Salesmanship: A form of Leadership

Dr. Dennis E. Maligaya

How Leadership is Like Selling
By Mitch McCrimmon (2008)
• Leadership and selling are both forms of influence.
• They differ primarily in the fact that selling is self-interested.
• It’s a way of making a living.
• The salesperson is interested in making money by selling
products or services.
• Leadership also influences people to do things they might not
do otherwise, but is not self-interested.
• For example, a green leader like Al Gore promotes more
environmentally friendly living by pointing to the benefits for
the environment. He is not selling a product to make a living.
But all forms of influence, including leading and selling, also share another characteristic.
They come to an end once the deal is closed.

This is easiest to see with selling. If you buy a used car, the salesperson’s efforts to make
the sale, to influence you to buy, are over the moment you sign on the dotted line.

Out of courtesy, the salesperson might continue to be friendly until you leave the
showroom, but he could just as easily start answering his phone and looking around for
other customers to serve even while you are signing your life away.

In other words, selling comes to an end once the buyer has bought the product. In
construction or other consulting work, the person selling the contract helps the client
implement the service, i.e. by building the bridge that the client has agreed to pay for.

Although the contractor might make an effort to maintain a good relationship with the
client for the sake of future business, the sale of the present contract was over the
minute the client signed the deal.
This fact about selling can help us see leadership in a new way. 

Conventional theories of leadership associate leadership with influence but it is also

associated with being the person in charge of the group.

This person not only sells the need to do something different, he or she also
coordinates and facilitates the achievement of the objective.

Execution of the goal that the leader has advocated is not just an add-on, but part of
the very meaning of leadership.

On this view, leaders not only influence people to strive towards achieving a target,
they also help them get there.
However, if we stick more closely to what it means to influence people, selling a used
car just being one form of influence, then we have to say that, if leadership really is a
form of influence too, then it also must come to an end once the intended followers
have bought the leader’s proposal.

Take another example of influence.

If you are trying to persuade your children to eat their broccoli, as soon as they start
eating it, you can stop persuading them and finish eating your own meal.

You don’t need to keep persuading them.

This is a fundamental truth about influence. Yes, if you want people to keep doing
something over an extended period of time, something they are not keen on doing, you
might need to keep influencing them until the task is finished.

But if you want people to undertake a short-term, brief act like buying a car or eating
vegetables, the influence process comes to an end once the target party has taken
action.
The bottom line

If we agree that leadership, like other forms of influence, comes to an end once the
target audience agrees to act, then we have a great rationale and method for
separating leadership from management.

We simply say that leadership sells the need to act while management takes care of
execution.

The implication of this move is that leadership has nothing to do with managing
people or getting things done.

This is management’s job.

Why should we want to limit leadership to merely selling the tickets for the journey?

Because this is the only way to develop a general theory of leadership that covers all
cases of leadership.

Consider the following examples of leadership that do not involve the individual who
shows leadership having anything to do with execution:
·    Martin Luther King, Jr. had a leadership impact on the U.S. Supreme Court when
that body ruled segregation on buses to be unconstitutional as a result of King’s
protest marches and speeches.

·    A front-line knowledge worker succeeds in persuading top management to adopt

a new product thereby showing bottom-up leadership.

·    Jack Welch’s emphasis on the importance of being number one or two in a market
influenced companies around the globe to do likewise.

·    Apple Computer’s innovative graphical user interface influenced Microsoft to

develop a similar interface called Windows.
Clearly, Martin Luther King did not manage any part of the U.S. Supreme Court so he
had nothing to do with implementing what he was advocating.

The same is true of the other examples which clearly demonstrate how it is possible to
show leadership without being involved in implementation.

These instances of leadership, like car sales, come to an end once followers follow suit.
In the case of Jack Welch, he wasn’t trying to show leadership to the world, just to GE,
but leadership happened because other companies followed his lead.

Similarly, Apple didn’t even want a competitor following their lead, but Microsoft is a
good follower so leadership was shown to them in this instance.
What can we say, in general, about such leadership.

The only thing these disparate instances of leadership have in common is that they
show the way, they point to a better or new way of doing something.

It is a form of influence that, like all forms of influence, has nothing to do with
managing anyone or getting things done through people.
So, what? Well, the reason this shift in perspective is important is that we are now
in a knowledge driven age where companies are fighting a war of ideas, where
innovation is the key to success.

This means that leadership needs to shift from the notion of getting things done
through people to what we might instead call thought leadership, the promotion of
a better idea. Growing complexity requires increasing specialization.

We need to divide the executive role into separate sub functions.

This means upgrading management so it is seen as a more positive, empowering,

inspiring and nurturing function, not just a controlling one.

Also, we need to see employees who promote new products as showing leadership
even if they have no inclination or ability to take charge of anyone in a managerial
sense.

This can be a powerful way of fostering better employee engagement, motivation

and retention.
8 Popular Types Of Leadership Styles
8 Types Of Sales Leaders from Tom Abbott, CSP

Whilst it’s true that most effective Sales Leaders were once great Salespeople, the
type of Sales Manager you are requires more than just the ability to close deals.

To lead a well-performing sales team, your success as a Sales Leader depends on

how you utilize your skills.

Effective leadership styles require a varied skill set: So if you want to support your
Sales Team to achieve their full potential, you’ll have to become a Cheerleader,
Disciplinarian, Psychologist, and Administrator.

Sure, it can be daunting, but you don’t have to start from scratch. Make your job a
whole lot easier by adopting an existing Sales Manager Style.
 Authoritarian Sales Leaders
You don’t think you know best. You know you do, right? If this statement resonates
with you on a deeper level, your natural leadership type may be Authoritarian.
Autocratic leadership is a top-down management style where the Sales Manager
calls all the shots without asking for or accepting any advice from staff members.
Common characteristics include:

• Leaders make most if not all of the decisions.

• Leaders create highly structured and sometimes rigid environments.
• Discourages creative thinking.
• A transparent chain of command and oversight.
• Allows Leaders to make quick decisions.
• It discourages employee input.
As you can imagine, this is regarded as a heavy-handed approach and generally disliked by most employees. Naturally, as the least
democratic leadership style, it’s usually found in organizations where the leader is the most knowledgeable.

So perhaps we could conclude that an Autocratic leadership style is rarely the most effective leadership style.

Whilst it sounds negative, and has been applied for the wrong reasons before – it does have some benefits like providing direction,
offering structure, and relieving pressure from employees.

Some famous examples of Authoritarian leaders include Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, and Donald Trump.
Coach-Style Sales Leaders

A Coach-Style Leader works hard to identify where each member of their team excels and
then devises a game plan that uses each team member to be most advantageous. Coach-
Style Leadership, which focuses on building a team, is the right approach for creating a
successful sales department.

However, don’t be fooled into thinking this effective leadership style is one dimensional;
in fact, it relies heavily on feedback and criticism from sources around you. No one can be
right all of the time! This is why the Coach-Style leader prides themselves on their
principle of humility.
Democratic Sales Leaders

This is an excellent Sales Leadership Style because

it’s inclusive, which ultimately brings more
opinions to the table.

The result? With an ability to resolve issues quickly,

your employees are more invested, building strong
team relationships.

However, you should carefully consider how the

rejection of opinions could lead to resentment.

Sales Leaders who adopt the Democratic

Leadership Style will still make the final decision,
but not without everyone else having his say.

Which encourages honesty to be a fundamental

aspect of your team – Honesty is the best policy,
right?
Laissez-faire Sales Leaders

The direct opposite of an Autocratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire, directly translates to

“Leave-Alone.” So you’ve maybe already deduced that this Leadership style focuses on
encouraging your team to make appropriate workplace solutions for themselves—a real
hands-off approach.

For instance, are you in charge of an experienced sales team that gets the job, and you’d
prefer to avoid rocking the boat? Then a Laissez-faire leadership may be a good option for
you.

Laissez-faire Sales Leaders allow Salespeople to have complete freedom to make decisions
concerning the completion of their work.

This approach can work for some sales departments but may result in less productivity
and lower performance in others.

Don’t worry if you’re wondering how this can be an effective leadership style. Although
this type of management allows you to step back and disengage, it relies on your team’s
substantial recruitment. As Steve Jobs explained so well, “It doesn’t make sense to hire
smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us
what to do.”
Transactional Sales Leaders

Do you value structure over everything? If you prefer to leave creativity at the door and
believe financial gain or even fear of being fired motivates people, your type of leadership
may be the Transactional Leader.

Transactional Sales Leaders are result driven, thrive on enforcing routine, and rely on
existing systems to measure success. Transactional Leaders depend on an established
system of rewards and punishments to get their staff to perform at their highest level.
This works well in situations where intrinsic desires drive salespeople but sometimes
results in people doing just enough to earn a bonus or keep their jobs.

Whilst there is no room for innovation, employees of this type of Sales Manager can find
the benefit of having a clearly defined set of rules, everyone knows where they stand –
right? By maintaining a solid hierarchy structure, Transactional Leaders achieve short-term
goals more quickly, leading to consistent results.
Transformational Leadership

Transformational Sales Leaders ooze integrity, set high expectations, and expect
their team to reach for the improbable.
This type of Sales leader works hard to transform their team’s’ thinking,
encouraging them to look beyond their own self-interests. Which ultimately
pushes them to do more when it comes to their jobs.

This effective leadership style pushes employees to find new solutions by going
above and beyond conventions which can create an exciting, innovative working
environment. However, the Transformational Leader must be aware that it can
also prove to be demoralizing for some employees who feel they will never
wholly master their positions.
Strategic Leadership

Do you have a strong vision for your sales department and feel
you can inspire your employees to embrace it? That is the
heart of a Strategic Leadership style. This type of leadership
focuses on creating the best organizational structure, to lessen
the need for micro-management.

Strategic Leaders introduce changes based on an overall

guiding vision and encourage employees to share their vision.
This effective leadership style primarily focusing on ensuring
the team is ready for whatever the future may bring.

Strategic leadership supports working towards a common goal

but offers little flexibility and doesn’t always address current
business realities.
Bureaucratic Leadership
Organized, focused, and consistent? If you are a ‘by the book’ type of person, you will
find it easy to adopt a Bureaucratic leadership style. In this type of leadership, the
Sales Manager is typically open to staff suggestions as long as they are compatible
with existing company policy.

A bureaucratic approach to leadership is most effective in an established sales

department with a history of performing well, but newer employees or those with
innovative mindsets may feel stifled.

We recommend taking a moment to think about your favorite past Sales Managers:
1. What traits did they exhibit that fuelled you to reach your potential?
2. What qualities made you want to look for a new job?
It understands what motivates your team and what deters them that will help you
succeed with this type of leadership.
Final Thoughts

When we polled our community of Sales Leaders and Sales professionals on LinkedIn,
most sales professionals stated they preferred the Transformational and Democratic
sales leadership styles. All said they couldn’t stand Authoritarian leaders.
While I know the above is true for most people, you also need to be able to adjust your
style to the person and the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzuWMf3WPPc&ab_channel=TEDxTalks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_8vTl6D940&ab_channel=FRONTLINEPBS
%7COfficial