Competing with that top producer - thoughts from Alexi Mavrelis

Alexi (SBM 2004 - Past SBMA President) wrote.... We all have that person or persons in our respective companies that are the ultra producer, the one who sells the most and makes the most time and time again. Is that the person we should be modeling our technique after? Would Eckert categorize them as a "Professional Salesperson" or are they different? Why is it that they are that good? Is it personality type? Experience? Their massive established network? Can we compete with them with the same consistency that they produce? Why or why not?

Eckert's Thoughts: In any area there are superstars - think professional sports, or music. And many of those people are very hard to copy. I am watching a lot of hockey now with the Cup playoffs, and in Hockey you have Sidney Crosby from Pittsburg. 19 years old and a phenom. Can you become him - probably not. His instinct and vision for the game is just out of the realm of most players. So can you role-model and copy him - certainly. Look at the things you can copy - work ethic, techniques, dedication. But in the end all "players" in any sport (selling included) have to find the style of play that works for them.

I strongly believe if you remain committed to the techniques and behaviors of the "professional salesperson" that the SBM program sets forth, that given a bit of time, you will be a strong producer. It will take some time (for instance, you can't possibly have the network a long-time producer has) and you may not become a superstar. But the beauty of this world is we all don't have to be superstars to have productive, healthy and meaningful work lives.

In selling I think there is another element also, and that is ethics. I think there are unethical superstars out there because the marketplace and the workplace allows that to happen. So I think one must be careful not to emulate someone who solely produces, I think you also have to ask if that person produces ethically. I have known "rockstar" faculty who publish more, and get more grants, but do that on the backs of their grad students and at the expense of a healthy working environment. I don't admire or respect these individuals even though on paper they look like rockstars. As much as I like success I don't consider it success if it is done in an unethical or unsavory way.

Lastly, I think you have to be careful defining success. I have spent many hours thinking about how I can be successful. Certainly being a strong faculty member is one of those. But being a great husband, father, neighbor, citizen, and such also plays a huge role. And the fact remains, by defining success broadly, it weakens me in each of the individual areas to a certain extent. Based on my definition though, I feel like a holistic success (on most days!). For example, if I had built the SBM program bigger, stronger, and more successful (as defined by external criteria) but gotten divorced and had a poor relationship with my daughter because of that, would I be successful? I think not. But there is the key - "I think". You will all need to define success on your own terms. It is easy to let others (your organization, your boss, your peers, your industry, society) define it for you, but ultimately you need to be the judge.

OK, now that I have rambled on lets try to summarize: emulate with realism in mind, define success on your own terms, then go after it. Be patient, be thoughtful, be ethical. Use what you have learned, add to it, and I have a strong hunch that most of you will squarely land in the "successful" category.