I work in the sales organization, but I am definitely not a salesperson. What I do is Sales Enablement, which is supporting the front office, customer-facing teams to sell more effectively. This takes many forms depending on needs, but it isn't about sales techniques, methodologies or even processes, rather it is about helping them build the skills to apply them. Yet, because of this, it also reaches into other fields, like supporting the development of techniques, methods and process.
While there are many metrics to evaluate success, ultimately it comes down to making more money.
In a few months (by my estimation), the company will gain centaur status, which means that it will be generating over 100M in Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR). This is a metric for SaaS companies to measure their value, which is typically more accurate and useful than market evaluation, as it directly measures current business situation and gives a ballpark on the future, all things remaining equal. As long as churn is low, the ARR is pretty steady, meaning that all new ARR generated adds to the yearly tally, continually increasing the value, year on year.
However, the way sales operates between a perpetual license or SaaS model is different, and since the company transitioned from one to the other, there was not only a lag in profit generation, there was also the internal change management process to consider. In the early days, there was a bit of skepticism that it would be successful, but four years later, things are growing well and the cynics are becoming believers, based on the results.
This is the way with all development really, as in general, most people cannot see far enough down the track or, do not consider how long ideas and processes can take to mature, which slows things down even more. This is not necessarily a bad thing however, as it allows for them to use the evidence of the change to change their minds, rather than blind faith that in some future, things will be better. But, in order to get the ball rolling and get to those proof points, it takes believers.
Is that what we are?
I was thinking about this the other day in terms of the "value" of my crypto holdings and the negative change they experienced in the last couple years from the highs of 2021. Essentially, the value of it has decreased by more than what I have earned in my entire working life, which is quite a staggering realization, but also points to how little I have earned at various periods, like the first ten years I was in Finland, living off what was essentially the poverty line, whilst working full-time.
Yet despite this, I am not concerned, because I have a belief that the future is going to be brighter than the past. And even though I know that there is far from certainty in this, I still think that the potential for a better outcome is worth more than what I have now, and this isn't just in terms of the personal value. There is more at stake in the world than individual success, because if we keep heading down the path we are, the world is going to become more volatile along every metric, becoming an increasingly worse place to live.
Money can be a higher level of security, but that doesn't mean it brings a fundamentally better life experience. Living in a gated community, unable to move freely on the streets out of fear of violence, and watching people struggle make ends meet, are not pleasant, even if one isn't struggling themselves.
Similarly to my role in sales enablement that crosses over functions and affects concurrent processes, the development of a better society means being involved with multiple "departments" and requires improving the whole, not just individual pieces. Like a football team full of skilled stars, unless all are working to play the game together, the results are going to be quite poor. And it is because of this that I think decentralized governance will prove a better methodology than what we have now, because currently, no matter what is actually needed, political parties are made to oppose each other. The best interests of those affected are not actually considered.
For example, one of my colleagues who is from the US was saying today that people often ask if he wants to go back to live there and he answers, "only if wealthy". He said that it is a great place to live, as long as you have enough money to live well, otherwise, it might not be so great. In Finland however, it is possible to not be wealthy and still have a good life. And "not wealthy" is the condition that we are nearly all going to have in our lives, as that is the way an economy works.
This means that in order for the majority to have a good life, we have to build conditions that support it, which means that it isn't about maximizing the value of the individual, but rather, maximizing the value of the group and ensuring that there is adequacy of wellbeing. There will never be equality and merit should always matter, but how much it matters and the value of being slightly better than the person next in line needs to be better valued. But in order to do this, everything needs to be better evaluated and tracked with transparency.
Obviously, this can get dystopian very fast, but so does the current track we are on with massive wealth gaps. This means that if we want to avoid that dystopian future, we can't keep heading the way we are with the tools we have, we have to take the risk and attempt to build better tools, believing that there is a chance that it will lead to better outcomes. But, it takes time and a mass of energy, as well as trial and error and adjustment to even get started, even though there is very little proof it is going to work. But if things go well, the Annual Rate of Return on the activities will continue to increase, except rather than money, it would be value of experience.
Idealistic? Yes.
Possible? Yes.
Likely? That is up to us.
No matter how good a process or technology is, if it isn't supported, it does nothing.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
