Organisations can invest heavily in sales development and still see limited movement in commercial performance

The issue is not always a lack of training.

It is often a lack of clarity about what is actually constraining performance in the first place.

A business may have capable people, established sales methodologies and significant investment in development, yet still experience inconsistent opportunity progression, weak conversion, over-reliance on a small number of high performers or difficulty translating strong client relationships into commercial value.

When that happens, the instinct is often to provide more training. But if the underlying constraint is not a skills gap, more skills training may simply mean more investment without addressing the real problem. The risk is not necessarily underinvestment in development. It is investing in the wrong constraint.

Why skills do not always translate into performance

Sales skills are important. People need to know how to understand client needs, create value, influence decisions, challenge constructively and progress opportunities.

But knowing how to do something does not mean it will be applied consistently when the commercial stakes are higher. McKinsey found that only one-quarter of executives surveyed believed their training programmes had measurably improved business performance.[1] Research into training transfer helps explain why.

A meta-analysis of 89 empirical studies found that whether learning translates into workplace behaviour is influenced not only by the quality of the training itself, but by factors including motivation, individual characteristics and the extent to which the work environment supports application.[2]

An extensive review of the wider training-transfer literature reached a similar conclusion: successful application depends on the interaction between the individual, the way development is designed and the environment they return to afterwards.[3]

For business leaders, that distinction is crucial as it forces us to move the conversation beyond “Do our people know what to do?” to “Will they do it consistently, in the right situations, in ways that create value?”.

From sales skills to commercial capability

Commercial situations are rarely predictable. We’ve all been there; a client relationship or proposal that appears to be progressing well suddenly stalls; a key stakeholder pushes back just as momentum is building; or a strong ongoing relationship proves difficult to convert into a commercial opportunity.

In those moments, people are not simply reproducing a technique. They are interpreting information, assessing risk and deciding how best to respond.

A strong sales methodology can provide structure, language and practical tools. It can help someone prepare for a conversation, uncover needs, create value or progress an opportunity.

But when the moment comes, two people with similar skills and training may still behave very differently.

One may recognise that a client’s thinking needs to be challenged but hesitate because they are concerned about damaging the relationship. Another may know when to move a conversation forward but continue exploring because they are more comfortable staying in a consultative role. One may keep pursuing an opportunity despite signs that a different approach is needed. Another may interpret early resistance as a signal to step back, even though further exploration could uncover a way forward.

In each case, the person may know what effective commercial behaviour looks like. The difference lies in whether, when and how they choose to apply it. That is the key distinction between commercial skills and commercial capability.

Skills tell us what someone knows how to do. Commercial capability is about whether they can deploy those skills effectively and consistently in the situations that matter.

That distinction becomes increasingly important as organisations seek to scale growth beyond a small number of strong individual performers. The objective is not simply to create more skilled professionals. It is to build a more repeatable commercial capability across the organisation.

Diagnose the constraint before investing in the solution

If the challenge is not always a lack of skill, then the next question becomes: What is actually shaping commercial behaviour?

This is where better diagnosis matters.

McKinsey’s research into sales capability has shown clear differences between faster- and slower-growing organisations in how they approach capability building.[4]

Higher-performing organisations are more likely to take a more systematic approach: diagnosing capability needs, involving managers in development, measuring effectiveness and connecting capability building more closely to commercial performance.[4]

That matters because without good diagnosis, organisations risk treating different problems as though they are the same.

A visible performance gap may be driven by a lack of skill. But it may equally reflect confidence, motivation, beliefs about selling, manager reinforcement, role expectations or the wider commercial environment. The better the diagnosis, the more targeted the response can be.

At Peoplewise, this is where the Commercial Impact Profiler (CIP) plays an important role.

The Commercial Impact Profiler (CIP) helps identify the underlying beliefs and motivational patterns that may be shaping commercial behaviour beneath the surface.

It helps move the conversation beyond: “What are people doing?” 

towards: “What may be influencing why they behave that way?”

That insight can then be connected with Ascent, our behaviour-led commercial methodology, which equips people with practical approaches for understanding client needs, creating value, navigating conversations and progressing opportunities.

The two provide complementary perspectives. The CIP helps us understand what may be driving behaviour. Ascent helps build the practical capability to act differently. Together, they create a stronger basis for targeted development.

A more deliberate approach to building capability

Our commercial capability approach follows five connected stages:

Diagnose builds an evidence-based picture of current commercial capability and the factors shaping performance.

Define identifies the capabilities and behaviours most important to commercial success.

Design ensures development is targeted at the actual need rather than applying the same intervention to everyone.

Deliver brings those capabilities into practical, relevant commercial situations.

Embed focuses on reinforcement, measurement and the wider conditions required for behaviour to stick.

This gives organisations a more complete view of capability. It moves development away from one-off activity and towards creating the conditions in which commercial performance can be applied, reinforced and sustained.

From individual performance to organisational capability

The bigger opportunity is at organisational level.

Commercial performance becomes more valuable when it is repeatable rather than dependent on individual talent. For growth-focused organisations, this is particularly important.

A business that relies disproportionately on a small number of rainmakers may perform well today but remain difficult to scale. A business with more consistent commercial capability across roles, teams and markets has a stronger foundation for repeatable growth. This is also why commercial capability cannot be viewed solely as an individual issue.

Managers, leaders, systems, incentives and culture influence what behaviours are reinforced and what eventually becomes habitual.

McKinsey’s research found that higher-performing sales organisations were more likely to involve managers directly in capability building, including coaching people and helping them apply new learning in real client situations.[4]

That wider organisational view allows leaders to distinguish between isolated development needs and systemic barriers. A team may have strong relationships but struggle to convert those relationships into opportunities. Another may be technically credible but lack confidence in challenging client thinking. Elsewhere, individual capability may be strong while managers fail to create sufficient accountability for commercial ownership. Each pattern requires a different response.

The answer may include training. But it may equally involve coaching, manager enablement, better tools, clearer accountability, changes to performance management or changes in the wider commercial environment.

The response should follow the need rather than the other way around.

A Way Forward

Commercial capability should not be something professionals are simply expected to acquire as they progress. It can be built deliberately.

That means understanding what may be shaping behaviour, equipping people with the mindset, skills and tools to perform differently, and creating an environment that allows those capabilities to be applied and sustained.

It also means using data more effectively: not simply to identify who is performing, but to understand where capability gaps exist, what may be driving them and whether investment is producing meaningful change.

The goal is not simply to deliver more development. It is to build commercial capability that translates into behaviour and, ultimately, into greater commercial impact.

Our latest white paper, From Expertise to Commercial Impact, explores the psychology behind commercial effectiveness in greater depth, including the research underpinning commercial belief patterns and how organisations can use that insight to make more targeted development, talent and commercial decisions.

For further details or to explore how we can support your organisation, please reach out to us at letushelp@peoplewise.co.uk

—

References

[1] McKinsey & Company (2010). Getting more from your training programs. McKinsey Quarterly, 1 October 2010. The article reports that only one-quarter of surveyed executives said their training programmes measurably improved business performance, and argues that application and reinforcement before and after formal training are critical. McKinsey & Company

[2] Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105. This meta-analysis covered 89 empirical studies and found positive relationships between training transfer and factors including motivation, individual characteristics and a supportive work environment. DOI: 10.1177/0149206309352880

[3] Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training Transfer: An Integrative Literature Review. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296. The review identifies three major groups of factors affecting transfer: learner characteristics, intervention design and delivery, and the work environment. ERIC DOI: 10.1177/1534484307303035

[4] McKinsey & Company (2018). The five things sales-growth winners do to invest in their people. McKinsey & Company, 9 October 2018. Based on a global cross-industry survey of approximately 1,200 respondents across sales roles. McKinsey found that outperforming organisations were 56% more likely to measure the effectiveness of sales capability training and quantify improvement in sales performance. The article also discusses diagnosing root causes and manager involvement in capability building. McKinsey & Company article