[johansch]

The best sales people I've worked with (in a software/services B2B context - specifically when the customers are large companies) are into long-term relationship and trust building.

They analyze the hell out of the customer from an organizational perspective and really try to figure out what problem they need to get solved.

They are definitely extroverts. They are interesting people to be around, have great conversational and wining and dining skills, etc.

They know their limits when it comes to technology and see themselves as facilitators of deep technical discussions between the prospective customer's tech people and the internal staff. They are happy to take the backseat when it comes to tech discussions - while still listening, taking notes, etc. (That they'll then come back with to i.e. me to try to understand and figure out the next step.)

[yellowapple]

To be clear, introverts can also be "interesting people to be around" and "have great conversational and wining and dining skills".

The difference between an introvert and an extrovert doesn't lie in one's abilities in that regard, or even in whether or not one enjoys social interaction, but rather in whether one finds social interaction to be energizing or exhausting.

The article seems to misunderstand this difference, too, but in a different way: by equating "extrovert" and "introvert" with what are often colloquially referred to as "A-type" and "B-type" personalities (or maybe "red" and "blue", or some other distinction along those lines). Just like with leadership positions ("A-types want to lead, but B-types are better at it"), the conventional wisdom is that "A-types" are more likely to actually want to be in a sales position, but "B-types" are more likely to actually win over a customer. Extroversion and introversion are probably correlated here, but I reckon it having more to do about one's approach to communication with others.

[johansch]

As a contrast, the worst sales people I have been around are extrovert and think they know the tech, so the can handle everything on their own. This has inevitably resulted in losses/disasters.

These kind of sales people are a better fit when the product has been in the marketplace for 1-2 years and has survived ~5-10 customers. By then it's a lot more packaged and well-defined. You still need a strong central sales "command structure" though.

I have actually met some (semi-)introverted sales people. They never made any sales, or got anywhere close to it.

[caminante]

  The best sales people I've worked with (in a software/services B2B 
  context - specifically when the customers are large companies) are 
  into long-term relationship and trust building.

Adding nuance, I was intrigued by an argument [0] that "relationship builders" weren't the out-performers in sales. In fact, they were the least likely to outperform in complex B2B sales.

[0] https://hbr.org/2011/09/selling-is-not-about-relatio

[fumar]

This is spot-on. As someone who works in enterprise sales, the best performers (if performance is based on growing investment from the client into x product), are challengers.

Sales tactics, like aggressive selling or throwing everything at the wall see what sticks, does not work in enterprise sales. The enterprise sell is complex and nuanced based on all the decision makers and influencers. It helps to be less of a "classic-sales" person and more of a doctor. You want to diagnose, understand, and provide a recommendation. Often-times like a doctor, the client (patient) does not want hear or accept the solution (antidote). This is where the challenger mindset comes into play, the great sales folks are pushing for the "true solution" even if the client-team is not onboard. It can take time to get a champion on the client side who sees the light. Just to be clear enterprise sales only works if the solution is solving true business outcomes.

For selling to new clients, its important for the sales team to run a client diagnostic to understand if the product (solution) has a right to win. Its just the start of understanding the client. I will say getting to know the client and their hurdles is crucial and the clients are experts at their problems. But, they are not experts at solving it. That is why the sales person is there and why the product exists.

[johansch]

It obviously differs quite a lot depending on the type of customer.

An example where I have seen the type of relationship-building salesperson outperform the aggressive kind of sales person: sales to large, stable incumbent companies in Europe.

[caminante]

For sure! I think the nuance (and if you read the article and the study) is the best performers are consistently "assertive" -- or in the middle between passive and aggressive.

[johansch]

Yeah. They have to be able to carefully thread that needle between pushy/assertive vs annoying quite carefully and intelligently. And counteract the pushy factor with charm/hosting skills.

.. and that's why this job is so highly paid (the kind of people I'm talking about: ~300k/year or more).

[ghaff]

In my experience, computer-related B2B, that's pretty much spot on. I've never known a successful sales rep who didn't come across as an extrovert by any reasonable definition of the word. Did they all start out that way and it just came naturally? I have no idea.

But that doesn't mean they're all the frat boy stereotype, taking customers out wining and dining all the time, and then signing the deal on the golf course.

Rather they spend a lot of time and effort navigating large organizations, engaging technical people to talk with and work with the right people at the customer, and developing a relationship that will eventually lead to a sale.