Episode #4: The execution gap problem

Speaker 1 OK, hello everyone. Welcome to another episode of the Enablement Illuminated podcast from the Enablement Squad. My name is Dave. I'm the VP of both for Amir here at the Enablement Squad. I'm joined today by Jonathan Men and we're going to, I suppose, get into a topic that could be quite big and we're going to try and keep it as as kind of tight and actionable as as can idea of the execution gap. You know why your training doesn't stick. As enablers, we have historically relied heavy on training programs, but in their current form, they do struggle to, I suppose, close that that gap of execution. And you know, Jonathan, you're going to talk about this at length. So hi, first of all, and we'll we'll dive right in, I suppose. So let's start with the the big open question, right? What's what's your kind of overall take on the execution gap and and why training in its current form isn't actually addressing the core of the thing? Speaker 2 What's interesting about the execution gap is it is like universal and little sales, right? Every team I've supported, every team I've worked on has this massive gap between what's being trained and what's actually happening in the field. And I think unfortunately, a lot of people just come to accept that's just the way the world is. You're on training and 2% of it shows up in calls. And that's just, you know, what it is. But what's interesting is if you look at other disciplines, you know, other disciplines don't have nearly as big of an execution camp, right? If you go to military boot camp, you're going to learn some things that actually change your behaviors under pressure, right? If you are a college athlete, you're not still going to be playing the same way as a senior that you did as a freshman, right? If you hire an instructor for music at the end of the year of lessons, you're not still going to be playing the same when you did, right? Obviously there's always, you know, it's never perfect. There's always some gap between was trained and was executed. But most disciplines, it's a small gap and you see real progress as a result of training, where in sales it's a massive gap and you see very little change. So the question is why? And unfortunately, I think the, the unspoken assumption out there that CE OS have, CR OS have, sales leaders have that honestly, a lot of enablers have, is that the solution to the execution gap? It's just to do enablement better, right? Just take this game we play the song and dance we do and just do it better next time, try harder next time. And unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. I've come to realize in my work at the practice lab and even in my time as a seller and a sales manager, I've come to realize that there are some inherent limitations and barriers to the way enablement is done. Which means that it doesn't matter how good a job you do at enablement as we know it today, you're always going to have that execution gap because of some inherent limitations and inherent barriers at play. The only way to change is of course, is to make, you know, structural changes to your, your approach to enablement. But so long as we're playing this enablement game the way we've all learned to play it, the way it's been played since the beginning, we're always going to get those gaps, no matter how good a job we do. Speaker 1 Yeah, I mean, I totally agree. And and you know, to give you the, the more formal introduction that I missed out at the beginning, you know, you, you are, you know, previous founder of the practice lab you've been working with replicate labs for the last, you know, number of months. You've seen both sides of this, right? The the the enablement, the training, the coaching and you know, as a sales leader as well. So is this a problem? I'm going slightly off off script here to a degree, but is this a problem of enablements making or is this a problem of alignment between what we at least two separate functions in enablement and in sales? Speaker 2 You could see it is either. Personally, I tend to be the type to always take ownership of everything. So I see it as enablement needs to make changes. But of course, you could look at the broader go to market or that kind of push the enablement into the box that it's in and 1st to do the song and dance that it does. However we got here, though, there's some structural change that an oven has to make to our approach, some assumptions we have to challenge, some things we have to overhaul in order to get to the point where we actually can close this execution gap. Speaker 1 Yeah, OK. So let's, let's get to the point of, of training itself. Then we talk about training as, as not turning into action. And that's, you know, the heart of the execution gap, right, is, you know, you, you have this program you've spent hours and weeks potentially putting together. And ultimately you're only seeing a, a small fraction of that coming, you know, to the foreign and calls and, and meetings and demos, whatever is, is that a problem with our definition of training? You know, that traditional classroom model, There's got to be something that we can make a, a change to that isn't removing the need for, you know, people need to acquire knowledge, they need to acquire skills. But how do we actually, how do we bridge the gap? I suppose at the simplest level is is the question that I'm asking here. Speaker 2 Yeah. So I think it comes down to an unspoken assumption that goes behind all trainings. And that unspoken assumption is that once reps know better, they'll do better, right? Once reps know what great selling looks like, they'll start commanding great selling. And obviously everyone who's been a name in a while knows that isn't the case. But the reason isn't sometimes because like reps, you know, sometimes the buy in is missing. That is occasionally a part of the equation, right? Either reps just aren't motivated at all because it's a unhealthy culture and they feel demoralized. Or more often they just aren't motivated to do that thing you taught them because they don't really believe that's going to fix their problem. And they did better results. They think their way is better. Sometimes that's a problem. And certainly if you have a buy in issue, nothing I'm about to say in this interview, you know, this is going to really fix that problem. So certainly make sure the buy in is there. But I've worked with a lot of teams that did the buy in piece. Well, right. They did a great job positioning the problem, positioning the Y, making bringing reps along for the journey. So by the end of the session, reps were going hell yeah, that's the way I want to sell. That sounds amazing. I went through this multiple times. I was trained by winning by design, trained by Sandler, right? Trained by cap selling, like so much. And I would leave those trainings like, fuck yeah, this is great. I can't wait to implement this. And then what happens? You get on a live call, the pressure's up. There's money on the line. There's no time to stop and think. Stress, tension, emotions are high. And suddenly I don't know what happens, but all that information and knowledge fades away, and all that's left is my habits, my defaults, those skills and abilities that I've been honing over the years, and just those default patterns of how my brain operates. They just take over. And what's interesting about this is that there's literal physiological reasons for this. There are changes in your brain when you get in a situation of stress, pressure and emotion where there's no time to stop and think. That changed oxygen levels and blood flow and electrical activity in the brain. And they literally make it so that that part of your brain where all of that knowledge gets stored slows down, goes dark and it's really hard to access. And that part of your brain where all the habits and abilities and skills and instincts that have been honed over the years, that part of the brain lights up like a Christmas tree and starts calling all the shots. So we're in this interesting situation is enabled where all of our work that we do to a part, knowledge, understanding and buying gets stored in Region A of the brain. But as soon as someone gets in front of a buyer, Region B takes over and Region A steps back, completely undermines all of the work, completely overrides all the great stuff we put there. And it makes it so that even great training doesn't actually stick. So that's what I mean about some inherent limitations here, right? Enablement as a function. If you look at, you know, the, the, the frameworks and hierarchies and taxonomies we use and all like the, the, the theory that goes behind our work, it all came from the world of education. And the world of education is designed for what? To impart knowledge. But more than knowledge, true understanding and comprehension. And if you're really good at it, people retain that knowledge and understanding over time. But that's all working on region A of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, where knowledge and understanding lives. And that's simply not the part of the brain that calls the shots during a sales call. So putting all that knowledge there is pointless, doesn't matter because that part goes dark and a different region takes over. So the fundamental shift that has to happen in enablement time. So we have to start training that deeper region of the brain. You have to start training to have it an instinct layer of the brain, because that's the part of the brain that calls the shots during a sales call. It's pointless to train the prefrontal cortex because that doesn't call. That's not the part that governs behavior under pressure, under pressure. It's the instincts, the habits, the most deeply tugged groups. There's a, there's a saying in the military, I'm probably butchering a little bit, but it's like, you know, you don't, you don't rise to the occasion. You fall to the level of your training. And what they're talking about there, when they say training, they're talking about like training, you know, the deeper brain, right? Training to have an instinct layer. What they're talking about there is that, like under pressure, you don't suddenly take the very best you've ever learned and deliver your very best performance, right? You fall to those habits and instincts and almost in a way give your worst performance, right? The worst performance you can give given your habits and instincts and the way your brain tends to behave under pressure. So again, training then all the center of the brain is a pointless endeavor. Pardon me? It's not pointless. Stopping there is pointless. Obviously. It all starts with knowledge that is absolutely has to happen, but you can't stop there. If you stop there, it becomes a pointless endeavour. You have to keep going and then train the deeper regions of the brain because that's what takes over under pressure. Speaker 1 Interesting. It's, it's a fascinating kind of thing to think about then in terms of how that actually manifests in enable context. And when we think about boarding, right, we, we talk about boarding and enablement all the time. And I mean, at least in my experience, I don't know about yours, just, but the, the Rep who comes in, you know, who's a bit fearless, just jumps in, starts making calls and having conversations. Typically we'll see success faster than the one who comes in is a bit nervy on that front, but wants to know everything. And so by the end of, you know, week two, week 3, they are comparable or comparative experts in the product to the rest of their cohort. But they've fallen behind on the numbers that they're being measured on. And it's because the knowledge isn't translating into actual activity because they're building the wrong, wrong part of the brain to, you know, use your example. So is what we're getting at here. Then the fact that training in its current form, you know, the the educational model, as you mentioned, has a necessary part to play in the right places. But actually, we need to be thinking something. Ultimately, from what you're saying, it seems like more practical. You know, we're talking and you know, I've spoken before about this idea of deliberate practice. That seems to be the only thing that's really going to address the gap. The training's great, but it doesn't work by itself. Speaker 2 Yeah. So for the first leg of Rep's journey, right, which is the knowledge transfer and the buy in piece, which are important. The world of education is great. So, you know, keep studying that stuff, keep learning that stuff. Knowledge transfer is part of the job. But yeah, you can't stop it, right? For the rest of it, you want to model up the world of performance training. So look at the way martial art, the way martial artist trains, the way musicians trains, military units, athletes, St. performers, improv, you know, comedians like all these disciplines that again have to operate under pressure. They have different ways of training that doing brain, the deeper regions of the brain. That's entirely different than how you train the knowing brain, right? Think of a martial arts lesson. You're going to spend the the first what, 5-10 minutes learning something, seeing something demonstrated, asking questions. Then once everyone's locked in, you spend the rest of 45 minutes or the rest of the hour practicing, drills, exercise, deliberate practice, right? Probably don't have time for that in this conversation, but there is a huge span of what practice is, right? Imagine a, you know, a Little League football team, right, Where his kids are kicking the ball around and how they practice versus how a professional, right football club practices. Huge difference and the same span exists in the world of sales, right? Your your average manager who says, hey, let's do a role play. I'll be the buyer, you get the seller. Let's do this thing that's kind of like, you know, your, your, your Little League football team just kicking the ball around. But there is an equivalent on the other end of spectrum of really intentional, focused, deliberate practice where you're doing role plays, you're doing coaching conversations, you're doing simulations and skill drills. And it's really affected the changing behaviors of rewiring the brain. But again, it's got to look and feel more like you're a football practice rather than you're sitting in classroom, right? Skills, coaching, immediate feedback, you know, rapid repetitions, focus drills and exercises, fast simulation to the lot that can fit in this category. But rule of thumb, it should be it doesn't feel like sitting in a classroom. It feels like you're out on the, you know, the soccer pitch and you're actually playing or you know, you're going through a football practice there. Speaker 1 Yeah. I mean, is that the crux of the, the, the kind of the execution gap kind of problem then is, is training cancelled by itself? You know, from your perspective, do you alter the way training is done or do you partner it with that more kind of deliberate practice coaching scenario? Or is there something we can do with training itself to redefine it and remodel it? Speaker 2 So I think that one of the big changes is you have to adjust the ratios. So if I'm going to be doing a training session, in most cases, anything that's really worth doing, you're going to spend half, 2, thirds, 3/4. Let's just say more than half of your time focused on training the deeper layers of the brain through coaching exercises, skilled girls practice role plays. Less than half the time you'll spend slides, group discussions, stories, examples. Consider those all trained right, the front of the brain, the million brain. So that's big, but that that that's part of it, right. So if you have the luxury of four sessions, maybe do all the knowledge transfer in the first session and save the back three for practice. Or let's say you're only got one session. Well, spend the 1st 1520 minutes teaching the concept in the back, you know, 30 plus minutes actually practicing and coaching and doing exercises. So that's one specific change you can make to training is just do less knowledge transfer, do more activities. And a lot of times this does mean you have to like maybe do a less thorough job with the knowledge transfer. Maybe you have to trim some stuff out and that's hard, but it has to be done. I, I did a project one time with a command of the message roll out, or I guess command of the message reinforcement. They had done a really thorough, really good job of knowledge transfer upfront and the vendor had helped them with that. They rolled like it out of the message. The team loved it, The team understood it, the team passed the assessment. It all looked great. Of course, nobody actually changed anything about their real sales calls, right? The the calls after the rollout were indistinguishable from the calls before the rollout. And of course, you know, metrics didn't change, results didn't change. So we did a reinforcement program, but I advised them, and thank goodness they took the advice to not try to take everything that was covered. We literally took like the smallest, simplest bit of command of the message and we spent the entire program just driving that piece home, right? It's the little grid they have of current consequences after results metrics, the mantra, I think they call it. That's all we focused on. The rest of it, to hell with it. We didn't even talk about it. We just focused on the mantra and getting those four pieces in place. We drilled at six different ways, different varieties, different formats, different flavors, different types of practice. But that's all we focus on is let's just get that piece. I guess what happened, behaviors changed, they implemented it. They actually started seeing differences in the deals. Their average sale price went up a ton because they went from selling single point solutions to finally selling the full platform. They'd always had the potential to sell. And it's because they were adopting this mantra piece. So we kind of had to just, you know, say sorry, command of the message, 2/3 of what you taught just isn't going to show up in this reinforcement program. But we got to get this one piece nailed. So that is a hard trade off to make and it requires a lot of like razor focused thinking on like what will make the biggest difference and let's trim out all the rest of it, which again is difficult, but it is necessary. Speaker 1 Yeah, I, I can see how it would be be difficult, but I suppose if you align that with the biggest problem you're trying to solve, you know, you find the piece of the program that fits that kind of the closest. I suppose what you're getting as you're almost looking for the tipping point, what's the point where, what's the thing that's going to get things moving in the right direction so that everything else almost falls into place? It's going to be more complicated than that, right? But whether it's methodology, rollouts or, you know, product releases, whatever it might be, in my experience, I often find that if you can get that kind of the smallest piece of the puzzle right first, and everything else starts to feel like a natural extension of that conversation. Rather than you chucking a load of information at people at the same time and at different people passing different bits of it at different rates and with different levels of of kind of comprehension, right? You're then focusing everything in the same area. Speaker 2 So that's, so that's one of the big limiting factors, right. Enablement is built to train the knowing brain, but under sales calls, you know, the dueling brain, the deeper brain calls, all the shits. So there's one inherent, but I think there's another one too that we got time we can talk through. Go for it. So this one is actually really came into focus me just over the last year or so because even, yeah, even the programs I ran to the practice lab, right? The practice lab has always been great at what we just talked about, training the doing brain, but I didn't always necessarily do well in this next piece that I'm about to share. So when you look at the way most go to market teams operate right now, there's a very clear distinction. Reps spend all their time in the field in what I call the execution world, where they're like working real deals, sending real emails, you know, sending real proposals, losing deals, winning deals, holding demos. The execution world is where they make their money. That's where they earn their promotions. That's where they get their ass fired, right? This is where they get put on a pit. Everything that matters to reps truly happens in the execution world. Obviously, they might know a lot of things matter, but when it comes to what truly, deep down in their core they truly care about and prioritize, it's all the execution world. What about enablement? Well, enablement, we exist over here in the training world and we ask reps to leave the execution world where money is made and jobs and careers are made and lost, and we ask them to leave the training world and everything they care about and come join us. We ask them to leave the execution world, everything they care about, and we ask them to come join us in the training world under the promise they're going to get something really good while they're there that'll make it worth their while. Sometimes we make good on that promise, sometimes we don't. But I think there's a fundamental flaw here that those two worlds are so separate, the training world and the execution world, because it creates 2 specific problems. First off, reps and managers are like are really, really hesitant to leave the execution world. So we're only going to get table scraps of their time, right? I know enigma teams that are like, yeah, I get, you know, one hour long session a month with my team or two hour long sessions a month with my team. And it's like, sorry, there's only so much you can do to rewire someone's instinctual brain with two hours a month. So consequence number one of those two worlds being separate, you only get table scraps of time. And that's really hard to make a real meaningful. In fact, when you only get those table scraps of time. The second might even be more important though, which is that because those two worlds are separate, it means now a Rep who enters the training world, learns some great stuff in the training world, passes an assessment, does a role play in the training world, then has to leave the training world, go back to the execution world, and figure out how to adapt and translate what they just learned in that sterile training environment. How to adapt and translate it into the real deals they have, the messy deals, the imperfect deals, the atypical deals, and how to actually bring that to life in these real conversations. And that's something I actually under appreciated. How big of a leap that was until I was actually back in the seat. So what during my contract we would replicate is a little bit of leadership on the strategic side, but it was also kind of like an IC role cuz I was running sales calls again, right? I was making gold calls, running demos, running discovery calls in that role. And the methodology we were using was a methodology I'm extremely well versed in. I'm certified in I've known it about it for years. I've built practice exercises to support it. I've coached REPT on it like I my knowing brain knows this methodology through and through and I'm actually even pretty good at executing it too right. So even my doing brain is good at this methodology. However, even I had big challenge with figuring out for each deal how to apply it. Because here's the thing, when you learn a methodology, by necessity, it's taught to you in the context of the average deal. But what you'll notice when you look at a reps pipeline is actually don't have any average deals. Every single deal in their pipeline differs from the average in a few key ways, right? No deal in there actually hits average, average, average, average in all 10 categories, right? They're all different in specific ways, which means. You learn about, you know, gap selling or you learn about challenger sale in the average environment, it all makes sense. You do a role play with the average deal and then you get in front of an on average, a typical deal where things are different in a few key ways. And then you go, OK, well, how do I apply it here? And what does that sound like? And what does that look like? And this is different and what's and even telling if you did it or not, right? You got your medic acronym. A lot of reps will say, Oh yeah, we got pains, but a really seasoned coach would be able to review that and say, no, you got surface level symptoms, you don't have pains, right? Or hey, I got decision criteria, but the Rep doesn't notice, hey, those decision criteria don't quite match what they said their stated goals were. We got to shape those decision criteria. Rep will miss that, right? So it's this type of this, bringing it to life in a real deal, applying the textbook framework that you learned across the average deal and applying it to this unperfect, on average unique situation is actually very difficult for reps and it's a huge reason there's drop off. And even if you did practice, right, a moment ago I said practice was solution to everything. OK, not quite, but you've got the idea, right? I, I, I, I preached about how important practice was. Even if you practice in the training world, they still got to make that leap back and they still got to figure out how to adapt and adjust and translate, and there's still going to be a gap left, even if they're doing it perfectly in the training world. Speaker 1 Especially now that they're making that leap into a world where they don't want to make mistakes, they don't want to try new things, they don't want to test the water with the thing that's real. Speaker 2 Oh, yeah. And again, it's not clear exactly what it looks like to bring medic to life to this opportunity, Right. So they're not going to take a risk and try something, even if they did a role play and did it well, right. When it comes to this opportunity, this one's a little different. And they can't quite tell which letters do I have? Does this count? Which letters do I not have? How how do I, how do I get those letters? Because the discovery call has already passed. So now I got to figure out how to get those letters in a demo. And that's different than what I learned in training. Like it's the adapting and adjusting and translating where a lot of it gets lost. Speaker 1 And I wonder if there's a degree here where Let me choose my words carefully here. Obsession with methodologies in in the name woman for the last kind of several years, partly to blame the to a degree because a methodology delivered incorrectly or in lacking in clarity can feel like it's taking agency away from the individual Rep. It's it's putting them in a box rather than giving them a framework that they can use themselves. And I think a lot are feel maybe a bit contained by by some of the ways they're being asked to do things. So we're asking them to almost change the way they think about something, change your mindset, test out something new, whatever it might be. You're also asking them to step outside of a box that they feel they've been told to step into in some cases. So there's an element of not just in the right bit the brain going, but having the psychological safety to, to jump out of that and go, no, no, I'm going to try this differently this time. And that's, that's not a skills or a knowledge issue at all. It's one of the really only coaching that one practice can kind of get through to, I suppose. Speaker 2 So coaching, you know, obviously can make that word, can mean different things. But when I talk about coaching, what I mean is a man just sitting down with a Rep viewing a call, talking through what went well, what went poorly, what could do better next time, Getting a clear vision of how they're going to handle the next call better to make sure the next call is better, right? That type of coaching specifically right through the lens of a methodology, right? So let's say you're a manager, you say, OK, let's reduce this discovery call. What letters of medic did you get? Which letters did you miss? Given what came up? Which letters did you really have an opening you could have gotten and you missed the opening? Great. In those moments, what would better have sounded like, OK, great, what are you going to do better next time? Right? So really focus on like what enablement taught and applying it to real world. That is probably the very best way to help reps do that translation, that adaptation, how to take what they were in the training world and bring it to life in real deals. Frontline managers can do that through coaching. What's the problem though? Capacity, right? Front managers got a million things going on, sometimes skill sets. Sometimes front managers aren't even skilled enough to do great coaching. But even when they take care of that issue, there's still the capacity issue. They're going to learn one framework, medic, and they're going to have 20 deals in their pipeline to have to apply to times 8 reps No manager can sit down and do 160 deal reviews to help a Rep figure out how to apply medic, right? It's just not going to happen. So I think there's a lot enablement can do. So my sort of like vision for enablement, what I've, what I've done in the past is integrating those two worlds together, integrate the training world and the execution world together so that a reps don't have to leave the execution world to sharpen their sales skills. They don't have to choose, do I want to spend my time investing and having a good quarter or do I want to spend my time investing and developing my sales skills, right? Those two things are one and the same, but also when those two are merged together, integrate together, suddenly the concepts and content that Enabler is delivering is being delivered to them in the execution world, in the context of how they need to use it. And now they don't need to do this translation adaptation. It was given to them in the format ready to go without them having to adapt it. So so. Speaker 1 It's meeting them where they are. I think it it to a degree can get over some of the the defensiveness that you will get, you know, like anyone tries to convince anybody to do you or do something differently. The default is to justify the status quo, right? And I see sellers doing that at the beginning of coaching sessions all the time. But perhaps part of the reason for that is we're taking them out of the world and they want to to be in. So they're going like, I want to be back here. So that's what I'm going to talk about, you know, my current kind of routine or process, whatever it might be. So I'm aware we can both talk about this for hours on end, but as a sort of pushing towards kind of wrapping this, this conversation up, how do you recommend or suggest anyone listening to this takes this forward? What's the, what's the, you know, two or three simplest things that they can they can go and do next? Speaker 2 Yeah. So when it comes to integrating the training world and the execution world, there's three ways to think of that. So 1 is when you are going to do a training session, right, A-Team session of some kind, make sure you're pulling a lot of the real world into it. Pull in real reps who are doing the thing well already to help you teach the content. Pull in examples of real calls where this thing would have been helpful and would have worked. Pull in real calls of where someone did this well and what it actually looked like. If you're going to have reps do some sort of practice activity or exercise, don't have them practice it in the context of a made-up fictitious scenario. Have them pull up their calendar, find the next discovery call, read through that opportunity and do a role play of the next discovery call, right? So if you're going to do a training event, pull the real world into the training event. So that's one way. The other way, on the flip side, is there are conversations happening in the execution world every day. Let's see if we can get more of the training content from Enablement to show up in those conversations. Frontline Matters, of course, are the main vehicle for this. They have conversations in the execution world every single day. You need to be working with them to empower them to take this medic content or this capsuling content and inject it into those conversations. Sometimes you might just want to train, train your managers to be killer coaches who are master the methodology, who can improvise their way through things. A shorter path, though, is usually just to our managers with very simple meeting in a box kits, very simple exercises they can run where they don't necessarily have to be experts. They just have to pull up the exercise and say, Oh yeah, that's not like that'd be helpful. And then they happen, they're one-on-one and they spend the 1st 10 minutes of the one-on-one doing this exercise. But they're about, you know, around, you know, applying medic to a real deal or something. So that's the other piece. And then there's almost a third one, which isn't available to everybody. But if you have the right tech for it, I found that AI can do a really great job of helping bring these two worlds together. You can train an AI bot on the methodology and what good looks like. You can feed the bot transcripts of real calls, real emails, real bit demos. And you can train the AI to actually have a bit of a coaching conversation with your Rep, right. So I did it replicate, but there's probably other ways to get the job done too. And the the beauty of that is once you've trained the AI to do that, suddenly it scales right. A moment ago I said that sort of coaching from a manager is the best way to do this, but what was the problem? Scale. Well, if you train an AI to have those types of conversations with reps, suddenly scale isn't an issue anymore. Reps can actually take their 20 deals, talk to the AI bot about all 20 deals, and figure out how to apply medic to each deal. They couldn't do that with a manager, but the AI is scalable enough they could do that. So that is some recommendations on how to integrate the two worlds together on the piece of like training the doing brain. I think it was just, I would simplify that down to more coaching, more practice, more skill drills, more exercises, more simulations. Again, there's a there's a big span of what practice can look like, but at least a good start is just do more practice and start setting aside more time for practice. So if you have an hour long session, yeah, only do knowledge transfer for the 1st 20 minutes or 30 minutes. Save 30 to 40 minutes for practice on the back end. That simple change will definitely help you train reps deeper doing brains. Speaker 1 Amazing. I think there's so much in that and and even at a more simple level as well, I think enablers embedding themselves in that sales world a little bit more as well. I think, you know, if we are seen as separate, no matter how part of that kind of execution world, to use your phrase, we want to be part of, we're never going to be there. So become part of it, be seen as as part of that conversation. We're we're not a separate function, you know, we we exist with the same calls. It might. But thank you for that, Jonathan. That was fascinating to talk about, especially as, you know, getting into the psychology and even the biology of it in terms of how the brain works, which more I think could be discussed on that. So, you know, maybe we'll have a part to who knows For now. Thank you very much for sharing your insights. Thanks everyone for this thing. And yeah, we'll see you next time. Speaker 2 Cool. Well, thanks so much. Looking forward to connecting with anybody on, on LinkedIn who, who this resonates with who wants to try this approach more. At the moment I'm actually job searching. So depending on when you hear this episode right, we might have a chance to work together. But even if I've already landed a gig by then, of course I'll be in the enabling industry a long time. Speaker 1 12 months have a chance. Speaker 2 Yeah, might have a chance. Speaker 1 That's the case, right? Thank you, Jonathan. Thanks for everyone for listening as well. We'll see you next time. Speaker 2 Thanks so much.