Thesis before activity
Why this account, why now, why us, and the trigger that opens the window. Who sits in a buying group tends to shift with the size, risk and novelty of the purchase, so each pursuit starts with its own case.
Velocity EngineExecution Game
Key Account Pursuit
from respond to the RFP and hope→to design the access, sequence the proof, orchestrate the buying group
The Goal
Turn one strategic account from a response into a designed pursuit: a clear thesis, an honest map of the buying group, a sequenced play, and kill criteria set in advance.
Ideal For
Enterprise sellers working a few large, complex accounts, account teams whose forecasts rest on a champion who “really likes us”, and sales leaders building pursuit discipline across the team.
The Shift
From respond to the RFP and hope to design the access, sequence the proof, orchestrate the buying group.
The Science
Who joins a buying group, and how many, tends to shift with the size, risk and novelty of the purchase, so each pursuit needs its own map. Taking the other side’s perspective tends to lead to better negotiated outcomes, and people tend to follow what similar others have done, which is why a peer reference carries weight. We tend to be over-optimistic about timelines and to keep investing because of what’s already spent, so the pursuit tracks signals, not hoped-for close dates, and sets its kill criteria early.
Key Account Pursuit, step by step
- Pick one accountEach seller brings one strategic account they’re working now. Map from facts in the deal, not personal profiling.
- Write the thesisOne sentence: why this account, why now, why us. Then the trigger: the event that opens the window in the next 90 days.
- Map the coalitionName everyone in the buying group by role, with where they are today and where you need them: + supportive, = neutral, ? unknown, − negative. Rate on what they’ve done, not said; a peer challenges every “+”.
- Design access and proofPlan how you reach the economic buyer before the RFP is written, within the buyer’s procurement rules, with relationships disclosed. Then three proof points, in order, each aimed at one stakeholder.
- Set signals and kill criteriaTwo progress signals for the next 30 days, not a close date, and the signal and date that would end the pursuit.
- Commit“By [date], we move [stakeholder] from [current] to [target] by [action]; if [signal] hasn’t happened by [date], we stop or re-scope.”
The techniques, and why they work
Map the coalition on evidence
Name every role, rate current and target sentiment on what people have done, not said, and have a peer challenge every “+”. Taking the other side’s perspective tends to lead to better negotiated outcomes.
Sequence the proof
Earn access within the buyer’s procurement rules, then order three proof points, each aimed at one stakeholder. People tend to follow what similar others have done, so a peer reference carries weight.
Signals and kill criteria
Track progress signals, not hoped-for close dates, and set in advance the signal and date that end the pursuit. We tend to underestimate timelines and to keep investing because of what’s already spent.
Selected research
- Lewin, J. E., & Donthu, N. (2005). The influence of purchase situation on buying center structure and involvement: A select meta-analysis of organizational buying behavior research. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1381–1390.
- Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384.
- Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.
- Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381.
- Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 541–562.
Also runs as a half day · P3.11 HD
Key Account Pursuit – Half Day
Half day (3 h 30 min), “Map the people, then the play”: a thesis tested by a peer, empathy maps for the two or three stakeholders the deal turns on with every guess turned into a question, and a play tested against the blocker’s case before the first move, with a 30-day review.
from a champion who really likes us→to every key stakeholder mapped, every guess checked, the play tested against the blocker
The Goal
Design the pursuit of one strategic account around the people who decide it: an honest map of the buying group, a grounded view of the two or three who matter most, and a play tested against the blocker’s case before the first move.
Ideal For
Enterprise account teams working a few large, complex deals, sellers about to make the first executive move on a strategic account, and sales leaders building a pursuit discipline that includes the people the deal turns on.
The Science
Who joins a buying group, and how many, tends to shift with the size, risk and novelty of the purchase, so each pursuit needs its own map. Taking the other side’s perspective tends to lead to better negotiated outcomes, but imagining someone’s view tends not to make us more accurate about it; asking them does. People tend to follow what similar others have done, which is why a peer reference carries weight. We tend to be over-optimistic about timelines and to keep investing because of what’s already spent, so the pursuit tracks signals, not hoped-for close dates, and sets its kill criteria early.
The techniques, and why they work
Anchor the thesis, then test it
One sentence (why this account, why now, why us) and the trigger, tested by a peer against what the economic buyer has said and done. Who joins a buying group tends to shift with the size and novelty of the purchase, so each pursuit needs its own thesis.
Map the people the deal turns on
The coalition by role with honest sentiment, then empathy maps for two or three key stakeholders, with every guess turned into a question to ask. Taking the other side’s perspective tends to help, but imagining someone’s view tends not to make us more accurate; asking does.
Test the play against the blocker
Design access, proof and kill criteria, have a peer argue the blocker’s business case, and revise once. Peer proof tends to persuade, and kill criteria set early guard against over-optimism and sunk costs.
Selected research
- Lewin, J. E., & Donthu, N. (2005). The influence of purchase situation on buying center structure and involvement: A select meta-analysis of organizational buying behavior research. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1381–1390.
- Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384.
- Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571.
- Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.
- Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381.
- Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 541–562.
From the research
The thinking behind this lab, published in full: