Why engineers could be more compelling than the
average sales ‘pro’ (or the professional bid writer)
Engineers and their
colleagues in similarly
‘technical’ disciplines
within the broader
infrastructure sector have
been done a grave disservice.
Frequently, that disservice has
been delivered by educators and
consultants who have been called
in to instill them with bid writing,
business development, or sales and
other marketing-related skills.
Often, these ‘experts’ have
adopted a pre conceived position
that engineers and their ilk aren’t
particularly good ‘salespeople’.
(Unfortunately, this is a mindset that
many engineers themselves are far
too quick to agree with).
Many times I have been called in
to run a bid coaching or bid strategy
session for a new client organisation
to be told, on arrival, that, “We need
to learn to sell ourselves better.”
More often than not, they’ve had
that notion reinforced by outside
sources they viewed as authorities
in the matter.
When these consultants,
facilitators, trainers and the
like come from this standpoint,
they demonstrate a flawed
understanding not only of the real
mechanics of ‘selling’, but also of
the nature of high-stakes, high-value infrastructure bids.
The qualities of a great
salesperson – and why most
engineers have them (but don’t
know it)
Let me be resoundingly clear
about this.
Most engineers, by nature and by
training, have the very skill set that
it takes to ‘sell’ in a highly evolved
manner (critical in the big-ticket
infrastructure environment) – yet
many don’t see this.
By my observation, most
engineers are information seeking,
fact based, analytical and deep
thinking operatives, who conduct
conversations with project owners
for the primary purpose of obtaining
a deeper understanding of what
is to be achieved, and in what
circumstances.
Ironically, when they’re pushed
out of this very productive comfort
zone, they do a 180 degree flip
straight into what they imagine is
the modus operandi of a ‘great
salesperson’. This is invariably
based on a misguided notion
that they must deliver a ‘pitch’
- an artificially passionate, oneway delivery of their company’s
(usually generic) strengths
and (usually not researched)
competitive advantages – what
they ‘can do’ for the client. It’s an
arrogant, outmoded and generally
unproductive approach.
Selling by listening, the
critical process that precedes
it . . . and why engineers are
‘naturals’
You may be familiar with the modern
marketing admonition that one
should sell by listening, as opposed
to ‘selling by telling’ (which is
indeed an outdated sales modality).
Let’s take this concept past the
limitations of an adage, and apply
it to the infrastructure industry
and its bidding environments and
practices.
If we agree that ‘selling by
listening’ is effective as a sales or
business development process,
we need to consider what comes
before listening, what ensures
that what we are listening to has
embedded within it the valuable
information we need to make the
sale – or to win the bid.
Clearly, what ensures this is
the questioning process. It is the
quality of this questioning process
that determines the quality of the
information generated, and thus
its usefulness in understanding
the client, the project, and the
procurement per se.
What, then, makes for a ‘quality’
questioning process?
Two things:
1) Prior research and a resultantly
informed position, such that
questions are formulated to propel
the asker to the next level of
understanding.
2) An inquiring mind, such
that questions are crafted with a
reasonable notion of the nature of
information and insights needed to
assemble the bigger picture behind
the project and the procurement.
Trying to sell the sizzle without
the steak
This is all the good stuff that those
who would have engineers ‘learn
to sell themselves better’ generally
don’t get into, or don’t go deep
enough into.
Even in the instances in which
engineers are given (e.g. bid
strategy and writing) training that
does, in fact, reflect the ‘selling
by listening, rather than selling
by telling’ principle, those in the
learning seat often don’t gain a full
appreciation of how to enact that
principle nor, importantly, how their
| www.constructiondigital.com
There persists an overriding perception
that business development, bid strategy or
bid writing relies on an ability to ‘get my/our
message across’
business d
we need to
before liste
that what w
embedded
information
sale – or to
Clearly, w
the questio
quality of th
that determ
information
its usefulne
the client, t
procureme
What, th
questioning
Two thing
1) Prior r
informed p
42
own natural talents provide them
with an advantage in doing so.
And so, there persists an overriding perception that business
development, bid strategy or bid
writing relies on an ability to ‘get
my/our message across’ first
and foremost (listen out for that
mentality underpinning most
mentions of ‘key messages’, rarely
is a bid team speaking of the client’s
key messages when they throw
this phrase around; they’re usually
talking about their own).
Where enough members of
a bid team are programmed
by this mindset, it flavours the
team’s thinking, its pre-probity
conversations with the client, and
its language in what should be more
strategically-based discussions.
The irony continues. Not only
are most engineers neither
comfortable with, nor good at,
a ‘salesy’ modus operandi in
general, they’re equally out of their
comfort zone with (and poor at) the
corresponding style of writing.
This is the root cause of the
supplier-centric bid documentation
that still prevails in this industry
(although it’s worse in most others),
the salesy ‘brochureware’ that’s
long on hyped-up linguistics and
short on client-centric substance.
Of course, to the extent that
GENERAL CONTRACTING
Smashing the ‘sales personality’ myth
In short
then, there’s a
considerable
amount of deprogramming to
be done in many
organisations in
this industry”
Jordan Kelly
a switched-on bid leader is in
charge of a bid process, and that
leader ensures that (a) productive
bid strategy sessions have been
conducted, and (b) a purposeful
and well-informed bid strategy
document has been formulated
to guide the bid’s content, the
quality of that content can still be
favourably influenced. But, even
where this is the case, this ‘sales
speak’ programming is hard to break
and it will more likely be found that
those running this mental program
will largely ignore the guidance of a
strategy document anyway.
In short then, there’s a
considerable amount of deprogramming to be done in many
organisations in this industry.
Engineers and their similarly
qualified cohorts need to be
encouraged to see the inherent
strengths in the skills and modus
operandi that attach naturally to
their profession. Specifically, they
need to see the substantial natural
advantage these provide when
applied to business development,
bid strategy and bid writing, or
any form of what might be broadly
deemed ‘selling’.
