who should we pursue?
  2. Why should we pursue them now?
  3. What should we say?
  4. Which channel and timing gives us the best chance of engagement?
  5. When should a human salesperson enter the conversation?

The fifth question is particularly important.

Read the rest of the article…

Your Sales Compensation Plan Is Quietly Managing Your Sales Team

A salesperson reaches the final week of the quarter with a major opportunity ready to close. Legal has approved the agreement. The customer is prepared to move forward but asks for a 15 percent discount.

The salesperson understands what the discount does to margin. So does the sales manager. Finance knows as well. Yet the salesperson is measured on revenue, the manager needs the deal to make the quarterly forecast, and neither is directly rewarded for protecting margin.

The discount is approved. The deal closes. The commission increases. Everyone celebrates.

The company may have just paid someone extra to give away its profit.

No one acted dishonestly. The compensation plan worked precisely as designed. That is the problem.

Compensation Is a Management System

Most companies treat sales compensation as an administrative process. Leadership creates a plan, finance calculates payments, and managers resolve disputes when the numbers do not match expectations.

That view misses the strategic role compensation plays.

A compensation plan influences which customers salespeople pursue, how aggressively they discount, whether they favor one-year or multi-year agreements, how they collaborate, and whether they prioritize new business, renewals, margin, or market share.

What the company pays for will eventually outweigh what its leaders say they value.

Many sales leaders inherited plans that accumulated years of exceptions, temporary accelerators, regional variations, product overlays, split-credit rules, and special arrangements. The resulting spreadsheet may be technically functional while being strategically incoherent.

The warning signs are familiar:

Salespeople maintain private spreadsheets because they do not trust their commission statements.

Managers spend time resolving payout disputes instead of coaching pipeline.

Quotas are created by adding a percentage to last year’s number rather than analyzing territory potential.

A handful of top performers benefit from every contest while most of the team decides the competition is irrelevant.

These are not motivation problems. They are design problems that consume selling time, reduce margin, and erode trust.

Read the rest of the article…

The Buyer’s Clock Starts Before Your Sales Team Notices

A buyer does not become urgent when your CRM creates a record. The buyer became urgent earlier; at that moment, they decided the problem was worth interrupting their day for.

That distinction matters because too many B2B companies design their inbound process around internal workflow rather than buyer momentum. A prospect searches, compares, reads, evaluates, talks to a peer, visits your site, reviews your proof, and finally raises their hand. Then the company they contacted responds as though the buyer has agreed to wait patiently while marketing automation, CRM routing, territory logic, rep availability, and inbox notifications sort themselves out.

That is not a speed problem. It is a revenue system problem.

The real issue is not whether a sales rep should call faster. Of course they should. The deeper question is whether the business can detect, interpret, prioritize, enrich, route, and respond to buyer intent while the buyer still cares. When the answer is no, the company loses revenue without realizing it. The lost buyer does not announce their departure. They simply book with someone else, cool off, or decide the issue can wait.

This is why inbound orchestration deserves executive attention. High-intent inbound activity is not a generic lead flow. A demo request from a target-fit company is not the same as a newsletter signup. A pricing inquiry is not the same as a content download. Treating all of them as “leads” may simplify reporting, but it destroys commercial judgment.

When every lead looks the same, nothing feels urgent.

Read the rest of the article…

How Bad CRM Data Breaks AI, Sales Processes, and Pipeline Growth

Most sales leaders do not have a prospecting problem. They have a data-confidence problem disguised as a prospecting problem.

The team is working. Reps are calling, emailing, sequencing, researching, and updating the CRM. But when the data is stale, duplicated, incomplete, or legally questionable, every downstream motion becomes weaker. Outreach gets slower. Messaging becomes less precise. Sales processes become harder to manage. Forecasts become less reliable. AI recommendations become faster, but not necessarily smarter.

That is the real issue with B2B sales intelligence today. Too many companies still evaluate data providers with a phonebook mentality. They ask who has the most contacts, the biggest database, the broadest coverage, or the lowest cost per seat. Those questions are easy to compare, but they rarely answer the question that matters: will this data perform against our ICP, in our market, inside our sales stack?

Artificial intelligence raises the standard. AI tools depend on clean, structured, identity-resolved data. If the CRM has three versions of the same person, five versions of the same account, outdated titles, invalid email addresses, disconnected phone numbers, and inconsistent fields, AI will not fix the problem. It will operationalize the problem.

Identity resolution is the missing discipline. It is the ability to recognize that the same person or company appears across multiple systems and create one authoritative record. Without it, lead scoring, personalization, enrichment, intent data, pipeline analysis, and Revenue management all become suspect.

This is why sales management must treat data infrastructure as a strategic operating issue, not a software-administration issue. Bad data burns money in several directions at once. You pay for the data subscription. You pay reps to manually verify what the subscription should have solved. You pay sales operations to clean up the mess. Then you lose revenue because your team is working on bad records while competitors are already in the right relationships.

Read the rest of the article…

AI Will Not Fix Sales Problems Built on Fragmented CRM Data

Most sales leaders are asking the wrong question about artificial intelligence.

They ask which AI tool to buy, which platform has the best features, which automation will save the most time, or which sales technology will help their reps move faster. Those questions matter, but they are downstream from the real issue.

The more important question is: Does your CRM provide AI with enough trusted context to make useful recommendations?

If the answer is no, the next tool will not solve the problem. It will accelerate the confusion.

AI cannot reason well from fractured data. If account history lives in email, proposal tools, LinkedIn messages, spreadsheets, call notes, support tickets, and half-completed CRM fields, the AI is not operating from a complete commercial picture. It is guessing from fragments. A faster guess is still a guess.

That is why the CRM must evolve from a passive system of record into an active system of action. The old CRM was built to store yesterday’s activity. The modern CRM has to help shape tomorrow’s decisions.

A strong CRM foundation gives sellers a complete account context before a call. It helps managers understand pipeline risk without relying only on rep opinion. It allows AI to recommend next steps because the recommendation is grounded in actual customer history, not generic sales theory. It gives the organization leverage because the patterns learned in one deal can improve the next similar deal.

Read the rest of the article…

Compelling Events: Shorten Sales Cycles & Improve Forecasts

Deals move when the buyer’s business calendar forces a decision.

A real compelling event is the operating discipline that separates pipeline from possibility. It gives urgency a business reason, attaches dates to consequences, and forces both sides to decide whether the opportunity deserves serious time, resources, and executive attention.

Many salespeople confuse need with urgency. That mistake creates bloated forecasts, stalled proposals, and too many “just checking in” follow-ups. A prospect can have a real need and still have no reason to act now. They may need

  • better integrations,
  • stronger reporting,
  • reduced churn,
  • tighter compliance,
  • faster workflows,
  • a cleaner technology stack.

Those needs matter, but they can live on a roadmap indefinitely.

A compelling event changes the conversation because something meaningful happens by a specific date.

  • An audit is scheduled.
  • A contract expires.
  • A board commitment has been made.
  • A market launch is tied to revenue.
  • A facility lease ends.
  • A regulatory requirement becomes enforceable.
  • A major customer is at risk.

These events create pressure because delays have consequences beyond the buying team’s preferences.

That is the standard. A compelling event has a date, an owner, and a consequence.

The Difference Between Interest and Commitment

Interest sounds productive in a sales conversation. Commitment behaves differently.

Interested buyers will schedule meetings, request demos, review capabilities, and discuss future-state improvements. Committed buyers will help you understand the decision path, expose internal constraints, validate timing, and clarify what happens if the outcome is missed.

The difference matters because your forecast depends on the customer’s decision reality, not your sales activity.

A compelling event gives you that reality. It tells you why the buyer is engaged now, who owns the risk, what business outcome must be protected, and which internal processes must be navigated to get there. Without that clarity, the opportunity may still be real, but it should be treated as unproven.

Sales leaders should inspect this with discipline. “They are excited” is not a compelling event. “Budget season” is not enough. “They want to modernize” is too soft. The better question is: what changed in their business that makes inaction costly?

That question protects your time and the buyer’s time.

Read the rest of the article…

Zombie Deals in B2B Sales: How AI Improves Forecast Accuracy and Coaching

Zombie deals aren’t a pipeline nuisance. They’re a leadership problem with a math problem attached.

A deal that sits in “Proposal” for months doesn’t just cloud your forecast. It steals capacity. Every hour a rep spends nurturing a flatlined opportunity is an hour not spent creating new demand, advancing real deals, or improving customer trust. Multiply that across a team, and you get the same symptom every quarter: missed numbers, reactive hiring decisions, and management time wasted on interrogations that create more friction than clarity.

The common response is predictable: more pipeline discipline. More required fields. More approvals. Longer forecast calls. More “updates.” That feels like control, but it’s usually just activity theater. It increases administrative drag and reduces selling time, exactly the opposite of what revenue management needs.

The fix is a mindset shift: move from intuition to evidence.

Read the rest of the article…

The Dual Blueprint Requirement: Why Growth Demands Two Plans, Not One

Launching a company or steering one through a merger, turnaround, or major transition requires clarity about how value will be created and, just as importantly, how revenue will actually be generated.

Many leadership teams recognize the need for a Business Plan, but overlook that sustainable growth requires a second, complementary plan. The main breakdown is not the strategy itself, but the assumption that strategy automatically creates revenue. Bridging strategy and revenue requires a distinct plan for that conversion, targeting a different audience.

The Business Plan sets direction from the top down. The Sales Plan is validated by demonstrating how that direction can become actual revenue from the bottom up.

Both are essential. Neither works in isolation.

The Business Plan: Charting the Course (Top-Down)

The Business Plan exists to answer specific questions for a particular audience. Its primary readers are CEOs, CFOs, bankers, private equity partners, and venture investors. These stakeholders are evaluating risk, scale, and return. They want to know where the company is going and why the destination is worth the journey.

At its core, the Business Plan articulates strategic intent. It defines the mission, the long-term objectives, and the differentiated value proposition that the company believes the market will reward. It frames the opportunity in language that aligns leadership, capital, and governance.

Market analysis in this context is necessarily high-level. It focuses on the total addressable market, industry dynamics, competitive positioning, and macro trends. The goal is not to explain how every deal will be won, but to establish that a meaningful opportunity exists and that the company has a credible right to pursue it.

Financial projections follow the same logic. They are built on broad assumptions: projected market share, average selling price, renewal and retention rates, inflation, and multi-year revenue targets. These numbers are directional. They signal ambition and scale rather than operational certainty.

Read the rest of the article…

Admin Drag Is Killing Your Sales Capacity: How to Reclaim Selling Time With AI

Episode 23 of “AI Tools for Sales Pros” is built around a reality most leadership teams have started to feel in their gut. Buying AI does not increase revenue. It might increase activity, content volume, and dashboard noise, but revenue generation improves only when you reclaim selling time and redeploy it into the actions that move deals forward.

The executive version of the problem is simple. Your tech stack cost keeps rising. Your board wants proof that those investments translate into pipeline quality, cycle-time reduction, win-rate improvement, and improved margins. “Are we getting value?” is the polite question. “Where is the revenue?” is what they ask when patience runs out. This is a revenue management problem, not a software problem.

Most B2B companies are operating with a hidden productivity ceiling. Salespeople spend roughly a third of their time on revenue-producing work. The rest disappears into administrative drag: CRM updates, transcript cleanup, internal coordination, re-entering data across tools, searching for collateral, chasing security documentation, fixing records, and managing handoffs. None of that is value selling. Most of it is friction disguised as “process.”

A useful way to see it is the Tollbooth Effect. One approval feels reasonable. One form feels harmless. One handoff feels like good governance. Together, they turn selling into paperwork. The rep has a strong discovery call and a clear hypothesis. Momentum is real. Then they hit the toll plaza: systems require updates, internal teams need briefings, fields need to be filled, and the same information gets retyped because two systems disagree on the truth. By the time the rep finishes paying the tolls, urgency has cooled, follow-up becomes generic, and the deal loses its edge.

Read the rest of the article…