Research Blog

AI Summary 

Average Sales DNA scores across six major industries sit in a tight three-point band, from 65% in Finance & Insurance to 68% in Information and Educational Services. Proficiency rates tell a different story: just 23% of Finance & Insurance salespeople are proficient, versus 39% in Educational Services, a 16-point gap that’s more than five times wider than the spread in averages. Every industry shares the same weak spot, too. Supportive Buy Cycle, how a salesperson’s own buying habits shape their selling effectiveness, is the lowest-scoring competency everywhere, ranging from 31% to 39% proficient. Average scores hide real differences in sales capability. The lowest-proficiency industries are stacking that shared weakness on top of problems of their own, most visibly in Finance & Insurance. 

Same score, different story 

Compare two industries by average competency score alone, and you’d likely conclude their sales organizations perform about the same. That conclusion doesn’t survive a closer look at proficiency rates. 

The stakes on that assumption are higher now. Buyers spend only about 17% of their purchase time in direct contact with vendors, and 61% would prefer a completely rep-free experience.¹ Buying groups have also grown more complex, averaging 10 people across multiple functions, with 72% of purchases now involving high-complexity groups.² Less rep airtime means every conversation that does happen carries more weight, and small gaps in seller capability show up in outcomes faster. 

OMG’s Sales DNA assessment data, drawn from salespeople across six major industries (Information, meaning publishing, software, data processing, and telecom; Healthcare & Social Assistance; Manufacturing; Professional Services; Finance & Insurance; and Educational Services), puts average scores in a tight 65%-68% range.³ On that measure, these industries look interchangeable. Proficiency rates, the share of salespeople who demonstrate strong capability rather than just an adequate score, tell a different story. 

Where the gap opens 

The average score gap between the highest- and lowest-scoring industries is three points. The proficiency gap across the same six industries is sixteen points, nearly five times wider. 

Finance & Insurance posts the lowest average score (65%) and the lowest proficiency rate by a wide margin (23%). Educational Services ties for the highest average score (68%) and posts the highest proficiency rate of any industry measured (39%). Two industries can land on the exact same average score and still differ by four points in how many of their salespeople clear the proficiency bar. 

The practical takeaway for sales leaders: a score that’s “in line with industry” says nothing about whether your team clears the proficiency bar that helps measure performance. Ask about proficiency rate, not average score. 

The one weak spot every industry shares 

Supportive Buy Cycle is the lowest-scoring competency in every industry studied. OMG defines it as how a salesperson’s own buying behavior shapes their selling effectiveness: salespeople tend to sell the way they buy. It ranges from 31% to 39% proficient across all six industries, regardless of whether the industry’s overall proficiency rate is 23% or 39%, which means it isn’t the factor driving the difference between high- and low-proficiency industries. 

A weakness this evenly spread across industries as different as software and insurance is a blind spot in how salespeople see themselves. The false consensus effect, documented by Ross, Greene, and House in 1977, shows people routinely overestimate how much others share their own beliefs and behaviors.⁴ A rep who avoids confrontation, stalls on decisions, or negotiates hard as a buyer tends to assume prospects buy the same way, and sells accordingly, whether or not that fits the person across the table. 

That shared weakness explains why the proficiency gap compounds hardest in Finance & Insurance, not why the gap exists between industries in the first place. Finance & Insurance already posts the lowest overall score, and it sits in a sector where trust in the underlying brands is “at or near historic lows,” per Gallup research, even as highly trusted financial companies outperform peers by up to 400% in market value.⁵ Add a below-average score and a skeptical customer base to the same blind spot every industry carries, and a 23% proficiency rate becomes the predictable result. 

What high-performing organizations are doing differently 

Higher-proficiency industries aren’t necessarily hiring different people. Sales DNA measures underlying competency, not job title, tenure, or industry background, so Educational Services isn’t simply attracting better-credentialed sellers than Finance & Insurance. What separates them is which competencies get identified, coached, and reinforced, and how specifically. 

More product knowledge or compliance training won’t close the gap in lower-proficiency industries like Finance & Insurance. The shortfall is self-awareness: how a rep’s own buying instincts shape their selling instincts, rather than a gap in product or regulatory knowledge. Organizations that treat Supportive Buy Cycle as its own coaching priority, instead of lumping “sales performance” into one score to improve in the abstract, are better positioned to move their proficiency rate than those relying on generic training. 

This also makes the case for evaluating at the competency level rather than the aggregate. Two organizations can post the same average score for entirely different reasons, and the fix depends on whether the shortfall sits in overall Sales DNA, in the shared Supportive Buy Cycle weakness, or in both layered on industry-specific pressure like regulation or buyer trust. 

Final Thoughts 

Average score is a summary statistic, not a diagnosis. Six industries separating by three points on that measure and sixteen points on proficiency says more about the limits of averaging than about how similar these sales forces really are. 

The lowest-proficiency industries are managing the same universal Supportive Buy Cycle weakness as everyone else, just with fewer offsetting strengths. Finance & Insurance shows what happens when that shared weakness lands on top of a below-average score and a customer base already inclined toward skepticism. 

None of this means average score should be ignored; it’s simply a starting point for the conversation. The better question has two parts: how far below the proficiency bar is this team actually performing, and does the gap come from the widespread Supportive Buy Cycle weakness or from something specific to this organization? Answering those two questions, rather than asking “are we in line with the industry,” is what turns a benchmarking exercise into an actual diagnosis. 

References 

1. Brixon Group. “The Modern B2B Buying Journey: Why Buyers Complete 80% of Their Journey Alone (and How You Can Still Remain Visible).” 2026. https://brixongroup.com/en/the-modern-b2b-buying-journey-why-buyers-complete-80-of-their-journey-alone-and-how-you-can-still-remain-visible  
2. Corporate Visions. “B2B Buying Behavior in 2026: 57 Stats and Five Hard Truths That Sales Can’t Ignore.” 2026.https://corporatevisions.com/blog/b2b-buying-behavior-statistics-trends/  
3. Objective Management Group. FindingStatistics Tool. Average Competency Scores and Percentage of Those Proficient in Competencies 12/1/2025-12/31/2025. 
4. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. “The False Consensus Effect: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 1977.
5. Deloitte Digital. “Building Trust to Drive Growth in Financial Services.” 2026.https://www.deloittedigital.com/us/en/industries/financial-services.html