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:)

     Hopefully I’m not alone on this one, but I have gotten to the point where I basically hate our accessories department.  I consider our accessories department a necessary evil at our dealership because I know we can’t do without it and I know we can’t get rid of it due to the fact they generate extra profit for the dealership.  With all that said, I would still love to get rid of it!

     Let me explain the reason for my hatred.  As a sales manager, I get paid on the front and back end profit of each deal. I don’t get paid a dime on what the accessories department does. My main complaint is our accessories manager gets a chance to sell his crap before the customer gets into the finance office and sometimes the accessories that are included into the financing make it to where our finance managers can’t be as profitable as we need them to be. I find that I am purposely sabotaging the accessories manager’s opportunity to sell product by lying to him and telling him the deal is maxed out. I do that so our finance department has more than enough room to sell their back end products and still have a buyable deal with the banks.  My other complaints are I don’t really like the guy too much and he is constantly pissing off our customers and tanking my salesguys’ surveys.

     Anyway, the point of all this is that I think there has to be a better way to set this up to where I don’t hate the accessories department.  I get the argument that he needs to talk to the customer before they go into the finance office so the accessories can be put into the financing but that is the part that bugs me the most.  Maybe the solution is to make it where salespeople and sales managers get paid extra on deals where accessories are sold. Or maybe there is an alternate way to get the accessories financed. Who knows! Any ideas you guys have would be great because I’m sure that they are better than the current process that we have!

     Hopefully I’m not alone on this one, but I have gotten to the point where I basically hate our accessories department.  I consider our accessories department a necessary evil at our dealership because I know we can’t do without it and I know we can’t get rid of it due to the fact they generate extra profit for the dealership.  With all that said, I would still love to get rid of it!

     Let me explain the reason for my hatred.  As a sales manager, I get paid on the front and back end profit of each deal. I don’t get paid a dime on what the accessories department does. My main complaint is our accessories manager gets a chance to sell his crap before the customer gets into the finance office and sometimes the accessories that are included into the financing make it to where our finance managers can’t be as profitable as we need them to be. I find that I am purposely sabotaging the accessories manager’s opportunity to sell product by lying to him and telling him the deal is maxed out. I do that so our finance department has more than enough room to sell their back end products and still have a buyable deal with the banks.  My other complaints are I don’t really like the guy too much and he is constantly pissing off our customers and tanking my salesguys’ surveys.

     Anyway, the point of all this is that I think there has to be a better way to set this up to where I don’t hate the accessories department.  I get the argument that he needs to talk to the customer before they go into the finance office so the accessories can be put into the financing but that is the part that bugs me the most.  Maybe the solution is to make it where salespeople and sales managers get paid extra on deals where accessories are sold. Or maybe there is an alternate way to get the accessories financed. Who knows! Any ideas you guys have would be great because I’m sure that they are better than the current process that we have!

    We have had a problem with marriage that has created quite a bit of controversy lately at our dealership.  I'm not referring to marriage between a husband and wife, I'm referring to marriage between 2 sales consultants.

I'll start with a definition.  Being "married" on a deal is when 2 sales consultants are working the same deal together.  It is pointless to tie up 2 guys with 1 deal so one of the guys will go take another customer while the other guy continues to work the deal.  If the guy who took a new customer sells a car he would give up half of that deal to the guy that continued to work the original deal, regardless of the outcome of the original deal. Hopefully you guys followed all that. I read it 3 times to make sure it made sense!

Anyway, we have never had any sort of a rule regarding this marriage clause at our dealership.  It is only been a problem lately because we hired a couple of guys that have worked at other dealerships who have had that rule.  The problem we have now is that every salesperson thinks it is the best rule in the world.

Here's my stance.  I see the logic behind why 2 salespeople would want to make that agreement having sold cars in the past myself.  However, I think they are trying to cheat the system and get paid for work that they didn't even do.  They shouldn't be compensated for a deal that they didn't work with a customer they didn't even meet.  Also, I think we need to have a definitive rule because if we give our sales guys an inch, they will take a mile.  The other reason I am against this marriage clause is because I believe everything will work out in the long run when you average every deal out.  Meaning, a salesperson will definitely get screwed if he gets stuck working a crappy deal and the other guy on the deal goes and gets someone to lay down and buy.  But he can be on the good side of that deal in the future and according to the law of averages, everything should work out and be equal.

I may be completely in left field on this one, but I feel good about the decision we made as a management team.  The reason I wanted to write a post about this issue is because we have had lots of resistance from our guys when we made our decision.  Have you guys had issues with this at your dealerships, and if so, how have you handled it?

    We have had a problem with marriage that has created quite a bit of controversy lately at our dealership.  I'm not referring to marriage between a husband and wife, I'm referring to marriage between 2 sales consultants.

I'll start with a definition.  Being "married" on a deal is when 2 sales consultants are working the same deal together.  It is pointless to tie up 2 guys with 1 deal so one of the guys will go take another customer while the other guy continues to work the deal.  If the guy who took a new customer sells a car he would give up half of that deal to the guy that continued to work the original deal, regardless of the outcome of the original deal. Hopefully you guys followed all that. I read it 3 times to make sure it made sense!

Anyway, we have never had any sort of a rule regarding this marriage clause at our dealership.  It is only been a problem lately because we hired a couple of guys that have worked at other dealerships who have had that rule.  The problem we have now is that every salesperson thinks it is the best rule in the world.

Here's my stance.  I see the logic behind why 2 salespeople would want to make that agreement having sold cars in the past myself.  However, I think they are trying to cheat the system and get paid for work that they didn't even do.  They shouldn't be compensated for a deal that they didn't work with a customer they didn't even meet.  Also, I think we need to have a definitive rule because if we give our sales guys an inch, they will take a mile.  The other reason I am against this marriage clause is because I believe everything will work out in the long run when you average every deal out.  Meaning, a salesperson will definitely get screwed if he gets stuck working a crappy deal and the other guy on the deal goes and gets someone to lay down and buy.  But he can be on the good side of that deal in the future and according to the law of averages, everything should work out and be equal.

I may be completely in left field on this one, but I feel good about the decision we made as a management team.  The reason I wanted to write a post about this issue is because we have had lots of resistance from our guys when we made our decision.  Have you guys had issues with this at your dealerships, and if so, how have you handled it?