Recently volunteering at a job seekers workshop I was presenting in a room with a dynamic young recruiter. He was quite impressive and clearly successful in his role acquiring talent for an Atlanta based Life Sciences organization. Little did I know that he would completely change my perspective about LinkedIn and the advice I now give EVERYONE, especially job seekers.

I was surprised when he shared with the group that he won’t consider anyone for a position with his company unless they have at least 2 recommendations on their LinkedIn page. He was very clear and defended his position brilliantly.

What an eye opener! I fall into the young at heart yet not young category and like many in my generation have come late to the social networking scene. I was on LinkedIn because it was expected, but I was not engaged.

As a business owner I found myself pondering this – If this young man doesn’t consider job seekers based on their LinkedIn profile in all probability he is using a similar filter for engaging consultants like me.

His message was clear – When it comes to LinkedIn play or pay.

I left that evening committed to spreading the word to job seekers that LinkedIn is a place for full engagement.

Now I realize there are people out there who will say that what this young man is doing is unfair, shortsighted, and quite possibly could be discriminatory and I won’t disagree with you. I have learned through the years that absolutes can be very dangerous and find myself challenging them regularly at this phase in my life. But let’s face it. He is the filter his employer has chosen to determine who is considered for executive positions so what he is doing is, well – absolute.

Volunteering that evening changed my life.

With job seekers I have become an evangelist for LinkedIn. You may not be aware that LinkedIn has quite successfully marketed their product to recruiters. Increasingly I am meeting recruiters who are using LinkedIn as their exclusive recruiting resource. While they may not require a candidate have 2 recommendations as a price of entry LinkedIn is where they are going to find their candidates.

I have been challenging the recruiters I coach to make sure they are not missing talent based on some personal filter that has become a rule for them.

I have fully engaged with LinkedIn. I get it. Being there is not good enough. I am writing recommendations for people who deserve them, reconnecting with people I haven’t touched in years, and quite frankly having a ball building new relationships. It is now the first site I go to in the morning and the last I check at night.

Finally I am about to start asking for recommendations. So if you know me don’t be surprised if you hear from me!

Don’t jump on board…Jump in! It’s not too late!

Written by Suzanne Travers

Why are good hiring practices important, in particular for sales?

First, because hiring is expensive. Research show that out of pocket costs for hiring a salesperson average about one year of salary. This includes costs such as:
1: Recruitment & selection fee’s
2: Advertisement
3: Interviewing
4: Training & coaching
5: Productivity (revenue) loss due to learning curve

Secondly, poor hiring, particularly for sales functions, is even more costly. It not only includes the dismissal costs and re-hiring costs but also the cost associated for missed revenue and a possible negative impact on the team performance!

Thirdly, there is a direct relation between the variability of job performance and the importance of good hiring practices. If the variability of job performance is zero, then every candidate would achieve the same performance and hence no selection is necessary. On the other hand, if the variability is high then only well selected people with the right skills, personality and behavioral traits perform well. Because the variability of job performance for sales functions is very high, the importance of adopting good hiring practices is very important.

Good hiring practices not only depends on determining the right skills & traits someone must possess, but also on having the right methods in place to identify those skills and traits. I will elaborate on effective selection methods in my future blogs but here are some common mistakes made when hiring salespeople:

1: Relying on job interviews.
Research consistently show that job interviews have a very low predictability. Some even find that a typical interview increases your chances of choosing the right candidate by less than 2 percent.

2: Not knowing what to look for.
There is no such thing as a typical sales job. If there is one thing that almost 100 years of research has learned it is the fact that the factors that can predict success strongly depend the content of the sales job.

3: Using successful people as a role model.
Duplicating success might sound like a good idea but it isn’t enough.Reasons why people succeed will not become clear only by measuring the characteristics of your start performers. It is just as important to point out  the DIFFERENCES between your high and low performers.

4: Evaluating personality instead of job skills
When interviewing we often pay attention to the personality in front of us, and we ask our self if he/she has a typical sales personality. Extrovert, quick thinking, good presentation skills etc. Not surprisingly there is a fast amount of research trying to find a correlation between personality traits and (sales related) job performance. The findings are that there seems to be no, or very little, correlation between personality and performance.

5: Not checking past behavior
It is widely known that the best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior. If someone is upbeat, hard working, and punctual consistently, it is a good indication of his future behavior. on the other hand, if someone has ‘experience’ in many fields and industries, and hasn’t been with a company or industry for over 12 month at a time, there is a good chance they will not stay in any future position for more than 12 months.

based on a blog post by Remco Rijnhart.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How To Create An Interview Preparation List (advancingwomen.com)
• 10 Ways To Ruin A Job Interview [Jobs] (consumerist.com)
• Update wardrobe for job success: Look the part for job or interview (halliecrawford.typepad.com)

Recently we’ve been hearing a lot about Web 2.0 (two point O), which, as oppose to Web 1.0, encourages conversation and interaction, and the creation of communities. Everyone has a say, about any topic they want to comment on.

Now, this is a fantastic concept, isn’t it? On previous posts, I’ve mentioned the Shortest course on selling, which is – Ask Questions and Listen!
How about joining the two concepts:

Make sales presentation 2.0! instead of the old 1.0 one sided, lecture type beautifully designed PowerPoint presentations, let’s consider Sales 2.0 style White-Board presentation:

A list of questions, and topics of discussion, leading a two-way conversation between seller and prospect. The Seller is in control, leading the conversation topic, and the prospect have control, making sure he understand the product or service offered to him/her.

I think this is time to rethink old truths, and add the 2.0 dimension to our sales conversations.

Good bye sales presentation – Welcome the Sales Conversation – Sales 2.0!

Given the title of the book, I wanted to explain what this means for YOU 2.0.

We have all heard of Web 2.0, and we all know the 2.0 stands for the 2nd version of the web right?  WRONG.  This is part of the story, but the interesting thing to know is that the 2.0 also means there are now 2 people in the conversation.  Web 1.0 was all about direct advertising, and pushing messages at you with little engagement or consultation.  As consumers, we now demand more than this, we want to be engaged, involved, listened to, and asked of our opinion.  Web 2.0 is all about the online tools that allow for this interaction – like Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter and blogging!  Media now needs to engage others, and involve them in the conversation…if you doubt this, just spend a moment to reflect on Barack Obama‘s recent successful Presidential Campaign!

So what does this mean for YOU 2.0?

Not only does the media need to reflect the values of Web 2.0, but so too does your personal brand!  Like any successful web 2.0 and Social Media campaign, you should be considering how your personal brand delivers on the four essential stages of the 2.0 world!

1.  LISTENING – what are your target audience talking about, and what are they demanding from your personal brand.  Do they need you to be available or knowledgeable or to simply respond when they ask a question…either way, you need to be listening to you target audience (this is difficult if you do not know who you target audience is!)

2.  TALKING – do you encourage conversation about your skills, talents, products or services..what are you selling?  How do you encourage this conversation.  Do you take 2 or 3 customers to lunch on a monthly basis, do you introduce your network to one another?  You know your personal brand is powerful when others do the selling for you!

3.  INVOLVING - when was the last time you asked a customer or prospect for feedback on your services and your brand attributes?  When was the last time you asked friends or colleagues to explain you in 3 words or less.  If you ask for this feedback, be sure to thank them for it, and then demonstrate how you have taken this feedback on board.

4.  SUPPORTING – you know your personal brand is super effective when your prospects and customers are now solving one another’s problems, and speaking to one another about your services in a positive light!

5.  ENGAGING – the final stage in the YOU 2.0 process is the engagement of your target audience in the process of product and strategy development.  Who developed your last product or service..your customers or you?

So, how are you going to start listening to your target audience?  Think about these 5 steps and how you can integrate them into you business or life.  You can be assured that by following these 5 steps, you will find your personal brand will engage others, and draw them to you.

Posted by Luke Harvey-Palmer

Related articles by Zemanta

• Personal Branding 101: How to Discover and Create Your Brand (mashable.com)
• Will an Obama win be a win for social media? (sharemarketing.wordpress.com)
• Have You Registered Your Personal Trademarks? (threeminds.organic.com)

Job Search

The structure of the Australian recruitment industry is fundamentally flawed, argues Abacus Recruitment ’ s Toby Marshall, and both clients and job seekers are losing out.

Scan the employment classifieds in any newspaper and it appears that recruitment companies have a pretty tight stranglehold on the talent on offer.

Correct? Not so.
Australian organisations have long been persuaded by recruiters that engaging a recruitment firm is the only effective way to find the talent they need in a market that is suffering from a (perceived) skill shortage and shrinking labour pool. What they are failing to identify, however, are two huge pools of talent that continue to go largely unnoticed: mothers with young children and older, semi-retired workers. As a recruitment specialist with over 16 years of experience and analysis of the employment market, I continually find myself coming to the same conclusion: that the structure and dynamics of the recruitment industry in Australia are so fundamentally flawed that business is wasting millions in fees and failing to connect effectively with their ideal candidates.

The issue of under utilised talent is a big issue and in my opinion, only one of the by-products of this very ineffective recruitment system. It is, however, this very talk of dwindling labour and skills shortages that continues to detract the criticism away from the ‘supposed experts’ who manage the search and selection process on behalf of many leading Australian organisations. The way in which recruitment firms currently operate hinders rather than helps the recruitment process and until the industry adopts a more ethical and accountable framework, the economy continues to bear the brunt.

In an era where employee retention has become such an issue for so many organisations, a quick-fix mentality driven by short-term results and measured purely by commissions earned and classified advertising space sold offers, in my opinion, no framework for optimal long-term results. Consider this: Recruitment firms only have access to a small percentage of the available jobs out there. In fact, many are not advertised or are ‘hidden’. It is estimated that up to 80% of jobs are hidden as only 10% of positions ever make their way into the hands of recruitment companies. And given the proliferation of agencies vying for a share of the lucrative commission, at best even the largest, most well-resourced recruitment firm has only 2% of the job market in a job seekers sector.

But herein lies the bigger problem. As the job seeker is not the one paying the recruiters they are not the recruiter’s number one priority. Recruiters, rather than looking to get maximum employee/employer match are focused solely on grabbing the closest fit in the shortest possible time and scooping up the commissions. Ultimately they are being rewarded for short-term success – not long-term employee retention.

What is it then that needs to be done to ensure the industry is more accountable, co-operative and effective for all stakeholders? Companies need to take more effective control of their own recruitment needs and to this end need to think about recruitment as an ongoing process, continually identifying and communicating with prospective employees, whilst successfully marketing their employment brand to them. Furthermore, recruitment firms do have a powerful role to play in partnering with HR and Australian businesses – but whilst recruiters refuse to share risks with their clients and continue to take a band-aid view of human resources these problems will persist. Recruiters have to be prepared to develop long-term relationships with clients; however, clients too need to commit to their recruitment firm and work long-term for the best results. Recruiters must be prepared to accept that fees should not be entirely up front – rather, apportioned over an established period so the incentive is not only finding the right person but being rewarded for that person staying in that job. Good recruiters can help employers avoid making costly mistakes. They know their clients and their corporate culture intimately, which means they can identify the right person/people.

Quality recruiters have access to in-depth market understanding which means they can help a client develop retention programs to keep their valuable human assets. Furthermore, the good news is that change is on the horizon. A recent survey of CEOs by The Econ omist magazine found that the third highest risk factor facing companies is that of attraction and retention of quality employees. CEOs and boards are finally realising the need to get behind the issue of recruitment if they are concerned about the costs of attracting and retaining talent, and how they plan to manage this into the future.

Once companies begin measuring the costs of employee churn, it is only then that they will realise the income lost to the inefficient recruitment system. Whilst companies are not able to hire people, Australia is experiencing nearly 15 per cent under-employment. As a result, companies are failing to harness the great talent out there. The damage to the economy is huge. In fact it is estimated that the figure involved in un-utilised talent coupled with poor performance as a result of job dissatisfaction could be as high as $15 billion. The cost of finding and employing staff is having a huge impact on the bottom line of businesses, especially when an employee was not ‘matched’ in the first place and then exits quickly. The revolving door starts again and employers are left footing the bill, whilst recruiters continue to prosper by the system.

According to our research it is estimated that the cost of employee churn to a small business of 20 people is regularly in excess of $200,000 per annum. We strongly believe that within the next five years we will see more of Australia’s Top 500 companies demand a shift to a fee for service recruitment framework where all stakeholders benefit. Under this system the individual recruitment firms gain by using the broker as their distribution arm, allowing them to focus their time on consulting,. Clients benefit because the quality of placements improves significantly and job seekers are rewarded because their skills are matched more effectively with the right employer. Essentially the fee for service recruitment system works because recruitment agencies are sharing the risks with their clients – the way it should have always been.

Related articles by Zemanta

• No Resume Required: My Perfect Gig Launches Next Generation Recruiting Service for Career-Minded Engineers (seomashup.blogspot.com)
• Is Your Boss Spying on You? (comsecllc.blogspot.com)
• What is your People Strategy? (recpro-abhinav.blogspot.com)

This post was published on JimmyHendrick’s blog

Fortunately there is a much better method of recruiting an effective and more productive sales force.  Before any new options are explored, we really need to take a good look at exactly what is going wrong with the current process used in selecting sales people.  In that regard, let’s simulate a mock hiring routine in order to find out where the problems are.

We have run our sales representative ads in the target market for a month and have narrowed the field to what we regard as two of the best outside sales candidates.  Their names are Joe Dogre and James Watson.

Joe Dogre presents himself very well during the interview.  He is about 5’9″ tall with a slender appearance.   He has thin wire rimmed spectacles and slightly curly hair.  He is neatly dressed in his best blue pin-stripped suit and his favorite red tie.  Joe holds a masters degree in business administration from a prestigious university and makes a very favorable impression during the interview.

James Watson has a bachelors degree in business administration with a major in marketing.  James is 6’1″ tall and is slightly overweight, but carries it well with his larger frame.   In order to down play his slightly larger frame, James is dressed in a gray pin-stripe suite with a dark blue tie.  James is very direct and quick with his responses during the interview.  He is quite enthusiastic about the position and also makes a favorable impression on the sales manager.

The experience levels between the two sales candidates are almost identical and it is pretty much a coin toss in deciding between the two.  Joe’s resume does seem slightly more impressive in regards to his accomplishments.  His appearance was slightly more favorable than James’ and he seemed perhaps just a little bit more warm and friendly.  The reference checks are done but little useful information is obtained regarding either candidate.  The fact that Joe has a masters degree tips the scales more heavily in his favor and Joe is offered the position.

Three months down the road, Joe’s sales performance is less than expected.  The training manager reports that Joe seems to be a little slow and has a problem grasping the material in the sales training classes.  The sales manager has observed the same thing and figures Joe is a little slow on the learning curve.  Another three months passes and sales are declining in Joe’s territory.  The sales manager realizes that it was a mistake to place Joe in the position to begin with and a new search for a replacement is initiated.  The sales manager wonders if the next hire will work out any better.  He instinctively feels that there has got to be a better and more reliable way of hiring sales people.  Six months of salary and benefits costs are down the drain, not to mention training and recruiting cost.  There is also the loss of revenue from the sales that have not been made and the loss of market share.

The sales manager wonders what he can do to improve his chances of hiring a top sales performer in the next recruiting effort.  He knows that he missed something with the last salesman that he hired, but what?  There has got to be a better way than the old trial and error method.  The sales manager knows that if he keeps doing what he has always done, the results are not likely to change very much.  What mistakes were made and how can they be prevented from happening again?

The first mistakes occurred during the interview.  Very little useful information actually came out of the interview.  The candidate told the sales manager what he wanted him to hear.  Too much emphasis was placed on warm and fuzzy feelings, visual perceptions and gut feelings.  There was very little objective information obtained prior to making the hiring decision .  Another problem was that the reference checks did not reveal any real clues regarding the candidate’s shortcomings.  What the sales manager needs is more reliable and objective information upon which to base his hiring decisions.  The addition of one simple step in the hiring process could have provided that information and prevented this hiring mistake from ever being made.

To make a better hiring decision, contact us at www.bluefinmanagement.com.au

By Ira S Wolfe

This is a story about Willy and Roma and how you too can avoid hiring them.

What is it that differentiates the top producing salespeople from the Willys that go through life working very hard to eek out a paycheck and the Romas who would sell their mother out for a buck?  Is it experience? Is it sales knowledge? Is it personality? Is it values?

Not unlike a lot of today’s “mature” workforce, Willy Loman was a man lost in the past.  Willy, the failing salesman in Death of a Salesman, immersed himself in flashbacks.  His mind was constantly tormented by the hopes and dreams he had years ago.  His solution: complain about them and expect the future to change as a result.  To Willy the flashbacks became today’s reality and he blamed everyone but himself for his failure.  He explained to his wife Linda why he had a very hard time selling, “the trouble is, Linda, people don’t seem to take to me.”

The main characters in Glengarry Glen Ross, another classic business movie, spend much of their time and energy complaining about crummy leads, bad product and high asking prices.  One exception was Roma who lived and died by his ABCs – Always Be Closing.  Yes, Roma did make sales.  But while Roma did whatever it took to get his customer to sign on the dotted line, his style of selling was – and is –  distasteful to most people. To Roma customers were just a means to an end.

With over 16 million people employed in sales and sales-related positions, there certainly is no shortage of salespeople with experience. Billions of dollars are spent each year on sales training so it seems unlikely that there is a lack of sales knowledge. And yet there is no single position that demands comparable attention and investment from executives, business owners, and managers than sales when it comes to recruiting and hiring.

Given all the data and information and past experiences about how personalities affect sales performance, doesn’t it make sense for hiring managers to understand what makes successful sales people tick?

Recent validation studies and thousands of empirical experiences prove that personality traits give managers a leg up in hiring salespeople who can meet and exceed expectations. But not everyone with the “right” personality becomes successful. Why? Because personality is not a case of you have it or you don’t. Personality traits provide a recipe for success but other factors determine whether these traits will be turned on….or just lie dormant.

What are these “other” factors? In addition to some genetic component, environment certainly influences how an individual uses these natural abilities. For example, growing up in a family of extroverts with parents who encourage a bit of risk-taking will turn on different traits than a conservative upbringing that values a subdued, private lifestyle and feels that a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.

Personality traits also combine in unique ways. The number of possibilities is enormous which explains why two people who might look capable of selling (or doing any job for that matter) perform very differently in the workplace. That explains why understanding combinations of personality traits gives managers a new powerful tool in making hiring and training decisions and getting the most out of their employees.

What it comes down to is this:  Single personality traits do not predict performance but combinations of personality traits do.  More specifically, unique combinations of personality traits working together predict an individual’s natural ability to succeed at certain work-related skills.

For example, customer focus is a critical competency for Joe’s job as sales director.  But he’s struggling. Personality implications for customer focus are insight, positive attitude toward people, work pace and assertiveness.  Joe falls within the recommended benchmarks for the first three, but flags assertiveness.  While Joe looks out for the customer, projects a positive outlook and works at a reasonable pace, his low assertiveness prevents him from standing up for customer-focused initiatives and complaints.

A different problem arises if we look at the competency “persuading to buy.”  Personality implications include assertiveness, work pace and sociability.  Based on his personality assessment, a manager would find none of his traits “help” his ability in this area.  Joe will have difficulty working with strong-willed customers and he may hesitate to ask for the sale.  A few customers may even intimidate him.  And while positive about people, his reserved nature may deter him from “working the crowd” and networking to engage new customers and bond with existing ones.  Finally, his work pace, while adequate for customer service, falls short for top sales effectiveness.

Another key competency for sales is negotiation and personality definitely influences an individual’s innate ability to get others to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.  Personality implications for negotiation include assertiveness, need to be liked, positive toward people, insight, frustration tolerance, criticism tolerance and self-control.    Personality “helps” include his positive approach and broad outlook in searching for common ground.  But certain traits may hinder his chances for success.  Like the situations above, his low assertiveness may make it difficult for him to promote or sustain his position.  Others may control the discussions and influence the outcomes.   His need to be liked may drive his efforts to winning new friends rather than closing the deal.  And his low frustration tolerance may force him to reveal his cards, compromise, or walk away too early.

Not unlike many of our engagements, we were called about Joe after he was hired.   Our client-to-be wanted to know:  is Joe worth keeping?  And if so, what can they do to motivate him?  Would coaching be a worthwhile investment?

The first question I always ask is, “Tell me more about Joe.”  What I hear most often is that Joe had something like 10 years of experience, worked in our industry, won numerous sales awards and came highly recommended.  Occasionally my client will tell me they used a “test.”  Most often, the assessment is a behavioral assessment such as DISC or Myers-Brigg Temperament.  Rarely do we hear the employee was screened using a competency based process or instrument.  The result is that they hired Joe because his “behavior” was right for the job.  As it turns out, behavioral style doesn’t measure competence.  Just because they look like they can sell and they talk like they can sell doesn’t mean they can – or will – sell.

In Joe’s case, the client was impressed – and to some degree “blind-sided” – by his experience, positive outlook toward people, practical and pragmatic approach to decision making, attitude toward teamwork, reserved manner, and attention to details.  Compared to his predecessor, “General Patton on steroids”, Joe was a breath of fresh air – until it came to getting results.

By failing to assess Joe’s personality and cognitive (general mental abilities) skills and how they impact specific competency-driven performance factors, our client ignored how his low assertiveness, low frustration tolerance, high self-control, and average general mental abilities would work in cahoots to undermine his effectiveness when negotiating, persuading, and motivating others.  Joe didn’t lie on his resume or put on a show for his interview. Joe actually portrayed himself to be exactly who he was.  Our client, like many other managers and owners, had selective interviewing – he saw what he wanted and ignored what he didn’t.

Not unlike many managers and business owners, our client wrote off personality testing.  He previously viewed tests as tools that provided “nice-to-know” information but not predictable and reliable instruments that can predict a candidate or employee’s natural ability to perform specific professional and management skills at the highest level.

As our client found out after the fact, the right personality test, and more importantly the right interpretation, can help uncover what you can’t see and differentiate between hiring top performers or another Willy and Roma.

Sidebar

Much of the scientific research for using personality tests (and not sales skills tests and sales knowledge tests) for hiring salespeople comes from the Big 5 or Five-factor model.  Examples of assessments constructed on the Big 5 include TotalView and ASSESS.  This model has been studied since the mid-1950s and has gained enormous acceptance as a result of the need to hire highly productive employees, the increasing competition from a global marketplace, and the high cost of recruiting and training.

The Big 5 Personality Traits are easily remembered by the acronym OCEAN. The letters represent:

Openness to Experience: Salespeople who are more open thrive in a more fluid, dynamic, and technology driven marketplace while the more conventional salesperson prefers a more predictable, traditional, and familiar routine.

Conscientiousness: Salespeople who prefer spontaneity over conscientiousness can be very effective at making sales but time management, follow through, and completing sales reports will be an ongoing challenge.

Extroversion: Salespeople are typically extroverted.  Extroverts believe there are no strangers, just people they haven’t met yet. They do however tend to dominate conversations, be overly optimistic, and do more talking than listening.

Agreeableness: Highly agreeable salespeople will go out of their way to avoid conflict.  Cold-calling, asking for the sale, and holding profit margins can be a big problem.

Neuroticism: While some degree of restlessness and excitability ignites urgency, too much of it triggers impulsive behavior and vulnerability. A reasonable level of neuroticism energizes salespeople to react when things aren’t going as planned. Perseverance and resilience – two traits absolutely necessary when you’re talking about commission-based sales – are linked to the neuroticism trait.

Ira Wolfe (iwolfe@super-solutions.com) is founder of Success Performance Solutions (www.super-solutions.com and www.best-small-business-solutions.com), a Lancaster consulting firm providing competency based employment and career testing.  He has authored several books, Business Values and Motivators, The Perfect Labor Storm: Why Worker Shortages Will Not Go Away and a new e-book, Seven Surefire Steps to Hire High Motivation Employees.

Hiring the wrong person can cost your company up to $200,000!

We use personality profiles to make hiring decisions with greater accuracy. They have made selecting a top performer easier. As a result, our confidence has increased along with sales team production and retention.

We want to help you with our profiling expertise. And, we want to keep you away from a reliance on a ‘seat-of-the-pants’ interview – statistically worth less than 2% in making a good hiring decision.

Select Great Salespeople

Let’s keep it simple. A great salesperson has the natural ability to do enough of the following activities:

1. Find Prospects
2. Hold Appointments
3. Close Sales

Use a personality profile. Quickly determine if a person naturally possesses the personality to do these skills well. In other words, does the salesperson have the personality to handle these skill areas? And, at what ‘power level’ can they do them?

Find Prospects – Does the candidate have enough social drive and goal-orientation to get out among people and find prospects? Do they have the social confidence to approach these people and build relationships? Will they assert themselves? Will they continually prospect to reach their goals? A personality profile predicts a candidate’s ability to naturally find prospects and network.

Hold Appointments – Will the candidate pick up the phone and make appointments? Do they have enough goal drive and social confidence to do this on an ongoing basis? Will they set enough appointment each week? Will they seek to control the sale process or will they allow the prospect to control it? Do they have the social confidence to present well?

Close Sales – Will they quote enough business? Will they ask for the business? Will they fight to get enough business completed to reach their sales goal? Will they ask about next steps? Will they follow up in order to win sales? Will they manage time and activities to get results? Will they want or desire to reach performance objectives?

We want you to lower the ramp up time to acceptable production. We want you to increase the selection and retention of great salespeople. We want to help you use a personality profile as a recruiting tool – one of several steps to make better hiring decisions. We want to make you a conscious competent with a great recruiting tool – a personality profile.
For more information, look us up on www.bluefinmanagement.com.au, and contact us today!