I have never been a huge believer in negative reinforcement. The tough thing as a manager is to figure out what actions to take when you have repeatedly told an employee what to do and he fails to listen.  So what is the best way to handle a guy like that?

     We just had an issue with one of our salespeople last week and it has created enough controversy that I decided to write a post on it.  This guy has a history of being late more often than he should. He has been verbally warned from the owner of the store on several occasions not to miss is morning sales meeting.  We have never threatened anything against him nor have we ever written him up for his actions. He was late to another meeting last week and as a result, the owner decided to penalize him by taking away his largest spiff for the month ( which will end up being $500).  He is obviously really pissed about the situation and feels like he should have been warned about the negative reinforcement first. He also thinks it is a very extreme punishment and something a little more reasonable would have been more appropriate.

     I find that I am torn as to who's side I am on. I completely understand where the owner is coming from in that it is really hard to manage someone that doesn't listen to what you ask of them and are constantly making the same mistakes.  Conversely, having sold before I see where the salesguy is coming from. It was a  pretty drastic punishment and it could have been handled a little bit differently. 

     With all that said, what is the best way to approach a situation like this.  Is negative reinforcement really the answer or is there a more effective way that won't kill the moral of the salesperson?  What has worked for you guys in the past?

     I have never been a huge believer in negative reinforcement. The tough thing as a manager is to figure out what actions to take when you have repeatedly told an employee what to do and he fails to listen.  So what is the best way to handle a guy like that?

     We just had an issue with one of our salespeople last week and it has created enough controversy that I decided to write a post on it.  This guy has a history of being late more often than he should. He has been verbally warned from the owner of the store on several occasions not to miss is morning sales meeting.  We have never threatened anything against him nor have we ever written him up for his actions. He was late to another meeting last week and as a result, the owner decided to penalize him by taking away his largest spiff for the month ( which will end up being $500).  He is obviously really pissed about the situation and feels like he should have been warned about the negative reinforcement first. He also thinks it is a very extreme punishment and something a little more reasonable would have been more appropriate.

     I find that I am torn as to who's side I am on. I completely understand where the owner is coming from in that it is really hard to manage someone that doesn't listen to what you ask of them and are constantly making the same mistakes.  Conversely, having sold before I see where the salesguy is coming from. It was a  pretty drastic punishment and it could have been handled a little bit differently. 

     With all that said, what is the best way to approach a situation like this.  Is negative reinforcement really the answer or is there a more effective way that won't kill the moral of the salesperson?  What has worked for you guys in the past?

     We recently hired 4 salespeople within a week because us managers felt like we were short staffed and didn't have enough coverage on the sales floor.  Like always, the entire sales force complained about how we were flooding the floor and they weren't going to be able to get in front of enough people to make a living. I get where they are coming from having been a sales consultant before.  Nobody welcomes more salespeople and additional competition.

     All this sparked what I thought would be a good topic to throw out there.  What is the proper amount of salespeople with regard to how many cars a dealership sales? 

     I know some people think that the more sales people that you staff, the more cars you will sell. Although there is some truth to that, I think there eventually has to be a cut off.  I don't agree with flooding the floor because I think it will kill moral on the sales floor and will lead to high turnover in the long run.

     On the other hand, you could argue that if you can get a core group of a minimal amount of guys that know what they are doing, then that would work as well.  I think the 2 drawbacks  to that approach are coverage and finding that core group of guys.  I think you would regret this approach when it comes to vacations, days off, and excessively busy days.  Also, it is really hard to staff a team where everyone knows what they are doing.  I also think this approach will promote laziness because the guys wouldn't have to work hard and fight for every deal in order to make a living.

     Anyway, what is the right number? Is there a magic formula based on how many deals your dealership does?  Maybe I shouldn't worry about it and just ignore my sales guys:)

     We recently hired 4 salespeople within a week because us managers felt like we were short staffed and didn't have enough coverage on the sales floor.  Like always, the entire sales force complained about how we were flooding the floor and they weren't going to be able to get in front of enough people to make a living. I get where they are coming from having been a sales consultant before.  Nobody welcomes more salespeople and additional competition.

     All this sparked what I thought would be a good topic to throw out there.  What is the proper amount of salespeople with regard to how many cars a dealership sales? 

     I know some people think that the more sales people that you staff, the more cars you will sell. Although there is some truth to that, I think there eventually has to be a cut off.  I don't agree with flooding the floor because I think it will kill moral on the sales floor and will lead to high turnover in the long run.

     On the other hand, you could argue that if you can get a core group of a minimal amount of guys that know what they are doing, then that would work as well.  I think the 2 drawbacks  to that approach are coverage and finding that core group of guys.  I think you would regret this approach when it comes to vacations, days off, and excessively busy days.  Also, it is really hard to staff a team where everyone knows what they are doing.  I also think this approach will promote laziness because the guys wouldn't have to work hard and fight for every deal in order to make a living.

     Anyway, what is the right number? Is there a magic formula based on how many deals your dealership does?  Maybe I shouldn't worry about it and just ignore my sales guys:)

     I had such a good response to my post last week about the relationship between the sales department and the accessories department, I decided to take the conversation a step further and write a post on the relationship between sales and service.

     I received a lot of great comments talking about what an appropriate markup would be on our accessories to make it to where sales had an opportunity to make some gross on the accessories that we included into the deal.  It triggered the question: " What is an appropriate rate that the service department should charge the sales department with regard to reconditioning used cars"?  I am the used car manager at our store, so this is a topic that is pretty close to home and is also something that I have spent lots of time discussing with the GM.

     The thing that has always pissed me off about our reconditioning process is that the used car department pays the same $90 per hour for labor that any shmuck that walks in the front door would pay.  I don't know if that is the norm at most dealers, but I'm not a huge fan of paying that much (especially since I am by far their best customer).  The reason I hate it so much is because I get paid off the gross of each deal and every extra dollar that I give to the service department is a dollar that I don't get paid on. My argument to the GM is that he is making the profit either way, regardless of the labor rate that I pay to the service department.

     I'm thinking there has to be a better way to do this to where it is a win-win for sales and for service. What do you guys think?

     I had such a good response to my post last week about the relationship between the sales department and the accessories department, I decided to take the conversation a step further and write a post on the relationship between sales and service.

     I received a lot of great comments talking about what an appropriate markup would be on our accessories to make it to where sales had an opportunity to make some gross on the accessories that we included into the deal.  It triggered the question: " What is an appropriate rate that the service department should charge the sales department with regard to reconditioning used cars"?  I am the used car manager at our store, so this is a topic that is pretty close to home and is also something that I have spent lots of time discussing with the GM.

     The thing that has always pissed me off about our reconditioning process is that the used car department pays the same $90 per hour for labor that any shmuck that walks in the front door would pay.  I don't know if that is the norm at most dealers, but I'm not a huge fan of paying that much (especially since I am by far their best customer).  The reason I hate it so much is because I get paid off the gross of each deal and every extra dollar that I give to the service department is a dollar that I don't get paid on. My argument to the GM is that he is making the profit either way, regardless of the labor rate that I pay to the service department.

     I'm thinking there has to be a better way to do this to where it is a win-win for sales and for service. What do you guys think?