Every few months, a sales leader brings me the same proposal. The team’s work is inconsistent, so let’s add a reviewer: a deal desk, a senior seller, a “judgment” role that inspects the work before it moves forward.
I understand the instinct. Inconsistent work is costly, and a second set of eyes feels like control. But when that role is added without a written standard, it adds a person, not a standard. The reviewer simply becomes one more source of variation.
The problem: results that vary rep to rep
Ask five reps on the same team what a good discovery call looks like and you will hear five answers. Ask five managers whether a given opportunity is qualified and you may hear five more. Each answer reflects real experience. None of them is wrong, exactly. But none of them is the standard, because there isn’t one.
When a sales organization runs on individual judgment, quality depends on who did the work and who happened to check it. One rep’s discovery notes are rich with evidence; another’s are a list of features the prospect “seemed interested in.” Both opportunities enter the same pipeline at the same stage. One is real. The other is scrap that hasn’t been identified yet.
In a factory, we would call this what it is. Defects that pass inspection travel downstream, where they become more expensive to fix. In sales, the downstream cost shows up as forecast misses, late-stage deals that stall, proposals rewritten three times, and managers spending their week on rework instead of coaching. The waste is real even when no one measures it.
Why standards beat judgment
Every stage of a complex B2B sale produces something tangible: a discovery summary, a qualified opportunity, a mutual action plan, a business case, a proposal. In the Sales Production System, I call these Outputs. They are the work product of the sales team, and like any work product, they can be built to a specification.
A quality standard for an Output answers one question: what must be true before this moves forward? Not “does it look good to me,” but what evidence it must contain. A discovery summary must document the business problem in the buyer’s words, the cost of leaving it unsolved, who else is affected, and a committed next step. A qualified opportunity must show a confirmed decision process, not an assumed one. A proposal must prove its value case before it goes out, not after.
When the standard is explicit, three things change.
Good work becomes repeatable. Reps no longer have to guess what good means or reverse-engineer it from the top performer. The specification is written down, so the best version of the work can be produced on purpose, not by accident.
Good work becomes inspectable. Two reviewers looking at the same Output against the same standard reach the same conclusion. Better yet, the rep can check their own work before anyone else sees it. Quality is built in at the source rather than inspected in at the end.
Good work becomes coachable. “That call felt light” is an opinion. “The summary has no cost of inaction and no confirmed next step” is a gap a rep can close. Coaching shifts from personality to specification, which is fairer to the rep and faster for the manager.
This is the difference between systems and events. A pipeline review, a deal-desk escalation, a late-quarter rescue: these are events. They depend on the right person being in the room at the right moment. A standard is a system. It works when the manager is on a plane, and it works for the rep hired last month as well as the one hired five years ago.
Judgment without a standard is just opinion with a title. Calibration comes from a shared standard of evidence, not another reviewer.
A short example: calibrating a discovery call
Consider a first discovery call with an operations leader at a mid-market company evaluating new software. The rep reports that it “went great.” The buyer was engaged, asked good questions, and wants a demo.
Now score the same call against a standard. With my Calibrate the Call scorer, the call is assessed on the evidence it produced, not the energy in the room:
- Business problem confirmed in the buyer’s words? Partially. The problem was described, but in the rep’s language.
- Cost of the problem established? No.
- Stakeholders and decision process identified? One additional name; process unknown.
- Committed next step with a date and agenda? A demo was agreed, with no date.
The call was pleasant. The Output is incomplete. Against the standard, this opportunity is not ready to advance, and the rep knows exactly what the next conversation must accomplish. No one’s judgment was overruled. The standard made the gaps visible while they were still cheap to fix.
Score calls this way across a team for a few weeks and patterns appear: which elements are routinely missed, which reps need help with which skill, where the process itself is unclear. A judgment role rarely produces that information, because opinions don’t aggregate. Scores against a common standard do.
Write the standard down
Before you add another reviewer, ask a simpler question: where in your sales process are you still relying on judgment because the standard was never written down?
That is the work of my Outputs Workshop. Together we identify the Outputs your sales motion depends on, define what good looks like for each one, and give your managers a common language for inspection and coaching. If you would rather start with a single Output, Calibrate the Call applies the same discipline to your discovery calls.
Learn more about both at revenue-works.com.
Better Outputs. Better Outcomes.
Leave a Reply