For years, companies have poured billions of dollars into sales enablement.
Training. Content. Playbooks. Coaching platforms. Conversation intelligence. AI. Methodologies. Learning management systems.
And yet sales performance hasn’t exactly exploded.
Quota attainment remains stubborn. Forecasts remain unreliable. Sales cycles aren’t getting magically shorter. And despite an extraordinary amount of technology being thrown at sellers, executives are still asking the same question:
Why aren’t our salespeople performing better?
Maybe we’re solving the wrong problem.
Enablement was never the outcome
The word itself tells you what went wrong.
Enablement.
To enable means to give someone the means or ability to do something.
That’s useful.
But nobody hires a CRO to enable revenue.
Nobody gives a VP of Sales a number for how enabled their salespeople should become.
Nobody reports enablement to Wall Street.
The business wants performance.
Revenue enablement became an enormous industry focused largely on the inputs to performance: training, content, technology, coaching, information and tools.
But inputs aren’t outcomes.
And the market appears to be starting to recognize that.
Look at where the language is moving
Some of the biggest companies in sales technology are beginning to move beyond the language of traditional enablement.
We’re increasingly hearing terms like GTM performance and revenue execution.
That’s not just marketing semantics.
It’s a signal.
The market is recognizing something that’s been hiding in plain sight:
Giving salespeople the ability to execute isn’t the same thing as creating an organization that performs.
Moving from enablement to execution is progress.
But I think we’re going to discover that execution isn’t the destination either.
Execution is still only part of the problem
Imagine your salespeople execute exactly as you’ve trained them.
Does that mean you’re going to hit the number?
Not necessarily.
They could be executing against the wrong opportunities.
Managers could be reinforcing the wrong behaviors.
Your CRM could be filled with opportunities that aren’t actually opportunities.
Your organization could be forecasting deals based on seller activity rather than buyer evidence.
Your sellers could understand your methodology perfectly and still fail to uncover the business problems driving the purchase.
You could execute your process beautifully and still lose.
That’s because execution is an input to performance.
Performance is the outcome.
And that distinction matters.
The next category is Revenue Performance
Revenue organizations don’t have a training problem.
They don’t have an enablement problem.
They don’t even have an execution problem.
They have a performance gap.
There is a level of revenue performance the organization needs.
There is a level of revenue performance the organization is currently producing.
The distance between those two things is the gap.
The job isn’t simply to train people.
It isn’t to give them more content.
It isn’t to implement another sales methodology.
It isn’t to buy another AI platform.
It isn’t even to make sure they’re executing.
The job is to identify what’s preventing the revenue organization from producing the required performance and systematically remove those constraints.
That’s Revenue Performance.
Revenue Performance requires more than enablement
We’ve spent years studying this problem at A Sales Growth Company.
What we’ve found is that sustainable revenue performance requires organizations to connect three things that are usually managed separately.
Skills.
Can sellers and managers actually do what’s required to create revenue?
Opportunities.
Are those capabilities showing up in real deals, with real buyers, creating measurable movement?
Forecast.
Does the organization have enough buyer evidence to determine which opportunities are actually likely to become revenue?
Skills without opportunity execution is training.
Opportunity execution without validation is activity.
Forecasting without buyer evidence is guessing.
Revenue performance happens when all three operate as a system.
That’s the shift
The sales industry has spent decades moving through a series of increasingly sophisticated ideas.
Training gave way to enablement.
Enablement is beginning to give way to execution.
Execution will eventually give way to performance.
Because CEOs and CROs ultimately don’t care whether their sales organization is trained.
They don’t care whether it’s enabled.
They don’t even care whether it’s executing a methodology perfectly.
They care whether it performs.
And perhaps that’s the question the industry should have been asking all along:
Not: How do we enable salespeople?
But: What is preventing this revenue organization from performing at the level the business requires?
Find that gap.
Then close it.
0 Comments