Benjamin Ard00:55 — Welcome back to another episode of Content to Close. Today I'm joined by Hoffen. Hoffen, welcome to the show.
Hoffen Guo01:00 — Hi, glad to be here.
Benjamin Ard01:02 — Yeah, Hoffen, I'm excited. This is going to be a fun episode. You have such cool ideas here and I think it's really powerful for anyone in enablement and sales to hear this. So before we dive in, before we dive into this really cool subject, let's get to know you. Tell us about your work background, history, all of that fun stuff, so the audience gets to know you.
Hoffen Guo01:21 — Sure. So my name is Hoffen. I just remember I should explain the name because it's not a common name. My parents lived a long time in Germany, and hoffnung means hope in German. So yeah, Hoffen is really just a name coming from the German word. I hope I'm the hope of the family, you know.
So I started my career in a really policy regulation analysis consulting kind of world. And then I switched to a business development role at one of the world's largest aircraft engine companies, Rithian Technologies. Really selling into highly structured, highly regulated, long cycle enterprise environments. And then I moved to Udemy.
Enterprise Learning Partnership. So I'm part of the partnership team looking after emerging markets. So enablement and sales training for the partners is my big chunk of the role. And today I'm with Viamenu. It's a SaaS company selling to SMB restaurant owners. If you hear SMB and restaurant, that combination means that's the toughest group of people you are selling to. We are doing 100 percent cold calling. So to summarize my life choices, every move got closer to speed and raw execution. And honestly, it's only gotten more challenging, but exciting. Yeah.
Benjamin Ard02:51 — I love that. That's amazing. Also, I lived in Germany for a couple years, so that's cool. I love the hoffnung right there. I didn't know that. I love that.
All right. So Hoffen, we are looking at execution over excuses. That's what we're going to focus on today. Really having what you call, and I love this term and I hope other people adopt this term, an execution floor where you're actually holding people to certain standards to make sure they're getting things done. So where most of the sales leaders in today's industries and markets think they have standards, it feels like they may have a little gray area. We're not holding people up to a high enough standard. Is that the case? And why do you think that's the case, that we're starting to see that?
Hoffen Guo03:36 — Yeah, I like how you come straight to the universal pinpoint. You know what's interesting? If you ask most sales leaders, do you have standards? The answer is immediately yes, of course. We require 120 minutes of talk time. We have eight touch and 15 touch cadence. We train the scripts. We coach weekly.
Most of the time on paper, it sounds very disciplined. But if you really sit on the floor and listen to 20 calls, you realize there is a lot of gray area, or the area that you didn't expect before. Let me give you a few examples. So first of all, we all have activity metrics. So you walk onto the floor where every rep is hitting 120 minutes of talk time and the leaders are happy. Well, my team is working really hard. And then you listen to the calls, and you find out that, well, some reps are skipping the hook. Some reps are softening the ask, and some people are accepting the first no, although we ask them to push twice. And some are ending the calls without securing the next step.
Most cold call leaders believe like 120 minutes talk time is the standard, 150 calls a day is the standard, or eight touches per lead is the standard. But if we do not audit the call quality, if we don't have the quality assurance system, if we do not enforce the structure, then we don't really have the standard, you know. And what makes it worse, leaders will end up praising volume without inspecting the behavior. So we end up rewarding just being busy, not the execution. So in that sense, all the activity has to be measurable, and the execution has to be inspectable. Sometimes leaders measure what's easy and assume the hard part is just happening, you know. That's the first illusion.
And I have another example, this is my favorite one. We have a script. All the leaders will say that we have a script, we trained it, everybody knows it. But again, if you listen to the calls, you know, some reps freestyle, openers drift, and value propositions change from rep to rep. And believe me, I did that myself as well. The reps can be incredibly imaginative when they are operating under constant rejection and pressure, you know. They start improvising on the spot. It's almost like a jazz session. It's just blowing your mind. Where did they get the information? Are they selling the same thing? You know. So it should not be encouraged. If you don't enforce the standard, you don't have a standard. You have a suggestion. And I totally understand the gray area can be emotional because we do not want to discourage our reps, right? But at the same time, we tolerate the deviation. And the deviation can be very impactful in a negative way. When one rep shortens the opener, another removes the hook, another skips the second push, now your script has like 12 different versions, and you think you have a script, but you don't.
Benjamin Ard06:49 — I love that.
Hoffen Guo06:51 — Thank you. And I've seen another thing a lot, that coaching, what do we exactly coach, right? Most of the time, unconsciously, we are coaching the outcome, not the behavior. And we did not realize that. So just listen to this. You need to book more meetings. Your conversion rate is low. Jeff, you need to work on urgency. Is this coaching? This is not coaching, right? This is just pressure. We're asking the reps what to do, what's the result we want to see, but this is not coaching. So we have to tell our reps, did you follow the opener exactly? Did you follow the question sequence? You know, the tonality, the closing control. So we have to coach the behavior, to coach to the specifics, not the outcome. The outcome will come if they behave the way that we designed them to behave. So we're not running an execution floor if we're not coaching the behavior. We're running a motivational speech. So that's something that I want to point out.
There's another thing. I would say it's not a gray area because everybody can see it, but most of the time we're troubled, you know, not knowing what to do with it. It's the top performer's exception. So what do we do? You know, every floor has that, just picture this, every floor has that one rep. She closes really well, but she freestyles and she doesn't follow the structure. But what do we say? Oh, come on, don't mess with her. You know, she produces. However, the moment we exempt one person from the standards, we've lowered them for everyone. So top reps often win despite the process, not because of it. But when you allow top performers to ignore the structure, it just confuses a lot of people. It confuses the manager. The manager loses authority. It confuses the middle reps. So middle reps don't know, should I follow the standard or should I follow the top performers? And also, the process credibility drops. So standards that are not universal are not standards. They are preferences. We should never say anything like, structure is optional if you are good. We should never say that.
I want to talk a little bit just to summarize, and maybe talk a little bit about the psychology behind the gray area. I did give it a good thought. Why does this happen? Because I think ultimately we are all human beings. We do not want to kill morale. We want to encourage our reps. We want to recognize they are trying. They are working very hard. At least their activity is high. But I think here is the paradox. Loose standards increase anxiety, not just for the leaders, but also for the reps. Believe it or not, the reps don't appreciate the ambiguity. They love clarity. They feel safe when they know exactly what to do. So an execution floor is not harsh. It's designed to be predictable, and we need to have that clarity to make it predictable.
Benjamin Ard10:06 — Yeah, I love it. I want to double click into a couple of things because I love what you're talking about. And I love some of these points where you're talking about the idea that everyone should be held to the same standards, even those over performers. And I love that you've really called that out. So one quick question to kind of double click. What's kind of the hidden revenue cost of tolerating a rep, even a high performing rep, who doesn't follow the process? Because like you said, there's influence for the rest of the group. What are some of the hidden costs that you've noticed from people kind of going off script? And I love you saying like the wild west, they're kind of freestyling it. What are some of those hidden costs that you've seen?
Hoffen Guo10:44 — Yeah, imagine you have like this top performer, you know, he skips the opener, he freestyles, but we appreciate that he produces. He's a very great salesperson, just doesn't follow the rules. We thought, well, it doesn't matter as long as he produces. But the hidden revenue cost is the middle performers, for example. They notice this immediately. And we listen to each other's calls all the time. And they may not say it loud, but they register it. So the script is not mandatory, right? And once the perception shifts from mandatory to optional, then we don't have discipline. We don't have an execution floor that's disciplined. Our standards, well, everybody has a contract with the company, but within the company, across the sales team, we created standards. Standards are essentially social contracts, right? And the moment one person breaks it without consequences, that all those sales leaders allow them to break it without any consequences, that contract weakens. So now the cost is not just one rep, it's not just three, four reps. It's where the revenue leakage begins.
And to make it worse, it actually messes up the math, because cold call teams are math machines, right? We have the conversion rate, we have the meetings scheduled, meetings held, you know, execution. We have the numbers of each part of the sales cycle. And when everyone runs the same structure, the business is predictable. But when one rep freelances, then the focus becomes unstable and the conversion becomes personality driven, right? Maybe Linda can make better numbers, you know, because she sounds great. It's hard to scale, and coaching becomes more inconsistent. So now instead of managing a system, you are actually managing individuals, and we don't want that because that's expensive. Individuals are unpredictable, and the systems are good. Systems are scalable. So one tolerated rep turns the system into a personality contest. That's not gonna help the business to scale. And our CRO, CFO, that really puts the forecast at risk because the quality is not predictable. Their meetings look different to the CRO.
Benjamin Ard13:03 — I love it.
Hoffen Guo13:15 — So the real cost of tolerating one noncompliant rep isn't their missed meetings. It's the message it sends. And the message spreads faster than the behavior and becomes culture. So if standards are not universal, they are not real. And unreal standards produce these unreal revenue forecasts. And the revenue missed, you know, just becomes real.
Benjamin Ard13:41 — I love that. That's so cool. So, Hoffen, we're coming close to the end of the episode. We're almost out of time. But I had another question that I think is really important. How do you enforce these minimum standards without turning into kind of a micromanager, or really killing the morale of the team? How do you still keep people excited and engaged and really feel like they have some ownership over their work?
Hoffen Guo14:05 — Yeah, this is a great question. So first, I think we need to separate two things that often get confused. Micromanagement is controlling style, but execution leadership is controlling standards. Let's go step by step. First, we need to define what's non-negotiable. Micromanagers try to control everything, right? But the execution leaders control a small number of critical behaviors. For example, you must run the full opener, the first 15 seconds, right? Not skipping a single word. Or you must push twice before accepting the no. Or you must confirm the next step before ending the call. That's it. Not like 25 rules, three to five minimum execution standards. When standards are few and clear, they feel fair. But when everything is regulated, it feels suffocating.
So morale drops when people feel over-managed, but it really increases when people know exactly what matters. Also, where managers often get it wrong is they start policing tone, personality, or style. That's micromanagement. Instead, you say the structure is non-negotiable, and how you deliver it is yours. Sometimes we actually say the script differently because the gatekeeper or the other side of the line sounds different. So we try to match the energy to mirror them, right? But the structure is there, is non-negotiable. For example, the opening sequence must stay intact. The objection framework must be followed. And the next step confirmation must happen. But whether you are high energy or calm or sweet, that's really you. And this protects autonomy while enforcing discipline. So autonomy plus structure, that's a healthy execution culture.
And enforce calmly, not emotionally. Micromanagement feels emotional, and execution enforcement feels procedural. So instead of why didn't you follow the script again, you say you skipped the hook, run it again, right? No drama, no lecture, no personality judgment, just reset. The more emotionally neutral enforcement becomes, the less it feels oppressive. It becomes normal. So like a basketball coach, you know, stopping the practice and saying footwork again, right? Nobody calls it micromanagement. But imagine the coach stops and starts yelling, why are you so stupid? That's not coaching. That's not even micromanagement. Sorry, that's a bad example. But the skill, right? We enforce the skills and also apply the standards universally, right? If we want to enforce the skills to increase the morale, we need to treat everybody the same. We need to play a fair game. Not just because he's a top performer, he can do whatever he wants. No excuses, no exceptions.
Also, we need to explain why. I think this is really important. Great execution comes from clarity. So we need to make this clear on day one. What's the structure? What's our procedure, right? What's gonna happen? What kind of consequences you will be facing if you misbehave? The reps need to know exactly why we are doing this. Also, we need to show them evidence, you know, why the discipline increases ourselves. The push discipline, for example, increases conversion, right? Or structure reduces the variance. And the next step confirmation before you end actually stabilizes your pipeline. Otherwise, this is a happy call with a happy goodbye. It doesn't really generate anything on your pipeline. So standards protect everybody's income. When they know why they're doing this or why this matters, they will do a better job. And they know how to improve if their numbers are not good, right?
I just want to add one more thing. Micromanagement, you know, comes from no structure. But in execution leadership, we use certification, for example, right? So if somebody is off the structure, let's rerun the certification. No shame, no sarcasm. And everybody doing the same thing, it improves the quality universally.
Benjamin Ard18:36 — I love it. All right. One final question before we end today. How often, if someone's listening today and they feel like they're tolerating too much, what's the first standard that you feel like they should tighten this quarter to help their team?
Hoffen Guo18:52 — I really think that the next step discipline is the first thing that we want to do. Yes. You can have a decent opener, solid conversation, you know, and generate some interest. But if the rep hangs up without a confirmed time or a calendar hold or a defined follow-up commitment, the pipeline, it doesn't do anything to the pipeline. And also the loose next step generates some false confidence. Reps will say that, OK, I'll send you something. I'll follow up with you next week. Or I'll check back. This is also not a next step. It's just a hope. And this false hope really created a lot of friction in your pipeline.
Why not the opener or the other disciplines during the process? Because how he ends the call, ending with the action items, really changed the rep's psychology throughout the call. So when reps know no call ends without a confirmed next step, they actually start thinking differently during the call. They listen for commitment signals or the anchored value more clearly. They will control the frame more confidently. They start planting the seeds from the beginning. So it really shifts them from a nice conversation to professional control. And that mindset shift is really powerful.
Benjamin Ard20:17 — I love that. That's awesome. Well, Hoffen, this has been amazing. Thank you for the insights and everything today. If anyone wants to reach out and connect with you online, how and where can they find you?
Hoffen Guo20:26 — I'm on LinkedIn, and Facebook. Yeah, find me on LinkedIn. Yes.
Benjamin Ard20:29 — Perfect. Love it. Anyone listening, scroll down to the show notes, regardless of what platform you're listening on, we will link to Hoffen's LinkedIn profile right there. Hoffen, again, thank you so much for the time and insights today. This has been incredible.
Hoffen Guo20:43 — Thank you.
