ACTG Sales Management Blog

Sales & Sales Management Expertise Blog  

Objective Management Group

Recent Posts

The Commitment Gap: Why Desire Alone Doesn’t Drive Sales Performance

Posted by Objective Management Group on Thu, Sep 10, 2026

This article was originally published by Objective Management Group and written by Kate Barsby. It is shared here with permission. Anthony Cole Training Group is a Certified OMG Partner, helping organizations hire and develop high-performing sales teams using OMG’s industry-leading assessments and insights.

Objective Management Group’s assessment data reveals a significant gap between Desire and Commitment among today’s salespeople. While 85% of current salespeople demonstrate strong Desire, only 55% demonstrate strong Commitment. The findings suggest that wanting success is common. Following through when sales become difficult is far less common. Understanding the differences between Desire, Responsibility, and Commitment helps explain why some salespeople consistently improve and perform while others struggle despite having similar goals. 

The Commitment Gap

Objective Management Groups assessment data reveals an interesting contradiction.

Among current salespeople, 85% demonstrate strong Desire, yet only 55% demonstrate strong Commitment.1

Competency

Strong in Competency

Average Score

Desire

85%

77%

Commitment

55%

56%

 

If most salespeople want success, why do so many struggle to consistently do the things required to achieve it?

The answer lies in the fact that Desire and Commitment measure two very different things.

Sales leaders often assume that salespeople will naturally take the actions necessary to improve performance. The data suggests otherwise. While Desire is one of the strongest competencies among today’s salespeople, Commitment remains considerably lower.

Understanding why requires a closer look at three closely related, but distinct, competencies: Desire, Responsibility, and Commitment.

Desire, Responsibility, and Commitment

One of the most common mistakes sales leaders make is treating Desire, Accountability, and Commitment as though they are interchangeable. They are not.

Each competency measures a different aspect of sales performance.

Desire

Desire reflects how much a salesperson wants to succeed. Salespeople with strong Desire typically have ambitious goals and a genuine interest in achieving them. They want the rewards associated with sales success, whether that means higher income, recognition, advancement, or personal achievement.

Desire creates motivation and direction. But desire alone does not determine behavior.

Responsibility

Responsibility measures the degree to which a salesperson accepts ownership of outcomes.

When goals are missed or opportunities are lost, high-responsibility salespeople focus first on what they could have done differently. They concentrate on factors within their control and look for ways to improve. Others may point to market conditions, pricing, lead quality, competition, or management decisions as the primary explanation for poor results.

Responsibility influences whether a salesperson owns the outcome.

Commitment

Commitment measures whether a salesperson is willing to do what success requires.

The difference becomes apparent when salespeople are asked to change behaviors, adopt new processes, or push through difficult circumstances. Many salespeople want better results. Fewer are willing to consistently make the changes necessary to achieve them.

Commitment shows up in behaviors such as:

  • Adopting a new process
  • Following coaching recommendations
  • Prospecting consistently
  • Having difficult conversations
  • Practicing new skills
  • Changing habits that are no longer effective

Commitment is often tested when results are slow, conditions become challenging, or improvement requires sustained effort over time. That is where the gap begins to emerge.

Why Commitment Is Harder Than Desire

Most salespeople know what they should be doing.

They know they need to prospect consistently. They know they should ask better questions, qualify opportunities more thoroughly, and spend less time pursuing deals that are unlikely to close.

Knowing what to do is rarely the issue. Doing it consistently is where many struggle.

This pattern aligns with decades of research on goal achievement and performance. Researchers have found that performance is influenced not only by the goals people set, but by their commitment to achieving those goals when obstacles inevitably arise.2

Salespeople are expected to prospect after a difficult week, recover from lost opportunities, navigate lengthy buying processes, and maintain momentum when results are slow to materialize.

The salespeople who remain committed through those challenges often separate themselves from the pack.

The Cost of Weak Commitment

Many sales improvement initiatives are built on the assumption that performance problems stem from a lack of knowledge or skill.

Organizations invest heavily in training, technology, coaching programs, and process improvements. Yet sales leaders frequently discover that training alone produces uneven results across the team.

One reason is that learning something new does not automatically lead to applying it. Two salespeople can attend the same training program, receive the same coaching, and leave with the same information. One immediately applies the recommendations. The other gradually returns to familiar habits and routines.

The difference is often Commitment. Research in organizational psychology has consistently shown that individuals who are committed to achieving a goal are more likely to persist, sustain effort, and follow through on difficult tasks.3

Without Commitment, even well-designed training and coaching programs can fail to produce lasting behavioral change.

What Sales Leaders Should Watch For

Commitment is not always easy to identify during an interview or quarterly review. It tends to reveal itself over time.

Sales leaders can often spot commitment by observing how salespeople respond to adversity, feedback, and change.

For example:

  • Do they embrace coaching or defend existing behaviors?
  • Do they adapt when an approach stops working?
  • Do they maintain activity levels during difficult periods?
  • Do they follow through on development plans?
  • Do they consistently execute the fundamentals?

The answers to those questions often provide a clearer picture of future performance than enthusiasm or confidence alone.

This is one reason sales leaders often see dramatically different results from the same coaching initiative. The issue is not always the quality of the coaching. In many cases, it comes down to whether the salesperson is willing to make meaningful changes to established behaviors.

Commitment determines whether coaching becomes action.

Final Thoughts

The gap between Desire and Commitment has meaningful implications for hiring, coaching, and sales leadership.

Most salespeople want success. Objective Management Group’s data makes that clear. The challenge is that Desire, Responsibility, and Commitment each contribute something different to performance.

Desire creates motivation. Responsibility creates accountability. Commitment influences whether a salesperson follows through when success requires effort, change, persistence, and discomfort.

The data suggests that Commitment is where many salespeople struggle. Most want success. Fewer consistently demonstrate the behaviors, adaptability, and persistence required to achieve it.

For organizations seeking stronger sales performance, that distinction is worth paying attention to.

References
  1. Objective Management Group. Finding Statistics Tool. Average Desire and Commitment Competency scores and percentage of salespeople strong in Competency. 1/1/2025-12/31/2025.
  2. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
  3. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257–268.

Download our Brand-New Planning eBook!

Plan Your Sales Success

What’s Motivating Your Sales Team?

Posted by Objective Management Group on Thu, Jul 16, 2026

This article was originally published by Objective Management Group and written by Kate Barsby. It is shared here with permission. Anthony Cole Training Group is a Certified OMG Partner, helping organizations hire and develop high-performing sales teams using OMG’s industry-leading assessments and insights.

Sales organizations spend heavily on commission structures and contests, assuming money is what drives their salespeople. Objective Management Group’s assessment data tells a different story: only 27% of salespeople are primarily extrinsically motivated, while 52% are driven intrinsically, and just 5% are motivated by a sense of purpose or altruism. Only 17% show a balanced mix across these motivation types, meaning most salespeople depend on a single source of drive rather than several reinforcing ones. This matters because third-party research shows intrinsic motivation is a stronger predictor of sales performance than extrinsic reward, which means the lever most companies pull may not be the one moving the number they care about. The article examines what OMG’s motivation data reveals about how salespeople are actually wired, and what that means for how organizations should structure compensation, coaching, and recognition. 

The Predictor Everyone Underrates

Motivation gets treated as a given in most sales organizations. Leaders assume it’s there, assume it’s uniform, and assume the comp plan is the dial that controls it. None of those assumptions hold up well under data.

A landmark meta-analysis of the determinants of salesperson performance found motivation ranks among the strongest predictors of how well a salesperson performs, trailing only role clarity and skill level.1 That finding is decades old, yet most sales organizations still treat motivation as a single, undifferentiated force rather than something with distinct types that respond to different levers.

Motivation is not one thing. It comes from at least three distinct sources, and salespeople rarely draw on all three equally.

Objective Management Group’s assessment data shows 77% of salespeople are strong in the overall Motivation competency.2 On the surface, that looks like good news. But strong overall motivation says nothing about what kind of motivation is driving that number, and the breakdown behind it changes the picture considerably.

Three Kinds of Drive, One Word

Sales leaders often use “motivation” as shorthand for a single trait, the way they might describe someone as tall or organized. In practice, motivation splits into three distinct categories, each with a different trigger and a different shelf life.

Extrinsic Motivation

This is the driver most sales organizations design for. Salespeople with strong extrinsic motivation respond to commission, bonuses, contests, rank, and recognition tied to results. It is visible, quantifiable, and easy for a sales manager to pull as a lever. It also tends to plateau. Once a salesperson reaches a stable income level, additional increases in extrinsic reward produce diminishing returns.3

Intrinsic Motivation

Salespeople with strong intrinsic motivation are driven by the work itself. They find satisfaction in solving a customer’s problem, mastering a skill, or simply winning the deal for the sake of winning it. This type of motivation does not depend on an external reward showing up on schedule, which is part of what makes it durable.

Altruistic Motivation

The least common of the three. Altruistically motivated salespeople sell because they believe in the value they are delivering to the customer or the mission behind the product. Research on purpose-driven selling found that a belief in contributing to something larger than oneself was more strongly related to sales effort and performance over time than a desire for financial reward.4 It is a powerful driver where it exists, but OMG’s data shows it exists in very few salespeople.

Three different engines require three different kinds of fuel. A sales organization built entirely around extrinsic incentives is optimizing for the driver that is weakest on average and least durable over time, while leaving the other two largely unaddressed.

The Imbalance Hiding Inside a Strong Number

OMG’s data gets specific once you break the Motivation competency into its parts. Among salespeople assessed, the average competency scores are as follows:

Motivation Type

Average Score

Overall Motivation

62%

Intrinsic Motivation

52%

Extrinsic Motivation

27%

Altruistic Motivation

5%

Balanced Motivation (multiple types)

17%

Intrinsic motivation nearly doubles extrinsic motivation as the dominant driver among salespeople, and altruistic motivation barely registers. Perhaps more telling is the balanced motivation figure. Only 17% of salespeople draw meaningfully on more than one type of motivation. The remaining 83% are running on a single primary source of drive.

A salesperson who is motivated almost entirely by intrinsic satisfaction will struggle when the work becomes repetitive, undifferentiated, or stuck in a slump with no immediate sense of mastery to draw on. A salesperson who is motivated almost entirely by extrinsic reward will struggle the moment a territory shrinks, a comp plan changes, or a market softens. Neither has a second source of drive to fall back on.

A sales force with low balanced motivation is more fragile than its overall Motivation score suggests. Strong average scores can mask a team that is one bad quarter, one comp plan change, or one flat month away from a motivation problem that looks sudden but was actually always there.

Why the Lever Most Companies Pull Is the Weakest One

The instinct to fix a motivation problem with money is understandable. It is fast, visible, and easy to approve in a budget meeting. It is also, according to the research, not the lever with the strongest connection to performance.

A meta-analytic review spanning more than 77,000 salespeople found that intrinsic motivation is significantly more strongly associated with sales performance than extrinsic motivation.5 External motivators such as compensation and bonuses do correlate with performance, but the relationship is weaker, and it weakens further once a salesperson has reached a stable income level.5

This is not a hypothetical mismatch. The research points to intrinsic motivation as the stronger performance predictor.5OMG’s data shows extrinsic motivation, the type companies invest the most in cultivating, is also the least common dominant driver among salespeople, at just 27%. Intrinsic motivation, meanwhile, is already the dominant driver for 52% of the sales force, largely without organizational investment. Altruistic motivation, which research suggests can be a particularly durable driver when present,4 sits nearly untapped at 5%.

Organizations may be spending the most money on the lever with the least leverage, while the driver already doing most of the work goes largely unsupported.

What High-Performing Organizations Are Doing Differently

The organizations getting this right are not abandoning commission structures. They are recognizing that comp plans alone are addressing one type of motivation while ignoring the other two, and they are building parallel systems to reach the salespeople who are not primarily wired for extrinsic reward.

This looks less like a new incentive program and more like a diagnostic shift. Sales managers who know whether a rep is intrinsically, extrinsically, or altruistically driven can coach accordingly. An intrinsically motivated rep responds to autonomy, mastery opportunities, and recognition of skill, not just a bigger number on a spiff sheet. A rep with any altruistic drive responds to a clear line between their work and the customer’s outcome, something most sales training never makes explicit.

The organizations doing this well are also treating the 17% balanced-motivation figure as a target rather than a curiosity. They are deliberately building both intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement into the same role, on the logic that a salesperson with two sources of drive is more resilient than one running on a single engine, regardless of how strong that one engine is.

Final Thoughts

Motivation is not a single dial, and treating it like one leaves most of a sales organization’s potential untouched. OMG’s data shows that the driver companies invest in most heavily, extrinsic reward, is the one carrying the least weight for the majority of salespeople and the weakest connection to performance in the research. Intrinsic motivation, already the dominant force in half the sales force, and altruistic motivation, present in almost none of it, remain largely unaddressed by most sales management practices.

The more durable path is not choosing one lever over another. It is understanding which lever each salesperson actually responds to, and building toward the 17% who have more than one.

Find out how you can evaluate  your team's Competencies!

References

  1. Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and Orville C. Walker. “The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Marketing Research, 1985. 
  2. Objective Management Group. Finding Statistics Tool. Average Motivation Competency Scores 1/1/2025 – 12/31/2025 and % of those proficient in Competency 1/1/2025 – 12/31/2025. 
  3. Keller Center for Research, Baylor University. “Improving Salesperson Performance: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation.” 2023. https://kellercenter.hankamer.baylor.edu/news/story/2023/improving-salesperson-performance-intrinsic-vs-extrinsic-motivation 
  4. McLeod, Lisa Earle. “New Research Reveals Unexpected Source Of Sales Motivation.” Forbes, April 10, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaearlemcleod/2020/04/10/new-research-reveals-unexpected-source-of-sales-motivation/ 
  5. Miao, Chen Fang, et al. “A Self-Determination Theory-Based Meta-Analysis on the Differential Effects of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on Salesperson Performance.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2022. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-021-00827-6 

Why Many Salespeople Avoid Financial Conversations, and Pay the Price

Posted by Objective Management Group on Fri, May 22, 2026

This article was originally published by Objective Management Group and written by Staci Matt. It is shared here with permission. Anthony Cole Training Group is a Certified OMG Partner, helping organizations hire and develop high-performing sales teams using OMG’s industry-leading assessments and insights.

Financial conversations are central to every sale, yet many salespeople avoid them or handle them too late. Objective Management Group data shows an average score of 67% in comfort discussing money, with 59% of salespeople considered comfortable. On the surface, this appears to be a strength. In practice, it reveals a gap. A meaningful portion of salespeople still struggle with money conversations, and even those who are “comfortable” often handle them inconsistently or too late in the process. Research shows that buyers increasingly expect pricing discussions early, while many sellers hesitate or defer. This misalignment creates friction, stalls deals, and reduces win rates.

The Hidden Gap Behind a “Solid” Score

At first glance, a 67% average score in comfort discussing money looks acceptable.

And with 59% of salespeople considered comfortable, it would be easy to assume this is not a major issue1.

The reality is more nuanced.

In a competency that directly impacts:

  • Qualification
  • Value positioning
  • Deal control

A 67% average means a large portion of salespeople are either:

  • Avoiding or delaying money conversations
  • Having superficial conversations about financial impact (“What’s your budget?”)
  • Discounting or renegotiating deals where they have not uncovered value to the buyer

That gap becomes costly over the course of a sales cycle.

 

The Real Problem: Avoidance Shows Up Earlier Than You Think

Avoidance rarely looks like outright refusal to discuss price.

It shows up in more subtle ways:

  • Skipping budget questions during discovery
  • Waiting until late-stage conversations to introduce pricing
  • Over-focusing on solution details before confirming that the product actually improves revenue or decreases costs for the Buyer

Research shows this behavior is widespread.

According to HubSpot, 58% of buyers want to discuss pricing on the very first call, while only 23% of salespeople are prepared to do so2.

This creates immediate misalignment.

Buyers are looking for clarity.
Salespeople are often trying to delay the conversation.

 

Why Salespeople Avoid Talking About Money

There are both behavioral and learned reasons behind this pattern.

  1. Cultural Conditioning

Many people are raised to view money as a sensitive or inappropriate topic.

Research highlights that discussing money is often considered socially uncomfortable, which carries into professional settings3.

That discomfort does not disappear when someone enters a sales role.

  1. Fear of Losing the Deal

Salespeople often worry that introducing price too early will:

  • Scare off the prospect
  • Reduce perceived value
  • Trigger objections

As a result, they delay the conversation, hoping to “build value first.”

  1. Lack of Confidence in Value

When salespeople are not fully confident in the value they deliver, price becomes a point of tension.

Industry guidance reinforces that without a strong value conversation, price becomes the default focus, which weakens positioning and increases pressure to discount4.

 

The Cost of Avoidance

Avoiding financial conversations does not protect deals. It weakens them.

When money is not addressed early and directly:

Deals Stall

Prospects continue conversations without clear alignment on budget or investment expectations.

Late-Stage Surprises Increase

Pricing objections emerge late in the process, when more time and resources have already been invested.

Discounting Becomes More Likely

Salespeople who delay financial conversations often rely on price reductions to close deals they should have qualified differently.

Research shows that avoiding or delaying financial conversations contributes to misalignment and lost opportunities in the sales process5.

 

Comfort Alone Is Not Enough

Even among the 59% who are considered comfortable discussing money, performance varies.

Comfort does not guarantee:

  • Timing the conversation correctly
  • Asking the right financial questions
  • Maintaining control of the pricing discussion

In many cases, salespeople are willing to talk about money, but only after:

  • Presenting the solution
  • Building rapport
  • Advancing too far into the process

At that point, the conversation becomes reactive instead of strategic.

 

What Effective Salespeople Do Differently

Top performers approach financial conversations with more precision.

They:

  • Introduce budget and investment discussions earlier
  • Confirm both willingness and ability to spend
  • Tie price directly to business and personal impact
  • Address financial concerns before advancing the opportunity

Sales research consistently emphasizes that early financial alignment improves qualification accuracy and sales outcomes6.

This creates:

  • Stronger qualification
  • Shorter sales cycles
  • More predictable outcomes

 

Implications for Sales Leaders

This data highlights an important leadership opportunity.

Rather than assuming financial conversations are being handled effectively, leaders should:

  • Evaluate when pricing is introduced in the sales process
  • Coach how financial discussions are framed and navigated
  • Reinforce the connection between value and investment

Most importantly, leaders should recognize that:

  • A “comfortable” salesperson may still be avoiding critical moments
  • Timing and execution matter as much as willingness

 

The Bottom Line

Financial conversations are not a minor part of the sales process. They are central to it.

While a majority of salespeople appear comfortable discussing money, the data and behavior patterns suggest otherwise in practice.

The opportunity is not simply to increase comfort.

It is to:

  • Improve timing
  • Strengthen value alignment
  • Ensure financial qualification happens early and consistently

Salespeople who address money directly and effectively gain clarity faster, qualify more accurately, and close more consistently.

Those who avoid it often pay the price in longer cycles, lower win rates, and unnecessary discounting.

Find out how you can evaluate  your team's Competencies!

Sources

  1. Objective Management Group: Finding Statistics Tool. Sales Evaluations Conducted January 1, 2025-March 30, 2026. Results percentage for average scores and proficiency scores of Comfort Discussing Money competency. Internal dataset.
  2. HubSpot – The First Call Conundrum
    https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/the-first-sales-call-conundrum
  3. Money conversation discomfort and cultural norms
    https://thejpbusinessacademy.com/why-you-must-control-the-money-conversation-not-avoid-it/
  4. ValueSelling Associates – Value vs price conversations
    https://www.valueselling.com/resource-blog/if-you-dont-discuss-value-all-you-can-do-is-talk-price
  5. Financial conversation timing in sales
    https://www.lushin.com/blog/the-dangers-of-assumptions-in-sales
  6. Financial conversation avoidance impact on deals
    https://suitebymonitor.com/why-most-dealers-lose-sales-by-avoiding-the-money-conversation-and-how-to-fix-it/

The Real Power of Predictive Sales Assessments: Seeing What Others Can’t

Posted by Objective Management Group on Fri, Jul 18, 2025

This article was originally published by Objective Management Group and written by Ben Tagoe, CEO of OMG. It is shared here with permission. Anthony Cole Training Group is a Certified OMG Partner, helping organizations hire and develop high-performing sales teams using OMG’s industry-leading assessments and insights.

Why the strength of any model lies in its ability to separate success from struggle.

At OMG, we believe in empowering sales organizations through clarity. And clarity starts with knowing who will thrive—and who may need support.

In sales, not all assessments are created equal. The true value of any predictive model—whether you’re measuring creditworthiness, ad targeting, or sales skills—is in how well it can forecast real-world outcomes.

In our case, the outcome we care most about is success in sales.

At Objective Management Group (OMG), we use data to predict whether a salesperson is likely to succeed. But we don’t stop at theory—we track how well our model actually works by comparing assessment scores to real-world sales performance.

So, how do we know it’s working?

We look at two groups:

Top performers—those with above-average win rates and high-performance ratings from their companies.

Low performers—those who fall short on both.

And the difference between these two groups? It’s not just noticeable – it’s statistically significant. Our top performers consistently score higher on OMG assessments, with results separating out by a margin of three standard deviations. That means the model isn’t just accurate—it’s highly predictive.

 

Getting Stronger with Time

What excites us even more is this: the gap between high and low performers is growing.

Over time, our model has become even better at identifying the attributes of successful salespeople. That’s because we’re constantly learning. As more data flows in, our understanding sharpens—and so does the assessment’s predictive power.

This matters, because it helps sales organizations make better hiring decisions, build stronger teams, and provide the right coaching where it’s needed most.

 

Why it matters: It’s not just about predicting performance – it’s about unlocking potential.

Our goal isn’t just to sort people into “good” or “bad” buckets. It’s to give sales leaders clarity. To help them recognize top talent, support those on the rise, and invest in the kind of coaching that changes careers.

That’s what predictive modeling should do.

It should see what others can’t—and help people grow because of it.

Request Free  Sales Force Performance  Evaluation Samples


Topics: Sales Training, sales assessment


    textunder

    Subscribe Here


    Most Read


    Follow #ACTG

     

    About our Blog

    Anthony Cole Training Group has been working with financial firms for close to 30 years helping them become more effective in their markets and closing their sales opportunity gap.  ACTG has mastered the art of using science-based data and finely honed coaching strategies to help build effective sales teams.  Don’t miss our weekly sales management blog insights from our team of expert contributors.

     

    Recent Blogs