Company I Worked for Changed

¶ … company I worked for changed its sales structure significantly in order to respond to changes in the competitive environment of the marketplace. This change was introduced from the top levels of management, which believed that the company's full range of products were not being fully exposed to the marketplace, largely as a result of the sales structure, including both the configuration of the representatives' territories and the process by which representatives sold into those territories. The change had numerous implications at all levels of the company and was felt by most members of the company to be -- although perhaps necessary for the company's survival in an increasingly competitive marketplace -- a fairly uncomfortable development.

In this brief paper, I will discuss and analyze the change in my company through an approach that accounts for stakeholder perceptions and multiple perspectives, showing the change to be a "story of change," as described by Palmer, Dunford, and Akin (2008). Following a brief summary of the change structure and events, as well as a description of the need that drove the change in the first place, I will describe the effects and implications of the change for a number of the stakeholders in the company's efforts, and will discuss the lessons learned from the change experience.

Need for Change and Change Structure/Events. My company had, over the course of several generations, evolved into a large national player in its marketplace. That marketplace itself had been characterized for decades as a producer-driven, value-based market in which public monies were spent on products that were chosen at the local level, so there was little effort on the part of consumers to demand product innovations. They simply looked at what producers offered and attempted to get the most for their money. There were a number of national players that competed for market share, and the companies were all relatively evenly-matched in terms of product offerings, sales force configurations, and the like.

However, following the advent of the internet and the introduction of new regional players who were able to enter the marketplace with very low overhead due to innovative production plans made possible by new technologies, competition had begun to increase significantly in the past decade or two, as consumers had a range of options for product choice and delivery.

Specifically, the change effort was made to break sales territories down into smaller and therefore more manageable geographical areas. This had the result that the attendant duties required to adequately cover those territories also changed. Whereas in the past, an emphasis was placed on broad and fairly shallow coverage of each individual account, so that a sales representative made his quota by going into each account briefly and finding out critical needs, meeting them, and then moving on, the new territory configuration required a more personalized approach. Essentially, the sales orientation changed from transactional relationships with the customer to relational relationships. Now representative were required to go into their accounts and dig below the surface of critical needs, to find out whether the customer had any ancillary or customized needs that the company could meet with its products. Maintenance of accounts and selling from a perspective of customer-centered needs became the order of the day. Customization of both product configurations, and in many cases, actual product offerings changed the way the development and production teams approached their work. Marketing also had to change its orientation, from creating appeals with broad general interest, to meeting specific needs and requirements at local levels. The change, that is, ultimately impacted all levels of the company and was met with varying levels of acceptance and enthusiasm. It was, in the characterization of Palmer, Dunford, and Akin (2008), very close to a "second-order" change, evidenced by a transformation of the organization at the very core of its' process and structural identity (p. 86).

Effects, Implications, and Lesson Learned. Because the change in sales force structure, process, and configuration did not ultimately require any downsizing -- in fact, in some cases, new sales reps were hired to cover new divisions created by the refocusing of responsibilities -- it did not place people in jeopardy of losing their jobs. However, it did significantly change the ways they did those jobs. For the first time, they were forced to really listen to customers and respond in meaningful ways beyond simply offering a better price. For the customer, this involved the customer having to understand their own needs and articulate them. For management it meant having to truly understand the marketplace and rally the company to the new approach. For rank and file workers it meant having to respond to the needs of the marketplace with creativity and thoughtful innovation. This required a recursive process of diagnosing problems, altering organizational approaches, accounting for resistance to change, and developing vision that would meet the change. The change was not a once-and-for-all change, nor was it one-size fits all. Ultimately it consisted of a number of changes that led into new ones. Different regions had different requirements. Different sales representatives were more adept at meeting the change than others. Different divisions of the company responded in different ways.