A sales manager deciding where to spend coaching time this week is answering two yes-or-no questions about each rep: is the behavior right, and are the numbers right. Those two questions sort a prospecting team into four groups: reps doing the right things and hitting their numbers, reps whose numbers lag good behavior, reps whose numbers lead despite bad behavior, and reps where neither is working. Each group needs a different response, and the group most managers default to spending time on, the one with nothing working, rarely produces the best return on that time.
A 2×2 matrix built on two yes-or-no questions, is a rep’s behavior right and are a rep’s numbers right, sorts a prospecting team into four groups: Superstars, Shining Stars, Shooting Stars, and Black Holes. Coaching time pays off most with the two groups where one axis is already working, the ones with real upside left to capture.
The Two Questions Behind the Matrix
Behavior and results are separate axes, not one blended score. Behavior covers whether a rep is doing the actual work: the right call volume, a real cadence, following the targeting and messaging approach the team has agreed on. Results cover the number itself: pipeline generated, meetings booked, quota attainment. A rep can have one axis right and the other wrong, which is the entire reason the matrix needs four boxes instead of two.
This diagnostic, covered in full in Gap Prospecting, assumes the manager already has a separate, accurate read on both axes before trying to fix either one.
The Four Quadrants
Superstars
“They have a great attitude, they meet their numbers, and they work well with everyone.” Both axes are working here. The management job is retention and support.
Shining Stars
“They also have a great attitude and mesh well with the team, but they’re not quite meeting their numbers. You hired them for a reason, though, you can still see loads of potential.” Behavior is right. Results lag behind it.
Shooting Stars
“These sellers’ numbers are on fire, but they’re burning everybody in their orbit.” Results are right. Behavior is wrong, usually an attitude or culture problem rather than a skill gap.
Black Holes
“Nothing’s working. Their attitude sucks, they’re bringing down morale, and they’re not producing. Worse, they don’t seem all that interested in improving.” Both axes are broken, and the lack of interest in improving is what separates a Black Hole from a rep who is struggling.
Where Each Quadrant Sits
| Quadrant | Behavior | Results | Manager Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superstars | Right | Right | Retention and support |
| Shining Stars | Right | Lagging | Primary coaching focus |
| Shooting Stars | Wrong | Right | Primary coaching focus |
| Black Holes | Wrong | Wrong | 30-day window, then a role decision |
Where Coaching Time Belongs
The matrix gives Black Holes a defined window, thirty days, to turn things around, rather than open-ended attention. The real coaching investment goes to Shining Stars and Shooting Stars, the two quadrants with one axis already proven and the other fixable: a Shining Star already does the work and needs help converting it into results, and a Shooting Star already produces results and needs a correction on behavior before it costs the team a client or a culture problem.
Independent research backs the same allocation. Gallup’s analysis of manager time, published as “You’re Wasting Your Time,” recommends spending 50% to 60% of coaching time with top performers, 20% to 30% with newer talent still building a track record, and only 10% to 15% with experienced reps whose performance has plateaued. Non-performers get what’s left, mostly spent deciding whether to keep developing them or move them out. The categories differ from the four quadrants here, but the direction matches: most managers invest the bulk of their time in the people producing the least return on it, and both this matrix and that research point toward reversing it.
Reading both axes correctly, instead of defaulting to whichever one is easier to measure, is a specific management skill built through practice and feedback, the kind covered in sales manager training.
Applying the Matrix Without Micromanaging
Placing a rep in a quadrant is a diagnosis. What a manager does with that diagnosis still requires judgment about how much to direct and how much to leave to the rep. A Shining Star needs specific skill coaching tied to converting activity into pipeline. A Shooting Star needs a direct conversation about behavior, with the numbers never used as a shield against addressing it. A Black Hole who shows no interest in improving during the thirty-day window presents a coachability problem more than a skill problem, worth separating out before deciding whether the role itself is still a fit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Behaviors vs. Results matrix for sales teams?
It’s a 2×2 framework that sorts reps into four groups by answering two yes-or-no questions: is the rep’s behavior right, and are the rep’s numbers right. The four resulting groups are Superstars, Shining Stars, Shooting Stars, and Black Holes, and the quadrant a rep lands in determines where a manager’s coaching time goes.
What are the four seller types in the Behaviors vs. Results matrix?
Superstars have the right behavior and the right numbers. Shining Stars have the right behavior but numbers that lag behind it. Shooting Stars hit their numbers despite behavior that damages morale or culture. Black Holes have neither the behavior nor the numbers working, along with little interest in improving either one.
Where should a sales manager spend most of their coaching time according to this framework?
With Shining Stars and Shooting Stars, the two groups where one axis is already proven and the other is fixable. Superstars need support and retention more than correction. Black Holes get a defined window, typically thirty days, rather than open-ended coaching investment.
What is a Shooting Star in sales management, and how is it different from a Superstar?
A Shooting Star hits their numbers but damages the team around them, through attitude, rejecting team norms, or conflict with coworkers. A Superstar also meets the behavior bar. The behavior axis is what separates a Shooting Star from a Superstar, since both groups hit their numbers.
How long should a manager give a Black Hole rep to improve?
Thirty days, with a specific plan for what needs to change rather than an open-ended wait-and-see period. After that window, the decision shifts from coaching to whether the role is still the right fit for that person.
What does research say about how managers typically allocate coaching time?
Gallup recommends spending 50% to 60% of coaching time with top performers, 20% to 30% with newer reps still building a track record, and only 10% to 15% with experienced reps whose performance has plateaued, with the remaining time spent on decisions about non-performers. Most managers do the opposite, concentrating attention on their weakest performers.
How is a Shining Star different from a Black Hole rep?
A Shining Star already does the right work and has a track record that justifies the hire; the numbers just haven’t caught up yet. A Black Hole has neither the behavior nor the results working, and typically shows little interest in changing either one.
0 Comments