Friday, January 13, 2012

Challenger vs. Relationship Builder


When Cate Farrall invited me to be a co-author of this new blog, I asked myself the question: Why should I invest time and energy into the subject of Relationship Management just when Matthew Dixon and Brent Adamson in their book “Challenger Sale” make a convincing case that Relationship Builders are not top performers particular in complex sales, my primary focus of interest? The answer is: Because I have read the book and this is what I took from it:

How Challengers Use Relationship Management
There are numerous hints throughout the text that Challengers need to build and maintain relationships to be the top performers they are. They actually need better understanding how networks operate than Relationship Builders. Challengers are not satisfied with having relationships. They actively use knowledge about their contacts to hold the right conversations to eventually get purchasing decisions from their customers.

Challengers’ consider knowledge about their contacts as working capital. They know that they continuously need to invest time and effort in order to learn more about their existing contacts. They are motivated to get to know the right things about new contacts to keep this relationship capital productive.

How to build and keep relationship capital productive
In a nutshell, this is what Mastering Relationship Management means to me. I hope this blog will help us to enrich our understanding about
      Relationship Intelligence which is answering questions such as:
o   What we need to understand about contacts
o   What new relationships we need to build
And
       Influence Management which is to know
o   Who can help us build the necess         ary new relations
o   Who can help us to convey the right message to the right person

I am looking forward to rich discussions about these topics which I consider essential for success not only in Sales, my primary focus, but also other domains Cate mentioned in her inaugural post.

Christian Maurer

No comments: