Skip to content

Sales productivity

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 Sales Coaching: How to Stop Rescuing Deals and Start Developing Salespeople

There is a dangerous moment in the growth of many B2B companies. It happens when the best salesperson becomes the sales manager.

The promotion seems obvious. This person consistently exceeds quota, understands customers, knows how to close difficult deals, and has earned the team’s respect. Who could be better qualified?

Six months later, that same person is personally rescuing the team’s largest opportunities, handling difficult customer objections, negotiating with executives, and keeping the forecast alive.

The company’s revenue looks healthy. The owner is satisfied. The sales manager appears indispensable.

And that is precisely the problem.

The company hasn’t developed a scalable sales organization. It has become dependent on one talented individual. Artificial intelligence offers an opportunity to change this pattern. But only if we rethink what sales management should accomplish.

The Difference Between Managing Deals and Developing Salespeople

Traditional sales management relies heavily on inspection and intervention. Managers review pipeline reports, examine forecasts, enforce activity requirements, and intervene when opportunities get into trouble. These activities are necessary, but they are not the same as coaching.

Consider a salesperson who confidently announces during a pipeline review that Mary is the Champion for a major opportunity. The manager suspects that Mary is simply a friendly contact who likes the product. An experienced manager might join the next customer meeting, take control of the conversation, and personally secure executive support. The opportunity might close. Unfortunately, the salesperson hasn’t developed the ability to identify and validate a real Champion.

A better manager asks a different question:

“What has Mary actually done that proves she is your Champion?”

Has Mary introduced the salesperson to important stakeholders? Has she explained the customer’s internal decision process? Has she advocated for the solution when the salesperson wasn’t present? Has she taken any personal risk to help the opportunity advance? If the salesperson cannot identify meaningful actions, the relationship remains an untested hypothesis.

The manager’s next responsibility isn’t to take over. It is to help the salesperson determine how to test that relationship. That coaching conversation improves the salesperson’s judgment, potentially affecting every future opportunity.

The objective of sales leadership is not to make the manager better at closing deals. It is to make the entire team better at closing deals.

Read the rest of the article…

AI Sales Automation: Why Your Chatbot Is Not a Sales Process

Imagine preparing for an important customer meeting. You open your favorite AI assistant, give it the prospect’s name, and ask for a summary of the company’s business challenges and the questions you should ask. Within seconds, you receive a beautifully written briefing. The assistant identifies potential operational problems, competitive pressures, and several opportunities to demonstrate the value of your solution.

There’s just one problem. One of those impressive insights concerns an acquisition the prospect supposedly completed last year.

Except the acquisition never happened.

The artificial intelligence fabricated a plausible business event and presented it as fact. Had you trusted the briefing, you might have opened your meeting with a question that immediately damaged your credibility.

This scenario illustrates a much larger problem with how B2B sales organizations use AI.

We’re asking artificial intelligence to perform too many different kinds of work without distinguishing which tasks require intelligence and which require reliable execution.

That distinction matters more than the sophistication of the AI model you choose.

The Problem Isn’t Just Hallucinations. It’s Process Design.

Salespeople increasingly rely on ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and other Generative AI applications to prepare for meetings, research prospects, write follow-up messages, and analyze opportunities. Those are legitimate applications of AI. In fact, I’d question why a salesperson with access to these capabilities wouldn’t use them. But consider what happens before the salesperson receives a useful answer.

They retrieve information from their CRM, gather previous meeting notes, identify stakeholders, check pricing, and reconstruct details from previous conversations. They paste everything into their AI assistant, ask a question, verify the response, and correct any mistakes.

Tomorrow, they repeat the process for another customer.

The AI may have improved the quality of their analysis, but the underlying sales process remains largely manual.

When twenty salespeople independently reconstruct the same process every day, you don’t have an AI adoption problem. You have a sales management problem.

You’re paying experienced professionals to repeatedly assemble information that your existing systems should already provide.

The solution isn’t necessarily better prompting. It’s better workflow design.

Read the rest of the article…

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…

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…

Reclaim Selling Time: How AI Eliminates the Sales Tax and Restores Pipeline Momentum

Most sales leaders are trying to solve a 2026 productivity problem with 2010 management logic. They hire more people, increase activity targets, and apply pressure to the same system. The system doesn’t respond because the constraint isn’t an effort. It’s architecture.

The operational reality is brutal: administrative work is consuming the day and choking selling time. Reps are stuck doing low-level research, logging notes, and stitching together follow-ups across disconnected tools. That “sales tax” creates a momentum gap between good conversations and slow execution. The outcome is predictable: fewer high-quality touches, slower deal movement, less accurate forecasting, and a pipeline that looks busy yet remains fragile.

The fix is not another round of tactical efficiency. It’s a structural reversal: move from a human-led, tech-assisted model to a tech-led, human-centric model. In that design, AI does the machine work—data extraction, workflow orchestration, logging, drafting, hygiene—and the human seller does the work that actually wins deals: judgment, stakeholder navigation, risk reduction, and credibility in the moments that matter.

Think of it as building a Cognitive Revenue Engine. Your reps stop being the engine. They become the orchestrators of an automated engine that produces consistent execution at scale.

This shift has two pillars.

Tactical Efficiency is your time reclaimer. Automate the tollbooth moments: post-call notes, CRM updates, basic research, and first-draft follow-ups. This is not about saving a few minutes. It’s about reclaiming hundreds of hours per rep per year and converting them into customer-facing time.

Strategic Intelligence is where the advantage compounds. AI should be used as a decision partner, not a faster typewriter. The questions change from “Can you write this email?” to “Given this account’s context and our past wins, what risk is most likely to stall this deal, and what’s the next best action?” That is the difference between activity and impact, and it’s the difference between noise and revenue generation.

Read the rest of the article…

From CRM Debt to a Cognitive Revenue Engine: Reclaiming Selling Time with AI

Most B2B sales teams don’t have a talent problem. They have a capacity problem.

Administrative drag is quietly stripping selling time: CRM updates, stakeholder mapping, duplicate cleanup, meeting summaries, and the constant “what should I say next?” work that should not be consuming a senior seller’s day. The downstream damage is bigger than annoyance. Forecast accuracy declines, coaching becomes reactive, and revenue management turns into a negotiation with incomplete data.

Artificial intelligence can fix this, but only if you use it with the right operating model.

Benjamin Todd’s article “How not to lose your job to AI” makes the point that AI doesn’t simply eliminate jobs; it shifts where value concentrates. As routine tasks become cheap, the remaining human bottlenecks become more valuable. Todd’s ATM example is the cleanest version of the idea: ATMs reduced the need for “money counting,” but the overall demand for human banking roles didn’t collapse. The job shifted toward customer-facing work and higher-leverage conversations.

In B2B sales, our “money counting” is CRM entry, list building, and manual research. Our high-leverage work is business acumen, strategic influence, stakeholder alignment, and value selling. The problem is that most teams have it backwards: humans do the hardest input work (research, logging, hygiene), then AI writes the customer-facing messages. That combination produces drained sellers and generic messaging.

A better model is: Automate the input, humanize the output.

Read the rest of the article…

Instant Follow-Up in Field Sales: How AI Eliminates Post-Meeting Lag

Field sales doesn’t lose deals in the meeting. It loses deals after the meeting when a buyer asks a high-stakes question, you promise to “get back to them,” and the response shows up after the moment has passed. That delay kills momentum and quietly downgrades you from advisor to administrator.

In 2026, the buyer often has access to comparable information. Your differentiation is contextual insight delivered with speed. If your follow-up arrives hours later (or worse, it arrives days later), you’re not doing value selling, you’re doing cleanup. That’s the Administrative Tax: notes, recap emails, CRM updates, and retrieval work that should not be done manually by your highest-paid revenue generator.

Artificial intelligence changes the operating model. The goal isn’t “better summaries.” It’s an Instant Field Response: capture what matters in the room, retrieve the right internal assets, and draft a precise follow-up while you’re still in the parking lot. When AI handles the science (capture, entity recognition, semantic search, and drafting), you reclaim the art: listening, reading intent, and leading the decision.

Read the rest of the article…

Why AI in B2B Sales Fails at the Last Mile and How to Fix It

Most conversations about AI in B2B sales focus on speed. Fewer focus on control. That is the blind spot.

AI can produce drafts, summaries, research, and follow-up frameworks in seconds. That part is real. But the final 20%, the last mile, is where revenue quality is either protected or destroyed. That final layer requires human judgment: context, timing, risk assessment, and the decision of what should happen next.

The central operating issue in sales today is not effort. It is an allocation. Too many high-value salespeople are spending prime hours on low-value administrative work. CRM cleanup. Internal updates. Document hunting. Manual transcription. Reformatting information that should already be structured. That is a sales management design flaw, not a rep discipline issue.

When sales organizations fix this, performance changes fast. More customer-facing time creates more trust-building interactions. More trust creates better access, stronger positioning, and better conversion outcomes. This is not theoretical. It is how revenue generation compounds in real markets.

The right model is not “AI only.” It is a hybrid model: deterministic automation for correctness, AI for speed and language quality, human oversight for business judgment.

Deterministic systems should control anything that must be exact: pricing, contract elements, offer logic, approval rules, and data integrity. AI should then layer natural language, personalization, and messaging refinement on top of verified inputs. This is how you scale value selling without introducing preventable errors.

If your team is still using AI as a standalone drafting tool, you are under-leveraging it. If your team is sending AI output without last-mile review, you are overexposing the business. The goal is not automation theater. The goal is repeatable, high-confidence sales processes that increase throughput without compromising trust.

Read the rest of the article…