Research Blog

AI Summary 

Sales leaders typically coach to the behavior they can see, such as discounting, single-threaded deals, or opportunities that stall at “let me think it over.” The same visible behavior can come from very different competency gaps, and Objective Management Group assessment data shows those gaps are widespread: only 17% of salespeople are strong at Qualifying, 25% are strong at Reaching Decision Makers, and 19% have a Supportive Buy Cycle. Some root causes are Tactical skills that training can address directly. Others are rooted in a salesperson’s Sales DNA, where skills training rarely reaches. This article examines three common symptoms, the two different gaps that can sit behind each, and why diagnosis must come before development if leaders want improvement that lasts. 

The same behavior, two different problems 

Most sales leaders have watched this happen. Two salespeople discount on nearly every deal. Both get the same coaching on negotiating, both role-play the same negotiation scenarios, and both are back to discounting within a quarter. 

Both were coached on the behavior. Neither was coached on its cause. One salesperson was pursuing buyers who were never a fit and were always going to make price the deciding factor. The other was talking to good-fit buyers but couldn’t connect the offering to outcomes the buyer cared about, so price became the only thing left to discuss. The behavior looked identical, and the fixes each one needed had almost nothing in common. 

That pattern is expensive. U.S. companies spent roughly $162 billion on corporate training in 2012 alone, and Harvard Business School professor Michael Beer has pointed to studies suggesting only about 10% of corporate training is effective.¹ Beer warns specifically against investing in training before identifying what is actually blocking performance.¹ In sales, the most common version of that mistake is sales coaching aimed at symptoms while the root causes go untouched. 

Objective Management Group assessment data shows how often the competencies behind these symptoms are underdeveloped.2 It also shows why the most visible explanation is frequently the wrong one. 

Discounting: a fit problem or a value problem 

Discounting is one of the easiest symptoms to spot and one of the costliest to misread. McKinsey’s analysis of typical S&P 1500 economics found that a 1% decrease in average price cuts operating profit by about 8%. Volume would need to rise 18.7% just to offset the profit lost from a 5% price cut.3 Every reflexive discount is margin the business doesn’t get back. 

Root cause 1: Qualifying 

When a salesperson is weak at qualifying, the discount is often decided long before the negotiation. They pursue prospects who are shopping on price, who lack budget for the solution, or who were never a good fit. By the time price comes up, a discount is the only lever left. Only 17% of salespeople are strong in Qualifying, with an average score of 49. That makes poor qualifying one of the most likely explanations for chronic discounting. Negotiation training won’t touch it, because the problem was created at the top of the funnel. 

Root cause 2: Selling Value 

The second salesperson is in front of the right buyer but can’t make the case. They present features, skip the economic and personal impact, and leave the buyer to compare options on the one number that’s easy to compare. Only 33% of salespeople are strong in Selling Value, with an average score of 56. That’s nearly twice the share strong in Qualifying, so for many salespeople who discount, the fit problem may be the more likely cause. Leaders can’t assume which one they’re looking at, though. Buyers are scrutinizing price more closely than ever. Forrester’s 2026 buyer research found business leaders under mounting pressure to justify every dollar they spend.4 

Coaching a weak qualifier to “sell value harder” keeps them working deals that should have been disqualified. Coaching a weak value seller to qualify more tightly shrinks their pipeline without fixing the conversation. Applied to the wrong salesperson, either fix leaves the real gap exactly where it was. 

Missing the decision maker: skill or comfort 

Single-threaded deals with no access to the economic buyer are a familiar pipeline risk, and they’re getting riskier. Forrester reports that the typical B2B buying decision now involves 13 internal stakeholders and nine external influencers.4 A salesperson who stays with one comfortable contact is betting the deal on someone who likely can’t approve it alone. 

Root cause 1: Reaching Decision Makers 

Some salespeople don’t know how to get there. They lead with a proposal instead of starting with the people who own the problem. They don’t know who holds budget authority, or they can’t give the decision maker a credible reason to take the meeting. Only 25% of salespeople are strong at Reaching Decision Makers, with an average score of 42. This is a skill gap. Training, practice, and reinforcement can close it. 

Root cause 2: Doesn’t Need Approval 

Other salespeople know exactly who they need to reach and still won’t ask. Asking a contact to bring in their boss feels like a threat to the relationship, so they protect the relationship and sacrifice the deal. That is Need for Approval, a Sales DNA weakness. Only 37% of salespeople are strong in Doesn’t Need Approval, with an average score of 71. The relatively high average can be misleading. Nearly two-thirds of salespeople still aren’t strong here, and it’s exactly the kind of weakness that hides behind otherwise solid skills. 

Give this salesperson a decision-maker access playbook and they’ll understand it perfectly, then avoid using it in the moments that matter. Until the need to be liked is addressed, the skill sits unused. 

Stalled deals: a closing gap or a belief 

“Let me think it over” ends more deals than most pipeline reports show. Research from Matthew Dixon and Ted McKenna found medium to high levels of customer indecision in 87% of deals, with 40% to 60% of lost deals attributable to indecision.5 When so many deals die quietly, how a salesperson responds to the stall matters enormously. 

Root cause 1: Closing 

Some salespeople don’t secure commitments along the way. They move through the sales cycle without agreed next steps, avoid asking for decisions, and reach the end of the process with nothing holding the buyer in place. Only 21% of salespeople are strong at Closing, with an average score of 57. For these salespeople, structured practice on gaining commitment at every stage can make a real difference. 

Root cause 2: Supportive Buy Cycle 

Other salespeople can ask for commitment but don’t, because the stall sounds reasonable to them. A salesperson who researches extensively, compares options, and takes time before their own major purchases tends to accept “I need to think about it” as a normal part of buying. They empathize with the stall instead of addressing it. Only 19% of salespeople have a Supportive Buy Cycle, with an average score of just 37. 

Closing training teaches this salesperson what to say. Their Buy Cycle determines whether they believe they should say it. 

Why sales coaching misses the root cause 

Side by side, the pattern across all three symptoms is hard to miss. 

Each symptom has at least one Tactical explanation. Tactical gaps are visible, trainable, and the usual focus of sales training. In two of the three symptoms, the other explanation is a Sales DNA weakness that skills training doesn’t reach. A salesperson can also carry both gaps at once. When that happens, training only the skill produces a salesperson who knows what to do and still doesn’t do it. 

A second factor determines whether any development effort lasts. Changing ingrained selling habits means pushing through discomfort long enough for new behaviors to take hold, and that is what Commitment measures. Only 55% of salespeople are strong in Commitment, with an average score of 55. For nearly half of salespeople, even well-targeted development is at risk of fading once the initial discomfort sets in. Accurate diagnosis looks at the salesperson’s Will to Sell as well as the specific competency gap. 

What high-performing organizations are doing differently 

Organizations that get lasting improvement from development tend to separate the observation from the diagnosis. They treat discounting, single-threading, and stalled deals as signals worth investigating instead of assuming a fix. The question shifts from “what training will fix this?” to “what is at the heart of this salesperson’s behavior? Do they not know? Or do they know, but don’t want? Do they want, but can’t?” 

That requires measuring what can’t be observed in a ride-along or a pipeline review. Managers can see a discount. They can’t see whether it came from a qualifying gap or a value gap. They’re even less likely to see a Need for Approval weakness or a non-supportive Buy Cycle, because those show up as reasonable-sounding explanations. Competency-level assessment data gives leaders a way to tell the difference before they invest in a fix. 

It also changes how development is sequenced. A Tactical gap calls for skills training, practice, and reinforcement. A Sales DNA gap calls for coaching that addresses the underlying belief or need, often before new skills will be used consistently. Matching the treatment to the cause is what turns development spending into sustained improvement.  

Final Thoughts 

Symptoms are useful. They tell sales leaders where to look, but they don’t tell leaders what they’ll find. Two salespeople with the same habit can need entirely different development plans, and the wrong plan costs more than budget. It burns months of coaching time and reinforces the belief that a salesperson “can’t be coached.” The margin, deal access, or win rate problem stays exactly where it started. 

The data shows these gaps are common. One in four salespeople or fewer are strong at Qualifying, Reaching Decision Makers, Closing, or Supportive Buy Cycle. Before the next training investment, the more valuable question is what is actually causing the behavior, one salesperson at a time. 

Discounting, single-threaded deals, and stalled opportunities are just three examples. See how all 21 core sales competencies are linked to sales success in our latest white paper. Download now. 

References 

1. Holland, R. (2016, July 25). Who is to blame for ‘the great training robbery’? Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/whose-to-blame-for-the-great-training-robbery 
2. Objective Management Group. (2026). Sales competency proficiency data [Unpublished raw data]. OMG Statistics Finding Tool. Retrieved November 4, 2026. 
3. Marn, M. V., Roegner, E. V., & Zawada, C. C. (2003). The power of pricing. The McKinsey Quarterly, (1), 26-39. https://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/ysun/MKTG4825_files/The%20Power%20of%20Pricing-1.pdf 
4. Forrester. (2026, January 21). Forrester’s 2026 buyer insights: GenAI is upending B2B buying as leaders face mounting pressure to justify every dollar spent [Press release]. https://www.forrester.com/press-newsroom/forrester-2026-the-state-of-business-buying/ 
5. Challenger. (n.d.). How to overcome customer indecision using the JOLT Effect approach. Retrieved November 4, 2026, from https://challengerinc.com/losing-to-customer-indecision/