This is part 1 of a series focusing on helping sellers succeed.
In my earlier post (“Revenue-Critical Operator”), I highlighted the importance of putting oneself in the seller’s shoes, starting with understanding different seller personas and understanding various sources of friction during the sales process. But this is just the starting point.
Let’s examine situations where there is maximum friction - i.e., sales fail to materialize. Here are a few key reasons:
-
Reason #1 (The Market Reality) – There isn’t a demand for what you’re offering, or the timing is wrong.
-
Reason #2 (Problem Framing) – The client’s problems are not framed in a way that forces a decision.
-
Reason #3 (Access & Trust) – Sales discussions are held with the wrong stakeholders, or buyers perceive low credibility.
-
Reason #4 (Offering Integrity) – Concrete offerings may exist, but they may be poorly packaged, forcing sellers to invent new offerings in real time.
-
Reason #5 (Execution System) – The organization cannot support the deal or close it.
This is useful knowledge, but ideally, we must translate it into corrective behaviours. To do so, let’s step back and consider who is responsible.
Remember, as this post (“Learning to Act Without Certainty”) indicates, our job isn’t to fix the entire sales system. Rather, it’s about being intentional about which areas you can influence. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself in a situation where “seller enablement” attempts to compensate for organizational deficiencies that it simply doesn’t control. That’s a trap that you must avoid.
Let’s quickly examine each reason to determine if it should be part of our enablement system:
| Reason | Will Sales Enablement Help? |
|---|---|
| Reason #1 (The Market Reality) | No — a seller enablement system cannot fix a lack of demand. |
| Reason #2 (Problem Framing) | Yes — sellers can benefit from better ways to understand, discuss, and frame the problem. |
| Reason #3 (Access & Trust) | Partially — robust case studies and proof points are essential credibility boosters. |
| Reason #4 (Offering Integrity) | Yes — an enablement system can distribute and reinforce existing offerings, but it’s not responsible for creating them. |
| Reason #5 (Execution System) | No — an enablement system cannot fix poor engineering capacity; however, delivery credibility signals can be packaged for discussion. |
Thus, a lightweight, but high-value seller enablement system really consists of three components:
Component #1: Problem Framing
Component #2: Credential & Proof
Component #3: Offering Navigation
In my next post, we’ll explore each of these components in greater detail.
A word of caution
A seller enablement system is a powerful construct, but its existence doesn’t guarantee a positive impact. An enablement system requires that participating individuals are already acting as if they are part of a larger system. If they are acting as individuals, then trying to roll out a formal enablement system won’t work.