Journeymen, Mavericks & Superstars: Understanding Salespeople at Startups

by Mark Suster on April 8, 2010

Most technology startups seem to be founded by three types of people: product managers, engineers or biz dev types (MBAs and the like). Very few of them are started, in my experience, by sales people and very few early stage companies really understand sales. That’s why I started the Sales & Marketing Series and at one point I will do a bunch of posts on the sales methodology we developed at my first company called PUCCKA.

Today I want to talk about sales executives and a model for thinking about them. If you ever have to interview, hire, judge the performance of, decide whether to promote, assign clients/regions to them or have to decide whether to fire sales people, I think having a framework for thinking about them is helpful.

Here’s mine:

Let me start with a few biases. First, I think that most great sales people have an innate skill that can’t be taught. That view from me isn’t surprising since on the topic of Nature vs. Nurture in entrepreneurs I’ve clearly come down on the side of nature more than nurture (again, that doesn’t mean nurture has NO influence, just less than nature). Second, I think that running great sales programs is mostly about running great sales processes.   So as you grow your business and if you’re looking to hire sales people, one of the most important things to look for is somebody who understands the sales process and somebody that you perceive as “process oriented.” More on that later.

1. Journeymen - Journeymen (Journeywomen!) are, as the name implies, the people who have “learned a trade and work for another person usually by the day.” They are hugely process driven. These people take directions well from a sales manager on how to approach sales campaigns. When you hear them speak in an interview about how they’ve run sales campaigns in the past they describe the methods with precision. They are masters at using Salesforce.com because they love the structure that it provides. They’re organized and methodical. They’ll have taken 10 sales courses and they’ll list them all on their resume (why??).  They set up “tickler” lists to remind them of calls and they always make the calls they say they are going to make. They’re always on time.  They work through ROI calculations with customers. They’re great at orchestrating your company to deliver product demos. They know how to walk a deal from business owner, through IT, through procurement and through legal to get a closed order. They are the LIFEBLOOD of sales organizations because they’re plentiful and deliver great value relative to their costs. They’re also usually very loyal to your organization. Almost by definition. They’re journeymen.

But doesn’t Journeyman almost imply something pejorative? Yeah, kind of. Even though they’re great at process you can tell when you spend time with them that they miss some sort of “spark” that you’re expecting in a sales person. Some sort of magic where you just finished the meeting and can’t remember what they were selling but you know you needed three of them. It’s the “je ne sais quoi,” the “X factor.” And in my experience Journeyman are not good in two scenarios. a) they don’t tend to make great heads of sales departments and b) they aren’t the people you want early in your company. The reason for “b” is that most early stage companies survive on “evangelical sales” as in when you’re having to educate the customer on something new and different and get them to take a leap of faith. Journeymen don’t do “leap of faith.” They sell more commoditized or well understood products that can be sold via a well-defined process. That’s my view, anyhow. And my experience has taught me that.

2. Mavericks – Mavericks are the opposite of Journeymen.  Mavericks are by definition bad at following rules and bad at process.  I should know because I’m a maverick.  (John McCain used to be a Maverick but as Jon Stewart points out is no longer one – super funny 5 minute video – must watch if you have time and if, like me, you used to love McCain before his lobotomy.  If you still love McCain, um … not so funny then).  Mavericks are the people who innately know how to navigate a sales campaign. They can get access to senior executives and champion a sales campaign from the top. They still hit all of the highlights of the sales methodology (getting a champion, understanding the pain, mapping your solution, proving the ROI, finding out the competitors and differentiating and getting every department to “yes”) but they can’t follow the exact same process every time. They’re unmanageable. I’m unmanageable. We’re chaotic by nature. But in the end they know how to put the big wins on the board. They can smell the person who holds the purse strings in a company and how to gain access to them. They inspire trust in the buyers and they build long-term relationships. They’re not afraid to break a few eggs along the way – nothing ventured, nothing gained.  The buyer is more loyal to the maverick than to your company.  That’s OK.

Every organization needs maverick sales people. They hit your home runs. But … they DO NOT make good sales leaders. In fact, if they work in sales they shouldn’t have anybody reporting to them. They should go for the big wins and get all the support they need. I think I made a pretty good CEO but I know I would be lousy sales manager. Maybe like somebody who could run a restaurant but wouldn’t make a great chef?  To be a great sales manager you need to get a team of people to be able to follow your sales process methodically. You need to do weekly sales team calls, regular customer calls with your team, review their pipelines with them, find out when they’re BS’ing you, produce weekly forecasts, etc. Don’t confuse your mavericks who have the innate ability to sell with a potential VP of Sales that will need to run your team. The difference is PROCESS ORIENTATION.

Mavericks do work well in early-stage companies and are probably your best bet for you first hire or two. You need somebody who can lead evangelic sales and get referenceable clients that can be marketed later when you have your journeymen.

3. Superstars - These, as the name implies, are the rare breed of individuals who have the innate ability to sell and are very structured and process oriented. You get all the benefits of a maverick but with more reliability and predictability. You also get somebody who can work well with leverage. They’re able to manage and therefore harness the power of many journeymen to consistently deliver your sales numbers. I generally think that superstars are not the first people to hire in a startup. The best of them will require too much money and will be working for somebody else managing a team AND carrying a bag. Superstars are best to hire once you’ve got your product/market fit, proven your product will sell, hired a maverick and a few journeymen and now need to bring in leadership and structure to enable you to scale more quickly and predictably. If you found the right person who is a superstar and is ready to join your early-stage business I wouldn’t kick them to the curb. But … I question if they’re really a superstar if they’re willing to work for you at a super early stage. Have to ask yourself why. Or whether you have the wrong read on them.

4. Trouble – If you interview somebody who doesn’t seem like they’re religiously process-driven / can take good direction and if you don’t have the feeling that they could sell ice to the Eskimos then don’t hire them. They will not succeed at sales. Enough said.

In life I’ve found it useful to have little frameworks to try and interpret the world through.  They don’t always apply 100% of the time but they’re a useful way to shorthand.  The Journeymen, Mavericks and Superstars matrix has always suited me well and has stood the test of time.

Thank you to the lovely Jacqui for helping me with the Balsamiq mockup graphic.  LOVING Balsamiq!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • HackerNews
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • email
  • Print
  • Excellent post - I saw this just after your VP Engg Vs CTO 2X2 matrix. The net-net across them together is the process orientation... if we look across both matrices, early stage startups (a) CAN WORK with both technology visionaries, and maverick salespeople, but not with their spark-devoid process-heavy versions (which you describe with "pejorative" metaphors) and (b) MUST GROW UP to transition out these sparky but unreliable "commando" types with more disciplined "brigadier general" types. I guess that is the point at which a VC pitches in to rewire the team.

    I must say, though, that I feel your Engg matrix (the analogue of the above, with CTO Vs VP of engg) should probably invert its Y Axis, to put CTOs top right. You have not used these "metaphors" there (with their innate "status" pejorative and superlative attributes) - so the visual metaphor is more educative.

    Keep 'em coming. Cheers!
  • zebedeefranklin
    Great post Mark. Speaking as someone who has worked at the coalface of sales first in bookselling retail (10 years) then corporate hospitality (4 years), followed by last 5 years in technolgy startups, I would consider myself a maverick and would add, that a maverick is not often appreciated or even understood - mavericks by their very nature do not like to be tied down by endless procedures - they use their intuition, experience, take risks to unearth the nuggets of intelligence that can provide the edge for their clients - the workings out are not always clear to see at the beginning, but they provide the essentail platform for others to build on - the journeyman and superstars - mavericks can give you the edge but you have to trust them
  • I'm generally a fan of your blog and thinking, Mark, but, having trained senior lawyers and other sales-reluctant professionals how to facilitate multi-stakeholder, high-stakes decision processes for 20 years, I've gotta disagree strongly with your nature/nurture position. Ironically, it's your belief in process that undermines your argument that "most great sales people have an innate skill that can’t be taught." The skill resides not in the individual traits of the practitioners, but is baked into the integrity of the decision process and how well it aligns with, and evokes, buyers' self-interest.

    Superstars are, by definition, scarce. Even pro sports teams, with their almost limitless money and with entire organizations focused solely on identifying and attracting stars, know they can't get them on demand but will, hopefully, get lucky and find one occasionally. I've heard them described as "super-experts," i.e., roughly 3% of the population. That kind of scarcity precludes your planning on hiring and keeping one, much less a few.

    Reliable results depend on having a methodology that doesn't require good people to be great, but consistently good, and doesn't require your company to, in the words of the Gallup Organization, "fix people." IMO, the right process allows OK salespeople to become good, good ones to become great, and great ones to become artists.

    If we can get dramatic results out of people who were not only not good at selling but affirmatively didn't want to have to do it, it would be fun to generate big revenue out of people who've actually chosen sales as how they make their living.
  • Well articulated Mark on the sales personalities! Mavericks are good at "hunting" and "journeymen" are good at "farming". Typically start-ups have a feasibility issue hiring superstars and they have always balance between the two personalities and coach them. I also believe that mavericks have a high overhead by utility ratio.
  • In general, most Americans do not like selling, being sold to or engaging in transactional negotiations. As a result, selling is often the last career path that most of us would pursue. To those who do, there seems to be some DNA influence as well as some early experiential nurturing that spawns one's interest in becoming a sales professsional.

    Mavericks and superstars, in particular, tend to understand that while recognizing the following:

    1. Relationships matter.

    2. Communication skills are vital.

    3. The system & the process are only as good as they are.

    4. Closing the deal starts long before first contact.

    5. Follow-up creates growth and sustainability.

  • I found your post thought provoking. I have been on both sides (literally) of this post. As a founder of two start-ups as well as doing sales within large organizations (Cablevision) and start-ups. I have been the maverick when required, at times I have felt like a journeymen and some may think I can be a superstar. The commonality to all of this, whether founder or salesperson is product. Does the product kick ass! I might be the world's greatest sales person, but if your product sucks, I likely can't sell it. See I think this post simplifies things a bit. I am both process driven when required but evangelical when needed. I have sold all, bad products and good products. The key--the absolute key is great product. As a founder before you even look to bring in that salesperson please make sure that your product is saleable. That you have something that is presentable-not half baked. I may have the key contacts at every agency and have had drinks with all of them before but if your product sucks or you are asking too much for a unit or what not, it just won't sell, superstar, maverick, journeymen or whatever label you have!

    Thank you-as they say on sports talk radio--long time listener, first time caller!
  • Brilliant summary Brent - if your product has nor elevanve or value to the buyer, greatest salesman on earth isn't going to change that - neither is great saleman of any type going to expose his black book of contacts to shoddy product - the contacts you have painstakingly built up, come at a price - start-ups especially need to realise this - they ain't special and many are too lazy or cluless to even speak to customers in the first place, to find out if their product, service or idea is even valuable or relavant to the market -
  • bradlebo
    Insightful post. Thanks. You're a thought leader worth following
  • Great explantion of things, Mark. I see the same natural types as well. I know what type I consider myself. I would be very curious to see what those who have worked with me think I am. I know one thing for sure, for me to be able to succeed at selling a product, I have to be able to believe in that product 100% and have no reservations about the product being top shelf in watever category it is in. If not, I couldn't sell water to the Saudis.

    Thanks for the excellent post.
  • Nice. In my experience "Maverick" can also be known as "Shark." They are high energy sales people who are very self-aware and whose insatiable appetites are nourished by both praise and commission. They stop at nothing to get the deal done, while at the same time they demand that all internal resources stand ready to provide them whatever they need, whenever they need it.

    Managers come to depend on them to hit those home runs. But as time passes and egos swell, resentment toward The Shark builds internally. If the business struggles (as all do at some point), and The Shark is the largest producer on the team, the Manager can feel as though he/she is held over a barrel.

    My advice -- keep the Shark in check from Day 1.
  • chuckoverbeck
    I am surprised by all this writing about looking for the Maverick and not the Superstar. I would take the Superstar over the Maverick in any situation. When I think of the Maverick it reminds me of something I always tell my kids, "Rebellion without reason is a temper tantrum."
  • matkinson
    Great post Mark.

    Are mavericks a good option as the first or only sales resource for a SaaS startup?

    SaaS companies generate a lot of leads very quickly as word gets out and people start taking free trials. Those leads need to be managed systematically which means having someone with process smarts on board early. Some of those leads will be "big game" and ideal for maverick big game hunters, but a larger number will be smaller opportunities that need to be nurtured in a more process-driven way.
  • Emily Merkle Snook
    Hello to all on this string,

    I am an 11 year vet of the interactive space, start-up centric, (even had my own last year), and am looking for a ground floor opportunity. In terms of this string, the categorization is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe I am on the spectrum of maverick-superstar. I want to work with people who are thinking in this vein discussed herein. Contact me if you'd like to open a dialog. You say it's hard to find the right salespeople...ditto for me to find people to work with who "get" it. You won't know me until you meet and we have a discourse. I look forward to inquiries.
    Emily Merkle Snook
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/merklesnook
  • Great post. I am a 3x entrepreneur and know it is a rare type that can reliably sell without much support, brand recognition, or track record and amidst the choatic rollercoaster ride of an early stage. Now my clients come to me to find these types and it is no easy task.
    Eliot.
    peaksalesrecruiting.com/blog
  • bmconry
    So when I'm ready to hire a sales staff, I should go for one maverick, then two or three journey(wo)men? You make the point that the maverick cannot be managed. What's to say that, once hired, they won't blow up the business model and/or direction of my company? (But is it a bad thing if they do?)
  • chuckoverbeck
    Great post and I couldn't agree more. I hope it inspires sales professionals to begin a formal education in process improvement. We need more Superstars.
  • lisahjorten
    Thanks for the post. You summarized perfectly what I have experienced personally over many years of hiring and managing salespeople. The trick is what to do with them as the company grows and its needs change. It's very hard to hire a VP of Sales over a Maverick but it eventually must be done. As a salesperson turned entrepreneur/CEO myself, it was interesting to see where I fit in way back when. A maverick, I'm sure.
  • davehendricks
    Love this post. Have one major beef with it. While I think that this is a great rubric, it doesn't apply to 'startups', at least not the 3 that I have worked for. It applies to companies that are shipping working reliable product. Many enterprise startups (the ones that have sales forces) don't qualify here.

    (As a matter of context and perspective I have been a VP Sales and EVP Sales & Marketing at startups (.500 successful exit record) and am currently the COO overseeing sales, ops, finance and hr at an early stage startup. I've also been responsible for a large public company sales number. I've been an individual contributor too. So i've seen all types and I've been considered a maverick in the past)

    At an early stage startup, often there is NOTHING to sell. The product is raw, there are no customer references and often the revenue model (and product) is immature.

    In this case there is only one kind of salesperson to hire, and that's a Superstar. Why?

    The superstar is not trouble - they are at the startup for the right reasons and probably have done this before.
    The superstar is not a maverick - they work closely with the rest of the team, a team that expecting to get intelligence from the prospects about what the market thinks about the product. They can manage too.
    The superstar is not a journeyman - while there is (and should be) process at a startup, this is not the Post Office. There are not cones set up for this person to navigate. They need to create the process in situ.

    The Superstars are your advance team. They market test your positioning. They have trusted clients that they can sell to and get quality feedback from, even when the product isn't ready. They can adjust to a changing business model and comp plans. They can help your product team. They can double as marketers when necessary. They can manage internal requirements (fulfillment process) as well as clients (buying and implementation process). They are much more than salespeople.

    Save the Mavericks and the Journeymen for when your company has a stable, shipping product that people will pay for. When it's early, get a superstar. Plus, since so many founders have ZERO sales experience (or even management experience), hiring a superstar will allow you to focus on the product and not on sales management.
  • Dave,

    I was thinking the same thing as I read through the posting - why wouldn't you want your first hire to be a superstar at a startup? One of the challenges of startups is finding a repeatable sale - the example I like the most is "which aisle, which shelf". The challenge with mavericks is they are *really* good at generating sales from nothing, but it may not be the type of sale you can build a company on - and they don't care about that, they just want to sell because they're really good at it, it's fun, and they know a lot of people who will buy from them "just because". Steve Blank tells a really good story about this which is right on the money - http://bit.ly/cRAgI6.

    What I do like (a LOT) from Mark's post is the definitions of maverick and journeyman... much better than hunter and farmer (which I blogged about myself recently - http://bit.ly/9bfrU0).

    I'm also not clear on why a Maverick can't be a VP Sales but they can be a CEO. I would personally like to see at least *some* process out of a CEO - since the culture of the company is going to emanate from her, I'm not sure a pure Maverick makes sense as CEO.
  • davehendricks
    I love Mark's definitions too. Most non-sales people don't even have two classifications, let alone a quadrant, to describe the different types of sales people.

    I find hiring salespeople to be very challenging. Unlike developers, who can be tested/teched, sales people are notoriously difficult to assess during an interview. Clearly a good sales person can ace that process, whether they are a marverick, journeyman, or superstar. Even 'trouble' can interview well.

    My only beef, as I noted, was the idea that an early stage startup needs someone other than a superstar. Also, CEOs need to be nuts, for sure, but they also need to have some appreciation for the process or else how does the company scale?

    Thanks for the links to the other articles!

    Dave
  • johnmhill
    Interesting to read your thoughts on this matter. But, like most other thoughts on this topic they are just that, thoughts. You are right about sales process though, but this requires tight management and coaching which in my experience with start ups is rare
    The data (around half a million data points) shows that there are 21 core competencies, most of which can be trained They are listed here http://snipurl.com/va89o. A proper assessment will show the degrees with which those competencies are present. One of the factors that will be identified is the presence of an A type sales person - and far from being born the major critical factor is 5 years experience.
    The surprising results are that you can't expect A type sales people to stay more than 2 years - in fact only 16% of them do http://snipurl.com/vd6um.
    The only way to effectively hire sales people is by using pre hire screening where you screen immediately on receipt of the application (this avoids bias) http://snipurl.com/vd6x4. Once you have that past you can investigate any issues they have with sales process or any other shortfall.
  • Mark: Enjoyed your post very much and the framework you laid out. I've noticed that many startups recognize the category of salespeople (Journeyman, etc.) they need, but have difficulty correctly identifying those people, especially at the VP Sales level. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this post about the qualities that – according to your framework – make up a "superstar" VP Sales. http://bit.ly/9kVyp4
  • A Superstar or Maverick VP Sales will reject the VP title b/c VP's are an unnecessary layer at the start-up stage. They must have holistic understanding, humility to know they have to learn daily, be passionate about the vision, the long-term relationship, and embrace honesty. They also do not like to be called "sales people" b/c they do not sell - they do not "pitch" - they listen, collaborate, educate, and evangelize. I am in fact interested in a VP "Sales" job but am told I "look too young". Experience, knowledge, and intellect and something intangible comes through immediately that transcends age. BTW I am 35.
  • Hi Emily: I agree that titles are generally not useful. When hiring for this "position", the VP term is simply used to provide context about where in the organization the person fits and what the responsibilities are. No matter what you call this person (who manages the sales team and potentially carries a bag, among other things), they are still a "layer", but an important one if the business is to scale. I think you are right on with all of the other qualities you list and I talk about most of them in the post linked to in my original comment.
  • I often talk about the comfort level a sales person has in the continuum between "chaos" and "commodity". Put a journeyman in a situation where things aren't packaged up and you can get a lot of finger pointing rather than results.

    For early stage startups, it might be cool to see you drill into hiring mavericks some more. How to find? What questions to ask, like have they sold products in past at a similar level of complexity? Are they personally fascinated with what you are doing? etc...
  • There are plenty of Mavericks out there. But they don't come from big corporations - they hate bureaucracy. They don't stay anywhere too long - they want to keep learning. I am a Maverick and people (hiring managers/CEOs) at start-ups are either intimidated or think I don't have pedigree because I have only worked at start-ups. You have to recognize them by talking to them - not just looking at a CV. Frustrating.
  • Interesting post and quite timely as we're just starting the interview process for our first salesperson. A couple of questions/comments:

    At a previous startup we hired an early salesperson who looked like a Maverick. They pissed a lot of people off, made a couple of bad sales and turned out to be Trouble. Any tips in spotting the difference?

    In the current start up our problem is less with evangelism and more with mechanics. We're doing a good job of explaining the vision, convincing of our ability to deliver, dealing with objections, etc. but struggling with the mechanics of following-up, gentle nagging, and getting from requests for proposals to signed-off deals. So we've been thinking more about finding a good journey man and getting them to run the process, introducing founders to do the evangelical bit at the right point (fairly soon after basic qualification). Any thoughts on this?

  • cthomaschase
    Very interesting topic, as building a startup sales team is such a tough balancing act and one of the most "tweaked" aspects of the company. IMO, mavericks (aka hustlers) are really you're only option in the early days (assuming no or little funding) because they alone have the stomach to iterate on sales methods to help define "the method." It's no coincidence that the type of personality willing to work at some sketchy startup with a heavily commission-based comp plan is also the same person that has a few speed-bumps on the resume. As you pointed out, even if the maverick finds "the method", they're usually inconsistent when it comes to repeating it, with regards to everything expect smelling the money and getting signatures. They never lose that ability. I disagree that mavericks can't be managed. True, mavericks don't want to follow process they think is bullshit, however, my experience is that they really take to "insights" that can help them get paid faster, and this can sometimes be baked into a bit of process they will adopt on a regular basis. Journeymen can be great, but only if they have a maverick or superstar to inspire them. As the name implies, they'll unusually get you some sales and then move on. IMO superstars don't make a whole lot of sense for a startup until you have big funding because (a) they usually don't have the balls to walk from their big bonus job at SF.com, and (b) they love working for brand name firms. Superstars are great in part because they have huge egos, and few of them are willing to slum it with a new startup. I think you can get really far without any superstars, and wait to bring them in later as the company matures. But be careful, because if you start dropping new free agent superstars into the sales room, your core crew is going to be pissed, so it has to be done delicately. Not all sales types play nice with each other, but as you pointed out, success is a recipe with differing doses of each type.
  • davidrubinstein
    As the Chief Revenue Officer (and first sales hire) at a successful NYC startup I particularly enjoyed your perspective and categorization of folks like myself. One challenge I'd love to see you address is building out the team.

    When selling a CPM/CPC driven product it is easy to hire folks from the usual suspects (Google, Yahoo, MSN, Facebook, etc). They got great contacts at a couple of clients and can get you in. But here's the challenge:

    Someone that can get a meeting with a Google business card is not necessarily the person that can make it happen for a startup. Usually rolodex won't be so deep that can walk into more than a couple of clients.

    Would love your perspective on building out the team, particularly when you are creating demand for a new product/market...look for big company discipline or small company flexibility? Other thoughts would be welcome.
  • shafqat
    Great question - I'd love to hear Mark expand on the sales team building/hiring process. I'm the CEO of a small startup (10 people, 7 engineers and 3 sales). Everyone says "find a young, maverick sales guy who's willing to work for equity." Unfortunately, these people simply don't exist (or are incredibly hard to find). We've managed to find an awesome 'journeyman' who's willing to take a chance, but finding that maverick could change the company and help us hit it out of the park.

    How do you go about finding and then incentivizing mavericks without 6 figure salaries. We could raise VC and then pay them, but I'd like to get a 1 or 2 mavericks on board before any large capital infusion.
  • Guest
    And also, how can a Maverick find the right opportunities and long term stability? By definition, they are somewhat discontent working in the structured teams that develop as companies grow.
  • Sales reps of any kind are (better be) "coin operated" - they get conditioned to make a lot of money when they make sales - so if they don't see how they are going to quickly make sales with your company (which is a challenge at most startups) they will want/need some guarantee to come. That's why they typically (as Mark suggests) are not the founders of these companies - that's not the "risk" they are wired to take. They don't want to work for nothing while sales/revenue come in - they want to create and then take a piece of it.

    It's very hard to do, but if you really want to avoid the VC route and still attract Mavericks, give them a ridiculously high commission (compared to what they can get otherwise) on early sales with a lower base. So, they can see upside (as in more money) than with a traditional base/comp plan, and you don't have to pay more unless/until they get what you think is enough revenue/traction. Still tough, but the only thing I've seen work.
  • Emily Merkle Snook
    IMHO you need a fellow risk taker who wants equity - not a base. And you can have discipline without the corporate BS. If you are truly creating a new market, rolodex is meaningless. It's about relationships.
    Best candidate is confident and has gotten knocked about a bit - but always gets up, dusts themselves off, learns, laughs, does not repeat.
  • If those are superstars, and they want to join a start-up, they probably want to join as co-owner. That is a very strong motivation for them to succeed in sales.
  • pflint
    Mark this is a great post and having been a VP Sales agree with almost all your points. The one addition I would make is that in those early stage companies that have an inside sales effort they should hire "Journeymen" for this position. Compared to outside sales these individuals need to be ultra process oriented, great with salesforce.com and are good enough at the "leap of faith" pitch to secure interest.
  • many inside sales reps are journeymen but many are just young superstars in training!
  • Sam
    Great post Mark (LOVE Balasmiq).

    You wrote: "Superstars are best to hire once you’ve got your product/market fit, proven your product will sell, hired a maverick and a few journeymen and now need to bring in leadership and structure to enable you to scale more quickly and predictably."

    But, almost by definition, wouldn't Mavericks absolutely hate reporting to a superstar (reporting to anyone really)? How do you manage that tension?
  • Yes, hard to get them to report to anybody, really. Answered question above in response to Jason Wolfe.
  • Does anyone agree that this matrix could also apply to other parts of the org chart? I have a Maverick as a CTO - he drives me nuts at times but he's got exactly the right mindset and ability to push us through into an ideal architecture. Coding to a timeline, not so much. Since he is 1 of 2 engineers right now, I am experiencing premature graying... eventually with a Superstar VP of Engineering working along side this guy, we could have an awesome mix of pushing the envelope + working the process. Add in some journeyman engineers to get the work done and you have a nicely balanced technical team.

    I would bet the same analogy can be used elsewhere, depending on your business. It's a good team analysis tool.
  • Yes! My rule is that CTO's are often mavericks and VP Engineerings are often Superstars. These roles are different. The former is the thinker and individual contributor and the latter is the "player manager"
  • Very useful post as always, many thanks. Raises a couple of questions for me;

    How do you best manage a Maverick in your model?

    Are they likely to be goal-oriented, and will they necessarily resist all attempts to define them in a structure?
  • Funny that you ask. Sometimes they don't report well to the Superstar. I think you should try to have them managed by the Superstar. In rare cases if they are EXCEPTIONALLY talented you can have them report to the CEO. Or co-report to both. But usually better to have not have non-traditional reporting lines.
  • EMS
    Could not agree more. But there are shades of Maverick - not all are feral. If they can take constructive criticism, admit when they are wrong, and be able to say "I don't know" - no worries.
  • Superb! post. Very nicely articulated. Looking to hire a maverick very soon.
  • Thanks for that excellent post, I´ve got my Maverick after testing about 10 Journeymen and Troublemakers. Hiring for a startup is the biggest challenge even if you´ve been working with sales for ten years...
  • Al
    Mark, In terms of you being a maverick - I think that fairly applies to most entrepreneurs/founders don't you think? We wear multiple hats, have a thousand things on our mind. Keeping up with the discipline of a process sometimes is overbearing on the other 100 things that need to get done. But we're a class act when we walk into a sales meeting and people are almost always blown away - and no one can do that better than entrepreneurs - but getting it to a close needs someone more methodical.

    In all the startups I've worked for, I have yet to see a sales superstar (by your definition) founder - and more importantly I have yet to see one who's not a maverick (or quickly does not become one) even though he/she had an engineering/product mgmt/biz dev background. Who else can be a better evangelist (maverick) than the founders?
  • re: founders usually being mavericks, you're probably right. but I also like people who are more process driven than I am. I think it can be beneficial.
  • Love Balsamiq, bought it more than a year ago, just after first impression. It is now much better and i even not using it that much, but I liked the idea and implementation, and would like to see more tools like this initially developed by a person at his home :)

    Early stage startups surely need a evangelist type salesman. The question is how to find such person...
  • The process-driven dichotomy is a false one. Mavericks can file activity reports and keep track of their prospects with contact management software too. It's not unreasonable to ask them to do so.

    Also, you can have innate talent and be process-driven and not be a superstar. Superstars often have something else going for them: luck, and career management skills. You can be great at building relationships with clients and not so great at building them with your own management hierarchy.

    The ideal salesman for a start-up is a maverick who has innate sales talent, but so far has lacked the career management skills to climb the ladder to a role (i.e., the right company, product, distribution channel, territory) where his sales skills would have made him a superstar already. That he is considering working for a start-up can be seen as supporting evidence of his lack of career management skills.
  • Emily Merkle Snook
    I disagree. Mavericks die growing up in the "right" companies - well, depending when they get in and when they get out. Career management is subjective. Life happens. When I am hiring, I am most interested in how someone got from there to here - and what they learned along the way. Gory details and all. Ladder-climbers don't belong at a start-up - you need people willing to plug any leak and step in wherever necessary. Titles should be reserved for outbound efforts - no ego room at a true ground floor operation.
  • You say you disagree, but in reading your reply, I'm not sure what I wrote that you disagree with. I didn't say that "ladder-climbers" belong at a start-up, and I said nothing about titles.
  • EMS
    Sorry Dave - I was not clear. I was responding to "lack of career management skills" ... I am sure you agree, in this space, it's far too dynamic to "plan" a career path. And I associate title huggers with corporate climbers. Guess I am subconsciously revealing a sensitivity to a bad experience ;) It seems we are in agreement.
  • Great points. I'm going to amend my post as a result. Innate talent + process driven are necessary but not sufficient criteria for great sales leaders.
  • Thanks. Learned this stuff the hard way.
  • Very insightful as always Mark. Any thoughts on how a fledgling start-up can find and recruit the mavericks?

    The best definition of X-factor I have heard of is in the recent 'Che' movie when Guevara describes it as the unexplainable element in a small group of rebels that defeats an army many times its size.
    (I am not a communist though!)
  • Maybe start by finding great sales leaders and asking for intros to friends? Great sales people always seem to know other great sales people.
  • I highly recommend two books that can make any Journeyman a Superstar or Eagle!

    1. The New Solution Selling - Keith Eades
    2. Let's Get Real or Let's Not Play - Mahan Khalsa and Randy Illig

  • Great reminder, Mark, thanks. Picking up a bit on your point about superstars, any insights from your experience on how to reliably identify and attract mavericks beyond personal contacts? Self-selection for startups helps a bit and most of us think we know it when we see it, but often candidates have a very small number of demonstrable successes (even smaller if they've been doing true early stage stuff).
  • Need to think about it. Mostly, as you say, just like with art ...
  • Curious your thoughts on which of these groups is most technically inclined? Using technology to amplify their efforts, make connections, gain thought-leadership stature, etc.

    I'm sure they can be found in all groups, but I bet there's a correlation somewhere.

    Also curious your thoughts on those few startups with sales pro's in the founding role? We've found our sales + dev combo for founders to be great, but we're all pretty well cross-trained.
  • I think tech skills can go across all quandrants. re: startups with sales people heading the. Obviously only if they're superstars. And if they surround them self with great PM's and engineers. Then it could be magic!
  • funny - I posted this 30 minutes ago - Can You Sell Ice to Eskimos? - http://bit.ly/cG6X2B . great post mark - and really useful to me right now
  • that was great beef bait you put in there about mccain. if someone actually likes mccain, it is easy to pounce on them. like a free victory.

    well played mark.

    i do think, as the world continues to collapse under a burden of debt that can never be repaid, that we will see more and more organizations like craigslist emerge, for which this type of sales paradigm is not as applicable . CL,with 32 employees and a revenue/employee ratio in excess of 3 million:1, is an example of the type of thing i refer to. i wonder what type of sales team such organizations require.
  • Kid, simple, straightforward services and products can absolutely move to this "craigslist" model. However, large, complex, expensive, offers will always require the direct engagement sales people bring.

    The "collapse" I think you will see is that of the "trouble" sales person and the low end "journeymen". The simple, less complex sale they used to make their money on IS going away. Sales people will have to move up the stack or chose a different profession.

    The simple sale is going away.
  • Hey keenan,

    Good to see you on BSOTT. I agree with the low end folks being kicked out of the value chain by automation. I think sales stars though may end up being blog stars, because they are naturally gregarious, socially smart, and capable of earning the trust needed to close the sale. I worked for an online brokerage company before (largely a sales business), and I think for many of them, a few sales stars can manage online customer communities, using them to service clients and upsell. IMHO blog stardom will be a big part of the future of sales.
  • Yes, the Internet certainly helps to collapse the sales cycle. But there will always be sales people. Some products and customers require it.
  • Great overview of the sales personalities - Having been member of the Salesforce.com enterprise team (building out Australia when we had 6 people), I can say I have worked with and hired all the personalities you describe.

    I would comment that personality typing becomes incredibly important as a business evolves and tighter territory allocation becomes a consideration. When dividing up territory, it is imperative that your superstars are given the complex accounts with the biggest chunks of gold to be found - Hard to crack, but highly rewarding if secured.

    Give your Journeymen the existing accounts to farm and grow - They love doing it and are good at it because they will methodically turn over every rock and squeeze all the juice out.

    Mavericks on the other hand should be directed at the greenfield territories - Perhaps a new geography or industry, where they can unleash their dervish like energy and work their magic to get the doors open so that a Journeyman or Superstar can come in behind and build the account for maximum value extraction.

    My experience is that you need to get this right, otherwise money is left on the table - Case in point was one of my mavericks that opened the door at a large financial institution, but didn't have the discipline of process to 'land and expand'. I gave the account to a superstar and within 6 months he had blown the roof off the revenue targets.

    Great insights Mark and I hope my experience encourages people to apply awareness of these classifications to the territory assignment process also.
  • Very nicely put. Your point about mavericks "My experience is that you need to get this right, otherwise money is left on the table" is so correct.
  • Wow, Matt. Perfect expansion of the theme. I totally agree with your conclusions. I guess I can save some commentary for my future hunters vs. farmers post! Thank you for adding the insights. Awesome.
  • wfjackson3
    Hunters vs farmers eh? Is this going to be another ADHD inspired article?
  • wfjackson3
    You are showing your consultant roots Mr. Matrix. Still, it isn't a bad idea. I also find that there are sales people that are comfortable moving back and forth between maverick and superstar roles depending on the needs of the organization. One person I work with in particular is very good at process, but also enjoys periodically getting to play maverick and JFDI along the way.
  • Ha, you know us ex consultants are only capable of seeing the world in 2x2 matrices!
  • Can't wait to see what PUCCKA means...

    Re: selling ice to eskimos. I hope someone pipes up and takes offense on behalf of eskimos everywhere, a la your Nigerian spam remark a while back. Just make sure you can still say "It's cool... some of my best friends are eskimos..."

    And on a serious note, very well articulated. It's all about timing and fit. Some people will do well as employee #25, not as #1 and vice versa.

    From "Good to Great," you've got to get the right people on the bus AND in the right seats THEN drive like hell...
  • EMS
    I recommend "The Black Swan" by Nassef Taleb. THAT"S who you want. Good luck though!
  • Funny... that book's been on my Amazon wish-list for a long while...
  • Hey, Reece. Too funny because when I wrote that comment I thought, "I wonder whether anybody would care about this quote?" My alternative was "sell sand to the Saudis" ;-)
  • Ha... I think you made the right choice.

    Crude oil is more intimidating than whale oil...
  • another awesome post Mark... on the money.
  • Agreed. great post and a great breakdown of sales people in general. Its unfortunate but its true, you are usually not going to find a superstar and if you do find a maverick, you have to figure out how much bullshit you want to deal with and if its worth the money hes making you :)

    -Bella
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: