Mike Hunt had been in sales for 20 years, and, as sales manager for Market First Distributors, he was confident of his ability to evaluate salespeople. Market First was a regional distributor of food products to restaurants. It competed with large distributors such as Sysco and had developed a very good reputation for great service and reasonable prices. The company had a sales force of 70 in six districts across five midwestern states. A formal evaluation process had been implemented nine years ago. The process focused on salespeople meeting specific targets on account development (sales per account and average order size) and call activity (calls per account). However, while the process had been successful in the past and everyone understood the expectations under the current system, Mike felt that something was missing.

Market First had begun to notice an increase in complaints with customers across all the sales districts. While the specific nature of the complaints varied, some themes showed up consistently. Customers were complaining that salespeople did not spend as much with them as they used to and were not as interested in the relationship.

Mike, as well as senior management, believed that it was time to broaden the performance evaluation process. They felt that by setting standards for territory management and customer satisfaction, the company could assess how well the sales force was doing in these critical areas. At this point, however, he was unsure how to set up such a system. As he sat in his office considering the options, he wondered if this would do more harm than good in the long run.

Questions

1. You are Mike Hunt. How would you measure a salesperson’s territory management skills and his or her relationship with the customer?

2. Mike has asked you to come in and explain the strengths and weaknesses of objective versus subjective measures for territory management and relationships with customers. What would you say?