Tag Archives: revenue_risk_management

Revenue Growth: Don’t Let the Funnel Fool Ya!

Sales funnels symbolize a widely-known reality among marketers: s*** happens.

Funnels instantly remind us that interactions between buyers and sellers are fraught with risks – not that we need any reminding. Funnels also represent our fear that we can assiduously attempt to convert a prospect to a customer, but lo, there’s a chance we won’t prevail.

I like funnels because they are easy to understand. Funnels mansplain uncertainty and risk. When you need to justify a pipeline multiplier, or reveal the rationale behind a multi-channel lead generation campaign, simply fire a 2-D trapezoid shape onto the projection screen. Divide the image into equally-spaced horizontal stripes. Use bright colors. Then, dive into funnel taxonomy.  “Raw prospects enter the gauntlet at the top. From there, they undergo a metamorphosis, becoming Leads, then MQL (Marketing Qualified Leads), then SQL (Sales Qualified Leads). Those that emerge will be anointed as Opportunities before moving south, eventually crossing into a hallowed zone marketers call Paying Customers.” My presentation includes a bloated money bag positioned near the funnel’s bottom to drive home the idea. The screen glows even brighter. Warmth envelops the room. This is everyone’s favorite topic.

You already have recognized that my scenario is called The Happy Path. Happy paths, as we know, make people happy. Everything on the slide is linear. Everything is ordinal, with a prominent, single-headed arrow to emphasize the direction of actions, activity, and interest. The partitions between funnel stages are always crisp and distinct. “Questions? . . . No? Great! Let’s move on . . .”

I advance to the next slide to continue my speil when inevitably, someone – often a new hire – lobs a question with the antecedent, “What about . . .” I’m prepared. I press the “back” button, and ask, “Was there a question about the funnel?” Indeed. Many questions, actually. A partial list of ways to complete the interrogative:

. . . Lead qualification and disqualification, changed priorities, low buyer motivation, misaligned or insufficient sales incentives, faulty CRM data, lack of project funding, buyer fear, seller fear, redirected budgets, raised customer expectations, increased ROI hurdles, misunderstood needs, bad assumptions, new assumptions, strategic re-prioritizations, project starts-and-stops, buyer confusion, atrocious sales processes, predatory buying, industrial espionage, new decision hierarchies, flawed business intelligence, process breakdowns, competing internal agendas, technological innovation, tariffs, product recalls, spikes in monetary exchange rates, increases in the cost of capital, mergers and acquisitions, personnel changes, passive aggression, essential conversations that never materialized, relationships gone awry, cruddy demos, software bugs, regulations, external competitive maneuvering, internal competitive maneuvering, and stupid tweets from anyone with access to the company’s “official” Twitter account  . . .”

I don’t consider any of this the Unhappy Path. I call it Life. Here’s the problem: beyond their purpose for symbolizing risk, funnels don’t represent the myriad conditions companies encounter when executing revenue strategy and tactics. These examples obliterate the template funnel’s shape, and shatter that straight North-South arrow into countless, itty-bitty pieces.

For me, the funnel’s most meaningful features are its taper and length. The angle degree at the top should invite concern, interest, and discussion. “Our funnel is wide as a tank container at the top and narrow as a pipette at the bottom, and it takes one year to travel from top to bottom. Perhaps we’ve found the root cause for our cash flow problems.” In practice, few seem interested in dissecting the risks that cause the delta, and how to manage them. A funnel is a funnel. Counter-intuitively, the funnel’s ubiquity as a risk symbol has made us less risk aware.

Time for a fresh look.

Twitter abandoned its egg silhouette in 2017.  Assuming their objective was to render a human-ish image, the replacement – two detached shapes that faintly suggest a human head and shoulders – offers scant improvement. Imagine what we’d be purchasing if design engineers adopted such anonymized forms to use for prototyping. I suppose we’d have a visceral understanding of what daily life was like in the 1700’s. Similarly, how can companies create revenue strategy when using generic funnels as design templates?

Overlooked differences. At best, funnels suggest risk in marketing and sales. But they don’t mirror reality. I love Roadrunner cartoons, but for my safety and that of others, I resist letting them inform my understanding of physics.

Three real-world deviations from the funnel symbol:

  1. Pathway

Prospects enter sales funnels at many different points, not just at the top. Sales funnels are highly porous, and exit points vary, too.

  1. Re-cycling

Not every lead remains permanently outside the funnel. Prospects that have exited the sales or buying process can re-enter.

  1. Effort

Opportunities in sales funnels generally don’t drop from top to bottom on their own. As leads descend through the funnel, effort and costs increase for both sellers and buyers. In fact, if funnels reflected aggregate cost of sales, the model would be exactly flipped – small at the top, and large (or very large) at the bottom.

. . . And two overlooked similarities:

  1. Connectedness

As cash engines, revenue funnels are connected in several ways to the organizations they serve. They are not free-floating in space, as they are often depicted in presentations. Marketers implicitly understand that revenue funnels often receive inbound leads from a messy universe of opportunities, and that revenue flows from the bottom. But marketing funnels are but one component of a large system. They require additional input such as cash, information, talent, and other resources to operate.

  1. Throughput

With physical funnels, smooth material flow from top to bottom signal that the funnel is operating well.  But marketers often defer to a flawed proxy for funnel health: fullness. The problem is, full funnels can also be clogged. Rather than using funnel fullness as portents for cash-flow vitality, marketers should emphasize velocity and throughput as meaningful metrics.

 

General recommendations for funnel management: 

  1. Make sure the funnel opening is as wide as it needs to be, but no wider.
  2. Match the size of the opening at the bottom with the company’s revenue needs. That includes ensuring orders won’t swamp the company’s ability to fill them.
  3. Don’t take the taper for granted! Make sure it aligns with the company’s risk capacity.
  4. For planning purposes, net the funnel’s cash output against the resources required to operate it.
  5. Remember that throughput velocity is as important to consider as overall funnel value.

I’m not declaring funnels dead. Not by a long shot. The marketing and sales profession has long suffered from lack of probabilistic thinking, and funnels offer a symbolically-accurate representation of revenue generation risk.

Put another way, a picture that tells us  s*** happens is worth a thousand words.

Ethical Selling: American Express Offers a Teachable Moment

“Every ethics question a business person could face comes down to a question you face on your very first sale: what are you willing to do for a buck?”, Philip Broughton wrote in his book, Mastering the Art of the Sale.

The question needs to be asked at every company. From the mom-and-pop Custom Cupcakes by Diane, to this week’s ethical letdown, financial behemoth American Express. The Wall Street Journal reported ongoing sales chicanery at the company, and traced its roots back to 2004 (American Express Gave Small Business Customers One Rate, Then Secretly Raised It), July 31, 2018).

Perhaps it began even earlier. AmEx reaped the benefits through 2018 – around the time Wells Fargo was accused of the same distortion. When it was publicly called out, an AmEx manager got nervous, and “told salespeople they would need his approval before offering prospective clients a margin of less than 0.70 of a percentage point, according to an email reviewed by the Journal. Current and former employees said the price changes were common knowledge within the forex business . . . Amex’s foreign-exchange international payments department routinely increased conversion rates without notifying customers in a bid to boost revenue and employee commissions,”  Journal reporter AnnaMaria Andriotis wrote in the article.

AmEx spokeswoman Marina Norville, responded, saying, “We constantly reinforce the importance of acting in the best interest of our customers.”

Current and former AmEx employees voiced a different take. They “describe an environment focused on bringing in as many new clients as possible and squeezing revenue out of them before they depart. Employees were told that the average forex [foreign exchange] customer did business with AmEx for around three years. ‘Who cares if they come or go? Let’s make money while we have them,’ one current employee said, referring to the attitude within the division,” according to the Journal.

Well, Amex, which is it? – because it’s not both.

The article describes AmEx’s tactics: “The salespeople didn’t inform customers that the margin, a markup that AmEx tacks on to the base currency exchange rate, was subject to increase without notice,” current and former employees were quoted as saying in the article. “Some time later, salespeople would increase the margin without informing the customers . . . Managers directed salespeople to keep the details of the payment arrangements hazy when speaking with potential customers and to avoid putting pricing terms in emails,” according to current and former employees.

This reveal got me wondering: how does this American Express division recruit salespeople? How do their online solicitations represent their selling culture and expectations?

This June, 2018 post for FXIP Manager popped up first in my search:

“FX International Payments (FXIP) is a cross-border payments solution developed to meet the foreign currency payment needs of small to mid-size corporate and financial institution clients. www.americanexpress.com/fxip.

The FXIP Manager reports to the Director FXIP Americas and is responsible for managing a portfolio of existing corporate clients. He/she will develop and maintain relationships, drive expansion sales of new product solutions, and make outbound calls to encourage transaction activity. The incumbent is responsible for achieving client revenue targets and overseeing the effective management across the end-to-end client life cycle, including, early engagement, loyalty and retention. He or She will work closely with colleagues in sales, marketing and operations to deliver superior service to our clients. This role includes a broad range of responsibilities, including: business development, relationship management, portfolio analysis, and requires interaction with both internal and external partners. This position will own and drive work streams and strategic initiatives to increase overall portfolio performance.

The candidate will have demonstrated success in proactively driving organic growth, client retention, revenue obtainment and related metrics in a foreign exchange environment focused on profitable expansion in a time-sensitive, well defined compliance and risk conscious environment.

Following this description, AmEx lists desired qualifications – eleven of them. Usual stuff: demonstrated experience in . . . strong knowledge . . . high proficiency . . .

Then, this one, halfway down the list:

“Must understand the individual and group responsibilities impact to department profit and revenue targets,”

And this,

“Demonstrated strong negotiation and influencing skills in order to handle objections [to] convert and activate prospects.”

Except for “deliver superior service to our clients” in the job description, this is a Revenue Focused job with a capital R, and a capital F, not unlike most sales positions. But this posting hints at the AmEx sales culture:

Drive organic growth . . . profitable expansion . . . revenue obtainment [sic] . . . Impact to department profit and revenue targets . . . Strong negotiation . . . influencing . . . handle objections . . . convert and activate . . .

Make no mistake: this is a high-pressure selling environment. If you like serving customers and relish a pat on the back for doing so, AmEx might not be the place for you. Unless, of course, you’re making goal.

What are you willing to do for a buck? And, what aren’t you willing to do? Two straightforward questions with complex answers that might vary, depending on a company’s momentary situation. Or, the sale rep’s.

This case offers a teachable moment for sales managers and salespeople to engage in conversations, and to answer further questions:

  1. Which conflicts of interest exist between AmEx and its customers? Do the same conflicts occur in our sales engagements?
  2. How might the conflicts be mitigated?
  3. Is intentional omission of facts during the sales process equivalent to lying?
  4. In the AmEx scenario, who is responsible for misleading customers? Management? Salespeople?
  5. Is it justifiable for salespeople to execute management requests, even if they perceive those requests are morally or ethically wrong?
  6. How would you resolve a conflict of interest if it happened with one of your customers?
  7. How should companies balance achieving revenue targets, and preserving the best interests of customers?

“This ought to be a moment when people stop and remember how dangerous the system is when you don’t have the proper protections in place . . . This is a wake-up call. It should remind all of us and firms that culture and compensation make a difference . . . How you reward people, how you motivate people and what values you hold people to matter,” former US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said. He was talking about Wells Fargo.

No company is immune to the corrosive impact of dishonest and unethical sales practices. If you’re not already discussing the issues, the time to start is now.

Hate, Bad Product Placement, and Brand Risk

The author and his dogs on The Lawn at the University of Virginia. The Rotunda appears in the background.

 

What keeps marketing executives up at night? A duo of sticky problems:

  1. how to create unique product designs that consumers easily recognize, and
  2. how to ensure consumers prefer their product, and not ones that appear similar.

By solving these two challenges, marketers earn a beautiful gem: brand equity. Enjoy it. Cherish it. But remember – in an instant, that gem can turn ugly.

On August 11, 2017, white supremacists organized a rally called Unite the Right, and marched in Charlottesville. The group of about 100 men and women walked past the University of Virginia’s iconic Rotunda, and then down a pacific area on the UVa grounds known affectionately as The Lawn.

Chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans, the supremacists carried torches that were readily identifiable based on their distinctive features: Tiki-brand torches, manufactured by a Wisconsin-based company called Lamplight. The racist symbolism of the torches and their connection to the Ku Klux Klan was not a coincidence. The purpose was to communicate an odious message, and to intimidate anyone watching.

It’s unlikely that product planners at Lamplight ever developed a use case for this malevolent activity. How could they? An abiding assumption for most marketers – myself included – is that our prospective customers have benign intent for using our products or services. When deciding how many torches to manufacture and where to distribute them, Lamplight probably considers banal matters like economic conditions, leisure trends, and weather patterns – not the number of hate rallies to be held, or how many marchers will participate.

For Lamplight, the prominent role their torches played in the Charlottesville tragedy are what author Nassim Taleb calls Black Swan events – situations that are extremely difficult to predict. The proverbial blind-side tackle. The catastrophe that came out of nowhere. No company should ever be self-satisfied that such things could never happen. Prior to August 11th, few people heard of Lamplight, or its parent company, W. C. Bradley. After that, both became known globally, for all the wrong reasons.

Shortly after the Unite the Right rally video went viral, the company issued the following statement:

“TIKI Brand is not associated in any way with the events that took place in Charlottesville and are deeply saddened and disappointed. We do not support their message or the use of our products in this way. Our products are designed to enhance backyard gatherings and to help family and friends connect with each other at home in their yard.”

Marketers and salespeople worship at the revenue altar, and here’s a company that states unequivocally that some revenue is filthy, and they’d rather not have it to augment the “top line.” Kudos to them not only for their morals, but for making them public.

Tiki torches weren’t the only easy-to-identify brand dragged into the supremacist vortex:

New Balance shoes was recognized by a writer for the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer as “the official shoe of white people.”

The Detroit Redwings hockey team had their logo corrupted by the Unite the Right marchers, who modified it only slightly. On August 12, @onelectionday posted a Tweet that would make any marketer break out in a cold sweat:

“Wait a minute…@DetroitRedWings have you sanctioned the use of your logo here or is a copyright infringement suit pending?”

Perry Polo shirts. “The alt-right’s Proud Boys love Fred Perry polo shirts. The feeling is not mutual,” wrote Kyle Swenson in The Washington Post on July 10. Proud Boys describes itself as a “western-chauvinist men’s club” and the distinct Fred Perry [shirt] design helps them “sport a common uniform: black polo shirts trimmed in yellow stripes.”

In the aftermath, all three companies moved quickly with public statements:

“New Balance does not tolerate bigotry or hatred in any form…New Balance is a values-driven organization and culture that believes in humanity, integrity, community and mutual respect for people around the world.”

“The Red Wings believe that hockey is for Everyone and we celebrate the diversity of our fan base and our nation . . . We are exploring every possible legal action as it pertains to the misuse of our logo in this disturbing demonstration.”

“No, [Perry Polo shirts doesn’t] support the ideals or the group that you speak of . . . It is counter to our beliefs and the people we work with.”

Bad product placement is not a trivial issue. Ubiquitous video cameras and social media have upped the risks for companies. It’s hard to say how long it will take these brands to lose their linkages to heinous events, as others have suffered:

  • White Ford Bronco and OJ Simpson
  • Tic Tacs and the Donald Trump – Access Hollywood video
  • Skittles and Donald Trump Jr.’s statement about Syrian refugees
  • Skittles and the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012

On June 17, 1994, over 95 million people watched livestream coverage of the OJ Simpson chase, but nobody at Ford cheered about the free product placement. Ford stopped selling the Bronco in 1996, though it plans to reintroduce the model in 2020. No doubt, one of the top-of-mind questions at Ford is how many years it will take for the OJ-Bronco connection to dissolve. 2020 probably seemed safe for re-introduction, because in 1996, the core buying demographic for the 2020 either wasn’t yet born, or couldn’t comprehend the news reports. Still, I wonder if white will be among the color choices.

What’s the impact on brands and revenue when products are tied to hate and political controversies? Not good – at least, initially. “When a brand gets involved in political issues, whether accidentally or on purpose, it’s bound to have an impact on how consumers talk about it on social media,” according to a December 12, 2016 AdWeek article, How New Balance, Pepsi and Kellogg’s Were Impacted by Trump Controversies. “Three brands that made headlines due to the election of Donald Trump—New Balance, Pepsi and Kellogg’s—had to deal with negative sentiment on social media as a result.” A research company, Taykey, explored how each incident impacted the brands on social media.

New Balance. In November 2016, consumers protested New Balance when the company’s VP of Public Affairs, Matt LeBretton, spoke about President-elect Trump’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, telling The Wall Street Journal that “things are going to move in the right direction.” Some New Balance customers took umbrage to that endorsement, and protested by posting videos of burning New Balance Shoes. As a result, “brand sentiment declined by 75%,” according to Taykay. “Social conversation volume for New Balance rose by 100% (their biggest conversation-generating event of the year). This conversation was negative, though, and brand sentiment declined by 75 percent.”

Pepsi. Following the US presidential election in 2016, Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi said some of her employees were “in mourning” about Trump’s election. Trump loyalists were not pleased with that comment. They announced a boycott of Pepsi products, and launched fake news stories alleging that Nooyi told Trump supporters to “take their business elsewhere.”

“Again, social media conversation volume for Pepsi spiked, but the negative conversation drove social brand sentiment down by 93%, as positive sentiment for Pepsi dropped from 72% to 4.5%, according to Taykey . . . However, since the incident, positive sentiment for the brand has been on the rise.”

Kellogg’s. Compared with Pepsi, Kellogg’s has faced more durable backlash after terminating its advertising on Breitbart, a website popular with white supremacists. Following that action, Breitbart launched a #DumpKelloggs campaign, and encouraged Trump supporters to boycott Kellogg’s products. “The boycott caused Kellogg’s social media sentiment to fall dramatically, with a 75 percent nosedive, according to Taykey. Through Dec. 5, that sentiment had stayed mostly negative.”

Brand managers cannot easily mitigate the risks that their products could become entangled in public controversies. But they can be prepared for what to do when it happens:

  1. Immediately issue a public statement to separates the company, its products, and its brand from the controversy.
  2. Make the statement clear and unequivocal. Do not leave room for other interpretations.
  3. Stick to the brand knitting. Don’t attempt to exploit the controversy to drive sales, or to create related advertising messages. These only serve to solidify negative connections in consumers’ minds.

Tiki torches, New Balance shoes, and Perry Polo shirts were not the only brands to get sullied on August 11th. The University of Virginia did, too. The school’s logo features a simple white outline of its Rotunda surrounded by orange. With its viewpoint from The Lawn, the logo is integral to the UVa brand, and instantly recognizable to UVa alumni. For me, the logo carries meaning beyond the physical building that Thomas Jefferson designed, and is now recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site. That enslaved people constructed the building brick-by-brick and board-by-board makes the August events in Charlottesville even more poignant today.

For the time being, I can’t un-see the white supremacist marchers, or stop hearing their hateful chants as they walked past the Rotunda. And I can’t ignore their worldview that we should return to the institutions and society that subjugated human beings, and openly advocated the existence of a “superior race.”

At least in Virginia, many of us have convinced ourselves that Jefferson – who himself enslaved over 220 people – would be reviled at the Unite the Right marchers, and what they stand for. “It is safer to have the whole people respectably enlightened than a few in a high state of science and the many in ignorance,” Jefferson said. For generations, that idea has been woven into UVa’s brand. On August 11th 2017, I suspect Jefferson was twirling in his grave.

Risk Committees: An Antidote for Fraud

I have a writing problem that’s giving me fits. I’m knee-deep into fraud – that is, describing how to prevent it. Unfortunately, the subject doesn’t involve using fun, energetic words like transformative change and market domination.

Instead, I must become jazzed about ideas that are antithetical in our caffeinated, exponential growth-obsessed business culture: constancy and stability. I must double down on the Zen we supposedly derive from mom-and-apple pie values like honesty, transparency, and trustworthiness. What – no market disruption? I’d rather watch reruns of regular-season baseball games.

Please don’t take this as whining. I’m game for a new expository challenge. Fraud prevention . . . let’s see . . . I know! What’s the ROI of thwarting a nascent scam before it obliterates a company, its leaders, or both? What’s the value of slaying a scandal before it causes customers injury, death, or financial ruin? Now this gets me going! I can write about corporate managers and auditors as champions, armed with sharp ears and ready eyes. Finely-tuned algorithms able to detect the subtlest transactional anomalies. Deceit – headed off at the pass! Energy, baby!

Lead gen, content creation, and predictive analytics might nudge the revenue needle northward, but they won’t save a company from cataclysmic self-destruction. That’s a primary purpose of fraud prevention. There are cases to prove it. Oh, have I got your attention now?

Expect wretched outcomes when these are present in a company:

1. Ethical hypocrisy: senior managers model poor ethical behavior; e.g. The “Code of Conduct” or “Values Statement” – if they exist – are regularly violated or ignored by staff

2. Lame internal governance, oversight, and audit controls: revenue-generation processes that are disconnected from other departments; prevalent attitude that ‘what happens in Sales, stays in Sales’

3. Weak channels for staff to report unethical or illegal activity: no documentation provided to sales force regarding how to report problems; no formal process for mediation

4. Penalties for whistleblowing: sales personnel describe being harassed or intimidated after reporting issues to supervisors, or being castigated as ‘not a team player’

5. Dissonant strategic and tactical goals: corporate strategy champions growing long-term value of customers, while tactical goals are centered on achieving high monthly revenue targets

6. Sales incentives and compensation substantially skewed toward revenue attainment: low base salary, and commissions based exclusively on percentage of sales

7. Sales culture that glorifies achieving objectives unrelated to customer success: prominent recognition for quantity of new customer accounts opened, or number of appointments held

8. Unrealistic or supremely difficult sales performance goals, accompanied by stringent penalties for non-achievement: termination of employment for underachieving “stretch” targets

9. Arrogance: believing “fraud could never happen here . . .”; accepting the delusion that the company hires only “honest” sales candidates and managers

10. Lackadaisical or perfunctory mediation and redress for customer complaints: unabated customer difficulties with selling tactics and allegations of product misrepresentations

Preventing systemic bad behavior begins with the company’s board, whose members must recognize that executing strategy inevitably carries the possibility of doing harm to customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. “. . . the full board is ultimately responsible for taking ownership of risk oversight and making sure strategic risks to the business are regularly discussed,” writes Maureen Bujno, Managing Director for Deloitte’s Center for Board Effectiveness.

Soul-searching questions for boards to answer:

1. How might the activities of this company cause harm to its stakeholders?

2. Could our executive and sales pay plans / incentives create conditions that compromise or damage trust or safety for customers, employees, vendors, or contractors?

3. How confident are we that the senior management of this company will become aware of unethical or illegal activity when it occurs?

4. Does this company have adequate mechanisms to communicate and enforce its legal and ethical standards?

5. Has this company taken sufficient steps to reduce the possibility that its stakeholders will be harmed?

When it comes to preventing fraud and ethical abuses, boards should avoid becoming enmeshed in tactical details and operating minutia. One prominent exception: board members must be open to holding direct conversations with employees who want to report fraud. The risks to a company are simply too great for board members not to know when risky behavior or activity takes place. And as the Wells Fargo case has demonstrated, there is no certainty that the established channels for reporting problems will work, or that employees will feel safe using them.

Board-sanctioned risk committees as an elixir. Day-to-day operating risks can be addressed by a cross-departmental risk committee. Openness and transparency are useful antidotes for fraud risk, and companies can develop these capabilities in-house through a team dedicated to monitoring, identifying, and reporting conditions that might be unethical and illegal. The good news: establishing a risk committee doesn’t demand staffing it with specialized talent. And now the bad: risk committees succeed only when boards care about risk prevention, and management responses to the issues the committee exposes are both timely and adequately considered.

Some recommendations for getting started:

Step 1: If the name Risk Committee doesn’t sound catchy, or fails to entice people to join, give the committee a different name.

Step 2: Decide how to recruit and appoint members. Sales and Marketing must be represented, but make sure other departments are, too.

Step 3: Select a capable leader – or ensure that one can be chosen.

Step 4: Write a committee charter to establish the purpose, objectives, goals, and authority. For example, “The purpose of the Committee is to provide oversight to ensure that marketing and sales strategies, tactics, policies, and procedures do not conflict with laws and regulations, and that they comply with the ethical guidelines of the company. The committee is entrusted with identifying and communicating all matters of concern to senior management, and when necessary, to members of the corporate board.”

Step 5: Establish the scope of what the committee will be able to do, examine, review, and report, along with expectations and guidelines for preserving confidentiality.

Step 6: Determine how often the committee will meet, the role and obligations for committee members, and the duration they will be asked to serve.

Step 7: Create a template for how the Committee’s findings will be communicated. At a minimum, that includes how to document or record incidents, determining who should be told, describing how they should be told, and guidelines for assessing and reporting the magnitude of the threat.

Step 8: Plan a kick-off event, and make sure senior managers are involved.

Step 9: Document the Committee’s activities and the actions taken in response to situations it has identified and shared with senior management.

What signals should Risk Committee members listen for? What conditions should trigger concern? For starters, any artifacts of the ten fraud-risk elements I described. In addition, whenever opacity, process silos, limited access to customer-facing personnel, reluctance to answer questions or provide information about customer complaints or regulatory compliance occur, risk indicator lights glow red. These situations should be considered for committee oversight.

Boards must recognize that companies face new risks when executives assume fraud and abuse problems can’t be controlled, when they claim that mitigation is too expensive, or when they dismiss oversight as a distraction for the business.

Foiled business scams rarely make it into news feeds. The activities that lead to their demise hardly seem remarkable. Often, an employee – or employees – shares information with a manager or board member who cares enough to act. Then, established prevention mechanisms kick in, and perform as designed. Routine – as it should be. No matter the size, industry, or leadership, an organization is never immune from causing harm through unethical behavior, misguided strategy, and sketchy tactics. Risk committees perform a vital role that no company can afford to overlook: oversight that reduces the probability a company will cause financial and physical harm through systemic bad behavior.

Should Inmates Run the Biz-Dev Asylum? The Case for Stronger Sales Governance

“I don’t care how you make your number, as long as you make it,” my district sales manager told me many years ago. Nobody accomplished a Big Hairy Audacious Goal while stressing over boundaries. I know how the West was won.

But my manager should have cared. Achieving a revenue target entangles many different behaviors. Some are laudable, like agility, tenacity, assertiveness, customer focus, and good personal hygiene. But others can be manipulative, unethical, or illegal. When conditions are ripe, bad behaviors spawn and fester. Occasionally, they are exposed, like a colony of voracious termites found under a fallen tree trunk that just rolled from its dark, earthy foundation. In June, 2016, Volkswagen agreed to pay $14.7 billion to settle claims resulting from its sales deceit. A mondo penalty for not caring how a number is made.

Volkswagen’s dishonesty was propagated through modern software technology, using flowcharts, decision boxes, algorithms, code, and computer chips. But other techniques for juicing the top line have existed since the invention of accounting records. As Karen Berman and Joe Knight wrote in their book, Financial Intelligence, “Revenue recognition is a common arena for financial fraud . . . the most common source of accounting fraud has been and probably always will be in that top line: Sales.” Channel stuffing and bill-and-hold. These crafty techniques have vaulted thousands of sales reps and managers into bonus-land. You won’t learn about them on Etsy.

I can’t fault my boss for being laissez faire. His attitude reflected that of his boss, his boss’s boss, and every boss all the way to the C-Suite, where information technology converts biz-dev complexity into integers. A process that cleanly extracts ethical messiness and other biz-dev slop, leaving executives room to “focus on the numbers.” Message to sales force: as long as revenue meets expectation, what happens in Sales can stay in Sales. “If I told you all that went down It would burn off both your ears.” No thanks. I’ll stick to analyzing my spreadsheets.

Corporate boards, beware. “The responsibility of the board to prevent scandals is more important than the responsibility to clean up the mess once it has emerged. Here most boards are still at the starting gate,” wrote Kirk O. Hanson in a 2014 article, Five Ethical Responsibilities of Corporate Boards.

It’s a global problem. In June, 2016, IndianExpress reported that “poor customer service practices of [Indian] banks have come under fire from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Despite the banking regulator putting in place Codes of Conduct and Charter of Customer Rights, the RBI has found that banks observed the code ‘more in breach than in practice,’ raising the possibility of a regulatory intervention.”

“We have taken cognizance of the fact that there has been mis-selling in third party products. We are going to take it very seriously. The banks should review how it is being done and be very careful that 75-year-old people should not be sold wrong products simply because salesmen require bonuses or compensation. It is something that we will undertake careful review of and if necessary take action wherever warranted,” said RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan in June, 2016. He could not have expressed this ugly reality in a more genteel way.

His statement points to an even darker story. Too often, companies don’t bother to govern the internal machinery that drives their revenue, leaving it up to the inmates to run the asylum. “You made goal this quarter. Keep doing what you’re doing.” Sales and selling has traditionally been a black box to the rest of a corporation, and many senior executives prefer to remain unknowing about what happens within the guts of its raucous machinery, and what goes on outside, where prospects are “engaged” deals are “closed.”

Ethical principles frequently clash with demands for quota attainment, and in the absence of governance, it’s not always clear or predictable which actions and outcomes will prevail. One thing is certain: when others don’t examine the black box’s innards, the likelihood of harming employees, customers, suppliers and shareholders increases substantially. As Mr. Rajan knows, bad sales ethics break customer trust, poison a company’s brand, undermine shareholder value, and corrode economies. Sounds like a governance problem to me.

What is governance? Corporate governance provides “the structure for determining organizational objectives and monitoring performance to ensure that objectives are attained,” according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s 1999 publication, OECD Principles for Corporate Governance. “The OECD emphasized that ‘there is no single model of good corporate governance,’ but it noted that in many countries corporate governance is vested in a supervisory board that is responsible for protecting the rights of shareholders and other stakeholders (employees, customers, creditors, and so on). The board, in turn, works with a senior management team to implement governance principles that ensure the effectiveness of organizational processes,” wrote Peter Weill and Jeanne Ross in their book, IT Governance. Their ideas apply equally to governing sales.

A 2008 CapGemini Survey shared that “all sales executives stated that Sales Governance will become more important in the future. In addition, 86% of the Sales Executives anticipate their group management to put more focus on questions related to Sales Governance the coming three years.” The study covered 42 companies in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, and defines sales governance as “the method used by management to drive the sales organization towards effectiveness and high performance and to promote a desired sales behavior.” The study’s authors represent sales performance in context – specifically, in relation to influence from competitors, customers, organizational culture, corporate strategy. So far, so good.

The study explains that “Sales Management is the core element of the Sales Governance Framework. It entails both a strategic and an operational level. At the strategic level of Sales Management, the sales strategy is aligned with the corporate strategy and short¬-term and long¬-term business objectives are defined. At the operational level, the activity plan is implemented and managed as required. Cross-functional co¬operation is a pre-requisite for achieving internal strategy alignment and operational efficiency. . . Sales Governance enables best practice identification and implementation, and ensures an adequate sales behavior.”

Given CapGemini’s inclusion of a method used by management in its definition of governance, there’s little surprise that “Sales Executives saw driving sales productivity and reducing non¬-value adding time” among the major benefits achieved from undertaking the program. Unfortunately, promoting adequate sales behavior (whatever that means) and driving sales productivity do nothing to protect companies and their customers from unethical and illegal activity, or its consequences. In fact, they might exacerbate the problems. When juxtaposed to the OECD’s governance standard of protecting the rights of shareholders, employees, customers, and creditors, I call CapGemini Governance-lite.

Although CapGemini addresses one important component of corporate risk, sales readiness, its governance model falls pathetically short for deeper risks. Using this model, the unethical practices in 2015 of GM, VW, Takata, Peanut Corporation of America, Wells Fargo, Medtronic, and many others would not have been thwarted. Sales organizations can be highly productive and efficient while institutionalizing seamy practices. “The dashboards look peachy! Keep doing what you’re doing . . .”

The case for board-level involvement in sales governance. Today, selling abuses make international headlines, and the case for board involvement in sales governance could not be stronger. “Boards must think about risk and strategy,” said Erica Salmon Byrne, Executive Vice President, Governance and Compliance of the Ethisphere Institute, in a webinar titled, Enabling Ethical Leadership: Equipping Your Board to Govern Companies with Integrity.

Ethisphere, which conducts an honoree program for the World’s Most Ethical Companies (WMECs), reported that 90% of its 2016 corporate honorees offer employees its board or a board committee as a conduit for reporting misconduct or raising concerns. “Boards are increasingly interested in measuring and cultivating an ethical corporate culture; 86% of WMECs update the Board on such efforts . . . Not only do WMECs more frequently evaluate their [Ethics and Compliance] programs (61% of honorees conduct annual reviews vs. 27% of non-honorees who annually review), but honorees tend to evaluate their program very broadly,” Ethisphere said in its 2015 report.

The duty of board-level sales governance. The line between board oversight for sales governance and management’s responsibilities can be thin and fuzzy. Board-level sales governance addresses strategic risks extending beyond salesforce productivity and efficiency. Primarily,

1. To ensure sales goals are balanced, and support corporate strategy

2. To ensure business development policies and practices are consistently legal, ethical and fair

3. To protect the customer’s best interests

4. To ensure effective mechanisms exist for identifying and reporting activities or events that threaten the above

Hanson’s Five Ethical Responsibilities of Corporate Boards provides useful guidelines for what boards must know or examine. He wrote:

1. Knowing the health of the company’s ethical culture. Most boards or their audit committees hear pro forma reports on ethics violations and lists of calls to their hotlines. Few know anything about the culture in which these violations arise. Do these behaviors reflect widespread acceptance of improper behavior — or a few bad apples?

2. Evaluating the ethics of the business strategy. Business models and strategies are being junked and reformulated everywhere in our modern economy. New sources of revenue are being sought; radical transformations of manufacturing and delivery systems are being implemented. Sadly, some boards are swept along by management proposals to change the nature of the business without asking critical ethics questions about the strategies.

Most boards have learned to ask whether the company is ready to monitor a China-based supply chain to insure worker safety. But few boards have discussed the ethics of tax inversions, big data mining strategies, or staffing strategies which make family life difficult.

3. Monitoring the real ethics risks in the organization. Every organization manages financial risks, and boards pay close attention to the level of that risk. Few senior managements and even fewer boards evaluate the ethical risk of entering new markets, extending the supply chain to new regions, or putting extreme performance pressure on a sales force that is prone to shortcuts . . . Boards are charged with oversight over the adequacy of this ethics risk assessment.

4. Monitoring the ethical behavior of the leadership team. No decisions are more complex than hiring and firing top executives. It is tough enough to find a prospect who has the skills needed to execute the company’s strategy for the next five years.

5. Verifying that the elements of the ethics and compliance system are strong. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines list seven to 10 elements of an ‘adequate’ ethics and compliance management system.

For sales governance, Boards should have access to, and regularly review the following:

• Sales Code of Conduct
• Corporate compliance and ethics policies
• Ethics training program or curriculum
• Misconduct reporting system
• The investigation process

In addition, boards should ensure that employees who report misconduct understand their legal rights, and have appropriate protection. Few people will want to report misconduct when companies exert draconian penalties on those who have voiced concerns.

“Make your number any way you can!” Right now, millions of sales reps operate under this heavy, boundary-free instruction. How will they behave? Which strategies and tactics will they use on their prospects and customers? What outcomes will occur? Corporate boards should care, and get involved.