3 ms·

It has always amazed me how differently sales people are treated compared to tech. One of the historical reasons has been that it’s very hard to find and hire

It has always amazed me how differently sales people are treated compared to tech. One of the historical reasons has been that it’s very hard to find and hire tech people - I wonder if that is changing? It’s also been fairly easy for tech teams to obfuscate performance and bamboozle managers who don’t understand tech. With sales the performance criteria tends to be very simple and there aren’t really any good excuses for failure (at least none that seem to be accepted).

thesumofall 3y ago
I think this is because sales tends to be a one-person job in most settings (except the very highest value deals). One sales person manages a number of accounts. Measuring the results of that person is then quite straightforward. Tech tends to be a collaborative job even in quite simple settings, which makes it immediately more difficult to measure. Add to that that the true results are often only visible after months if not years of work and you have a real challenge at hand. But I agree: there are also simple settings where you can measure a programmer’s productivity. Those are probably just not the settings in which people are that concerned about attracting top talents, though
lll-o-lll 3y ago
> It’s also been fairly easy for tech teams to obfuscate performance and bamboozle managers who don’t understand tech. Just as much a problem for sales oriented roles. Most “line managers” are experts in the field, so I don’t know if this is a valid point. In the anecdotal case, the managers still have sales targets and got to be managers by being the most effective sellers. > With sales the performance criteria tends to be very simple and there aren’t really any good excuses for failure (at least none that seem to be accepted). Here we are talking about producing, which by its nature is the measurable stuff. I think we don’t have it because we (some we) don’t want it, not because it wouldn’t work.

thesumofall 3y ago

I think this is because sales tends to be a one-person job in most settings (except the very highest value deals). One sales person manages a number of accounts. Measuring the results of that person is then quite straightforward. Tech tends to be a collaborative job even in quite simple settings, which makes it immediately more difficult to measure. Add to that that the true results are often only visible after months if not years of work and you have a real challenge at hand. But I agree: there are also simple settings where you can measure a programmer’s productivity. Those are probably just not the settings in which people are that concerned about attracting top talents, though

lll-o-lll 3y ago

> It’s also been fairly easy for tech teams to obfuscate performance and bamboozle managers who don’t understand tech. Just as much a problem for sales oriented roles. Most “line managers” are experts in the field, so I don’t know if this is a valid point. In the anecdotal case, the managers still have sales targets and got to be managers by being the most effective sellers. > With sales the performance criteria tends to be very simple and there aren’t really any good excuses for failure (at least none that seem to be accepted). Here we are talking about producing, which by its nature is the measurable stuff. I think we don’t have it because we (some we) don’t want it, not because it wouldn’t work.