Most managers default to using 1-on-1s as pipeline reviews. This is a mistake. Dedicate separate meetings for deals (Deal Reviews) and protect the 1-on-1 as a "sacred space" for building connection, discussing personal and professional development, and strengthening the manager-rep relationship.
Shift from a process defined by meetings (Discovery, Demo) to one defined by milestones (Problem Agreement, Priority Agreement). This prevents artificially slowing down high-velocity deals or rushing complex ones, as the number of meetings required to reach each agreement can vary.
To accurately assess an unteachable trait like coachability, you can't just ask about it. You must create a situation that requires it. For coachability, run a brief role-play, provide direct feedback, and ask them to do it again, observing their verbal and non-verbal reactions to the coaching itself.
Instead of a single forecast category, assess each deal's risk (Green, Yellow, Orange, Red) across each of the five agreement stages (Problem, Priority, etc.). This creates a highly accurate, data-driven forecast by pinpointing the exact source of risk within a deal's progression.
Instead of reps giving meandering updates, the manager reads the deal's CRM data (stage, amount, close date) and asks, "Is this accurate?" This forces reps to own their data, corrects inaccuracies in real-time, and allows for rapid review of the entire pipeline, not just one or two deals.
Most hiring funnels start with inbound applicants from job posts, which is the least effective source. Instead, prioritize a five-tier sourcing strategy in this order: 1) Your "squad" (past top performers), 2) internal talent, 3) referrals, 4) outbound sourcing, and only then 5) inbound applicants.
Use L1 metrics (lagging indicators like pipeline generated) to identify problems. Then, review a prioritized list of L2 metrics (leading indicators like sequence reply rates) to find the cause. Crucially, stop and fix the *first* L2 metric that is off-target, rather than analyzing all of them, to apply the most effective fix.
Teams have a finite capacity for change. Use a 9-box matrix plotting "Cognitive Load" (how hard is the new skill) vs. "Capability" (level of mastery desired). Assign points to each initiative and stick to a quarterly "point budget" (e.g., 16 points) to avoid overloading reps and ensure training sticks.
The cost of a bad hire is significantly greater than the benefit of a good one. A bad hire makes your job 20-30% harder, while a great one makes it 10-20% easier. Therefore, any candidate who doesn't receive a "strong yes" from the interview panel should be rejected to avoid the high cost of a hiring mistake.
AE prospecting fails when given a watered-down SDR activity quota. Instead, have AEs build a strategic plan to land three deals at 2x average contract value from a target list of just 10 accounts per quarter. This focuses their limited prospecting time on high-impact activities.