“We have some staff turnover anyway.”

A new salesperson has been found, brought in and given product materials and access to a CRM system. They listen to colleagues, study the database, prepare emails and attend sales meetings. Their day is full. Several weeks later, the owner asks: do we keep this person or reopen the vacancy?

The answers are impressions. They seem to be trying. It seems too early to judge. They probably need more time.

I would check something else first: which part of a salesperson’s work can this person already do independently, and what shows it?

How busy a new person is tells you nothing about how ready they are

In the first few days, a salesperson really cannot work like an experienced employee. They need to understand the product, clients, pricing rules, common questions and how to work in the CRM. Giving them time is not the mistake.

The problem starts when that time has no result you can check.

You cannot finish “studying the product”. You can prepare for a conversation with a specific type of client and explain which questions need to be asked before making a proposal.

“Listen to calls” cannot be assessed. After three conversations, you can point out where the salesperson did not find out what the client needed and why this makes it too early to send an estimate.

“Work with the database” proves nothing. You can take ten contacts, have the first conversations and record the result and the next step for each.

This is not a dispute about how long it takes a new salesperson to get up to speed. It is the absence of an answer to the question of exactly what should change in the person’s work between the first stage and the next.

“They need more time” mixes together three different reasons

First: the salesperson does not yet know the product. They ask the right questions and listen to the client, but cannot put together a suitable solution independently. Then they need a review of the product and a clear boundary: what they can already answer themselves and what they take to a specialist.

Second: the salesperson knows the material but does not lead the conversation. They talk about the company, do not find out what the client needs, agree to send a proposal and finish without agreeing what happens next. Another product presentation will not help here. You need to review their real conversations and change a specific action.

Third: the person can sell, but has not been given an area of work where they can show it. They help colleagues, fill in spreadsheets, call people from a random list and receive a new task every week. There is a lot of activity in this work, but no repeatable sequence from contact to the client’s next step.

From the outside, all three situations look the same: the new employee has no sales yet. But further product training, correcting how they handle conversations and organising their work properly are different solutions.

Do not wait for the first payment before you start assessing the person

How long a deal takes depends on more than the salesperson. The client may take a long time to approve the purchase. Their needs may change. The price, delivery time or the product itself may not suit them. So it is dishonest to promise that a new salesperson must bring in money quickly.

But that does not mean nothing can be checked before payment.

A salesperson’s work provides early evidence:

  1. Before the conversation, they understand who they are speaking to and what they need to find out.
  2. During the conversation, they ask questions rather than just repeat the presentation.
  3. After the conversation, they can explain what the client needs in their own words.
  4. They do not describe a polite “send me some information” as interest.
  5. They record a specific agreement rather than a report of the contact: who will do what next, and by when.
  6. They follow up at the agreed time without a reminder from the owner.
  7. After the next conversation has been reviewed, they do not repeat the same mistake.

One successful call still proves nothing. Consistency matters: the salesperson has understood the feedback and applied it in the next conversation, and the head of sales has checked this.

A probation period without decisions along the way simply postpones an uncomfortable conversation

Usually, people wait until the end of the probation period and then try to judge the person as a whole: are they good or bad? By then, the argument is already based on memory and how much people like them.

The salesperson says the leads were cold. The head of sales says the employee is not active enough. The owner sees costs and no money coming in. Everyone may be partly right, but the decision still has to be made without examining the work.

There is a shorter route that works.

First, give the person one clear area of work: a specific type of client, a single source of contacts and the same task for the first conversation. Then state in advance what the head of sales will check: preparation, questions, the quality of the conclusions, agreement on the next step and whether the issues raised have been corrected.

There must be a decision after each stage:

  • the skill is there — we make the area of work more complex;
  • the mistake recurs — we examine the cause and set the next check;
  • the person does not carry out a clear action after the review — we decide whether there is any point in continuing;
  • there is no data to check — the head of sales corrects how the work is set up, rather than automatically extending the wait.

This way, the company does not promise itself it can judge a salesperson from one conversation. Nor does it buy another month just because it has already spent the previous one.

What the head of sales must do here

Induction does not end with handing out materials and asking “is everything clear?” The head of sales must turn the first weeks into a sequence of observable actions.

They choose an area of work to try out, listen to real conversations, identify one specific mistake, let the salesperson apply the correction and return to the next conversation. They do not run general training “on sales”, but check whether behaviour has changed.

There is a simple test. Ask the head of sales to bring up one new salesperson’s work and answer:

  • what the salesperson already does without help;
  • which mistake they are currently correcting;
  • which conversation showed it;
  • which action should change next;
  • when this will be checked;
  • what evidence will be used to decide whether to expand their area of work, provide further training or part ways.

If all you hear instead is “they are trying, we need to watch a bit longer”, there is no observation in the department. There is waiting.

Where RENTROP fits in

This is exactly why, under RENTROP’s “turnkey sales management” model, a new salesperson is not left alone with a folder of materials and the end date of their probation period.

The head of sales guides them through real conversations: sets the task, reviews the evidence, makes sure the mistake is corrected and takes the next decision. The business development director checks the quality of this work: whether the head of sales has turned induction into waiting and whether they can show how the person’s actions are changing. AI analysis of data and communications helps identify recurring mistakes and missed agreements, but a person makes the decision about the employee.

The product, pricing rules, commercial priorities and the employer’s staffing decisions remain with the owner. The owner does not need to listen back to every conversation personally, only to discover for the first time at the end of the period that the salesperson has still not learnt to take the client to the next step.

You cannot assess a new salesperson by how busy they are. You can judge them when, after each review, they start doing the next piece of work differently.