Why bother when there is no return? Imagine this: a new head of sales has introduced a mandatory call before every order is processed. A regular customer has sent the details of their next order and is asking for an invoice. Instead of sending the invoice, the salesperson is looking for a time for a meeting.
The head of sales has an explanation: salespeople ask too few questions, send a quote straight away and miss the chance to offer more. So now the conversation comes first, then the proposal. For a customer who is still choosing, this may be useful. But in our example, the buyer has already specified the product, quantity and required date. They had no intention of discussing the purchase all over again.
The salesperson asks for permission to process the order the old way. The head of sales sees resistance to the new process. The business owner has to choose: support the head of sales or avoid delaying the order.
I would not take sides yet. First, we need to find out which decision about this order cannot be made without a call.
A meeting should find out what is still unknown
Open the buyer’s email and the quote that has been prepared. What is still unknown: whether the product is suitable, what quantity is needed, whether the current price is acceptable, whether the order can be fulfilled by the required date? The answers may be in different places. The items are listed in the customer’s email, the price is in the current terms, and confirmation that delivery is possible comes from those responsible for it.
If the buyer asks to repeat the previous delivery, but the previous product is no longer made, a conversation is needed: a replacement must be chosen. If the product is the same but the payment terms have changed, the terms need to be agreed. The word “repeat” alone settles none of this.
Now let us return to the opening scene and make it more precise: the items are specified, the buyer has confirmed the price, the date has been checked, and the terms suit both sides. The salesperson is waiting only for a free slot in the customer’s diary. The same items and terms should remain in the quote after the meeting — the head of sales does not name a single question that could change them.
This is where there is something to argue about. The company itself has placed a step in front of an order that is ready to go, with nothing to justify it so far. Tighter discipline will make the salesperson follow that step more carefully. It will not provide a reason to delay the invoice.
Doing it quickly the old way does not mean doing it well
But the team’s request to return to the old process does not prove that it worked either. It may have been convenient for the salesperson to send the invoice straight away, while the warehouse, accounts department or customer then corrected the mistakes.
So before removing the new step, I would ask the head of sales to go back through several comparable orders processed earlier. From the email listing the items through to fulfilment. Were the items corrected after payment? Was the promised date changed? Did the buyer have to explain again what they had ordered? Evidence can be found in versions of the invoice, correspondence and changes to the order.
If old orders moved quickly only up to payment and then required work to be done again, there is no reason to preserve that speed. We need to find the missed check. For example, the salesperson confirmed availability based on the previous delivery, although nobody had checked it for the new one. An up-to-date confirmation of availability corrects this mistake. A call with the buyer does not replace it on its own.
This takes personal preferences out of the argument. The old and new processes now face the same question: where was the order delayed to no benefit, and where did a missed check mean work had to be done again?
The check can be mandatory, rather than the meeting
When the head of sales introduces the same stages for everyone, there is a reasonable intention behind it: the quality of a sale cannot be left to each salesperson’s discretion. But giving stages the same names does not mean doing the same work.
A new buyer may not know what will suit them. A regular buyer may send a complete list of items. Or they may come with a new task that the previous product cannot handle. The action to take depends on what still needs to be found out about the order. How long you have known the customer is only a clue here.
Instead of saying “sometimes you can skip the meeting”, the head of sales needs to provide a rule that can be checked:
- The items, current price and terms are confirmed, and the ability to fulfil the order has been checked — issue the invoice and record the basis on which the order can be fulfilled.
- It is unclear whether the product will suit a new task — find out how it will be used and choose an option before preparing the quote.
- The buyer has chosen everything, but the company has not yet confirmed the date — get confirmation within the company and agree the date with the buyer.
- The price or terms have changed — agree the change; if necessary, discuss the options in a conversation.
This means the salesperson does not have to ask for an exception every time. The head of sales can open the order and check the basis for the chosen action. If there is no basis, that is a specific mistake by the employee. If there is one, there is no reason to demand a meeting just to follow the sequence.
A strong objection remains: without a conversation, the sales team will miss an additional sale. Possibly. Then the review needs a separate fact: what need was found at such meetings and what the customer added to the order as a result. The number of calls alone does not show this.
An addition can also be offered when confirming the items. If the discussion requires a separate meeting, agree on one while continuing to process the order already chosen. Linking the two purchases makes sense when the addition changes compatibility, the items ordered or the terms of the first purchase. Otherwise, the buyer is forced to wait for an invoice while we try to sell them something else.
Check the change from both sides
There is no need to rewrite the whole sales funnel for this. The head of sales can choose one type of repeat order where the product stays the same and the terms are clear. Record straight away which confirmations allow the salesperson to issue an invoice without a meeting and which new question sends the order back for discussion.
Before the trial starts, it is worth working out how much time passed between receiving the complete list of items and sending the invoice for comparable past orders. Separately note the time spent waiting for the customer’s reply, confirmation of delivery and the mandatory meeting. Otherwise, a reduction in the overall delay can easily be attributed to the new rule, although this time the warehouse simply replied faster.
Over the following week, the head of sales reviews new orders of this type. They check not only how quickly the invoice is issued, but also whether the items, price or promised date had to be corrected. Every day, they examine cases where the salesperson could not choose an action under the rule: what fact was missing, where to get it and whether the rule itself needs clarification.
By the end of the week, different decisions are possible. If the wait for a meeting has disappeared and the necessary confirmations remain, there are grounds to continue the trial. If the invoice goes out faster but then needs correcting, the head of sales reinstates the missed check. If there were hardly any orders of this kind, no conclusion about the benefit can yet be drawn — another observation period is set.
And the check does not end when the invoice is issued. Fulfilled orders need to be revisited to see whether the work saved has shifted to those who put together and dispatch the orders. While fulfilment still lies ahead, the head of sales can talk about reduced waiting time, but cannot yet say that the new approach has maintained quality.
The head of sales must be able to reconsider their own rule
All the business owner needs to see here is which mistake the head of sales intended to remove, what they changed and which orders they are using to check the effects. There is no need to personally authorise every skipped meeting. Decisions about prices, the product, acceptable terms and resources for fulfilling orders remain with the owner; choosing the team’s daily actions within those limits is the head of sales’ job.
At RENTROP, this is part of “turnkey sales management”. The head of sales leads changes in the existing sales department and returns to assess their effects. The business development director checks the quality of their decisions: whether the original mistake has actually disappeared, whether a new delay has appeared, and whether there are grounds to keep the rule or change it. AI helps analyse the available data and correspondence; the head of sales judges the usefulness of a mandatory meeting by what it changed in the order.
The reasons for decisions and the results of checks stay with the project. If the head of sales changes, the next person should be able to see why these orders are processed this way. Otherwise, every new head of sales will start with their own version of the process, and the buyer will have to adapt to it again.
You can start with the next repeat order that is waiting for a meeting: ask the head of sales to name the question that must be answered before a correct invoice can be issued.
The customer should not have to choose again what they have already decided to buy.