EP. 256: Desire Determines Development - Truth #19

Development Is Different From Compliance

Before deciding whom to coach, leaders need to be clear about what development actually means.

Tom draws an important distinction between compliance and capability development. A company can require a rep to use its CRM or complete a mandatory certification. Those expectations do not depend on whether the rep wants to do them.

Developing a sophisticated selling capability is different.

Selling is closer to learning golf, pickleball, or a musical instrument. A person can understand intellectually what they are supposed to do and still be unable to execute the behavior consistently. The capability develops through repetition until the behavior becomes increasingly natural. Truth-19

That process requires participation from the seller.

A manager can organize the practice. They can observe. They can provide feedback. They can recommend exercises. But they cannot manufacture the internal effort required to turn that feedback into a new capability.

That is the first reason ASLAN believes desire has to come before development.

The Manager Cannot Want Development More Than the Rep

Tom and Tab use a simple sports analogy throughout the episode. A parent can take a child to the driving range, hire the golf coach, buy the equipment, and stand beside them while they hit balls.

But eventually the child has to want to get better.

The same dynamic appears in sales organizations.

A manager can use positional authority to force a rep through a role-play or require attendance at a coaching session. But most of the actual development happens when the manager is not standing there. The seller has to practice, apply the behavior in the field, reflect on what happened, and try again.

As Tom explains:

“They have to drive their own development.”
— Tom Stanfill Truth-19

This is where many coaching systems quietly break down. The manager becomes more committed to fixing the capability gap than the seller is.

The manager reminds. The manager follows up. The manager finds resources. The manager schedules more coaching. Meanwhile, the rep continues to operate exactly as they did before.

That is not development. It is a manager carrying someone else’s development.

Desire Is Not an Attitude

One of the episode's most useful distinctions is how ASLAN defines desire.

It is easy for a manager to assume a receptive rep has strong desire. They nod during the coaching session, compliment the manager’s ideas, and agree enthusiastically with the development plan.

Another rep may challenge the feedback, ask difficult questions, or argue about the recommendation.

Which one has more desire?

You cannot tell from the meeting.

Tom argues that there is one much more reliable test: did the rep actually complete the developmental activity they committed to?

A seller who debates the recommendation and then spends the week practicing may have tremendous desire. A seller who says, “Great idea, I love it,” and does nothing may have almost none. Truth-19

That distinction changes how a manager evaluates coachability.

The purpose of the coaching conversation is not to produce agreement. It is to produce development.

Coaching Needs a Specific Assignment

Of course, managers cannot determine whether a rep followed through if the coaching conversation ends with something vague like, “Work on the things we talked about.”

Development has to become observable.

Tom and Tab describe a better approach: agree on one specific developmental activity, make the expectation measurable, and define when it should be completed.

Tab gives an example using ASLAN+: instead of simply telling a rep to improve in a particular area, the manager might assign four AI role-plays focused on the current capability challenge. The rep completes them, receives feedback, and the manager can review the results before the next coaching conversation. Truth-19

Now there is no ambiguity.

Either the rep did the work, or they didn't

That specificity does more than create accountability. It tells the manager whether there is enough desire to justify continuing the development process.

Stop Making the Coach Responsible for the Rep’s Number

This leads to another principle that differentiates ASLAN’s approach to sales management: ownership needs to stay with the rep.

Managers are there to support performance, not own it on behalf of the seller.

Tom describes what happens when this becomes inverted. Managers begin asking themselves, “How do I get my reps to do this?” The manager takes responsibility for motivation, development, and sometimes even the rep’s results.

Eventually, the coach is working harder than the person being coached.

ASLAN’s alternative is to shift ownership back where it belongs.

The manager can say, in effect: your results are non-negotiable, but how you achieve them belongs to you. I am here to help. If you want development and support, I will invest in you. But I cannot want your improvement more than you do. Truth-19

That is not abandoning the rep.

It is treating them like the owner of their own performance.

What Happens When Desire Is Missing?

This is where ASLAN’s distinction between Lead, Manage, and Coach becomes particularly important.

When a seller demonstrates desire, coaching makes sense. A capability gap exists, the rep wants to close it, and the manager can invest time developing the skill.

When desire is missing, however, the manager needs to change dials.

Instead of continuing to coach technique, the leader needs to diagnose why the seller does not want to change.

Maybe the rep does not believe the manager’s recommendation is correct. Maybe there is a competing belief about how selling should work. Maybe trust has been damaged. Maybe the seller cannot see how the development connects to anything they personally care about.

At that point, more role-play is unlikely to solve the problem.

The leadership problem becomes creating the conditions in which the seller might choose development.

You Cannot Motivate Someone With Your Goals.

Tom makes another important distinction: people are not intrinsically motivated by the manager’s goals.

Telling a seller, “I need you to improve this because the team needs better numbers,” may matter to the leader, but it does not necessarily give the rep a reason to do difficult developmental work.

Instead, leaders need to understand what the seller wants.

A promotion. More income. A different territory. Greater confidence. More flexibility. Career progression. Mastery. Whatever the goal is, there needs to be a meaningful gap between where the rep is today and where they want to go.

Then the leader can help them see how changing a capability may help close that gap. Truth-19

This is another place where ASLAN’s Other-Centered® philosophy changes the coaching conversation.

The manager does not manufacture leverage through authority.

They become curious about the rep’s world.

What do you want? Where are you trying to go? What is standing between you and that goal?

Once those answers are clear, development has a purpose that belongs to the seller rather than the manager.

Results Are Still Non-Negotiable

None of this means managers should tolerate poor performance because a rep has decided they do not want coaching.

Choosing not to develop is a choice.

Results remain another issue entirely.

A seller may decide they do not want a manager’s developmental help, but they still own the performance expectations of the role. Tom repeatedly makes the distinction: how the seller gets there may belong to them, but the required result does not disappear. Truth-19

That distinction allows the manager to maintain both accountability and an Other-Centered® relationship.

There is no need to punish the rep emotionally for rejecting coaching. The manager can continue leading and managing them, clearly communicate the performance standard, and leave the invitation to development open.

If the rep begins to see that their current approach will not get them where they need to go, desire may change.

And if it does, coaching becomes useful again.

Why ASLAN Coaches Differently

Many sales training approaches focus primarily on what the manager should say during a coaching conversation.

ASLAN starts one level earlier.

Should this person be coached right now at all?

That diagnostic question matters because manager time is limited. Investing hours in someone who repeatedly demonstrates that they are unwilling to practice means those hours cannot go to another rep who is actively trying to improve.

Tom points to ASLAN research showing that many leaders coach regardless of whether the seller demonstrates desire. Truth-19

The ASLAN approach treats coaching as an investment rather than an obligation.

Diagnose the capability gap. Determine whether desire exists. Make the developmental activity specific. Let the rep own the work. Then reinforce the capability until it becomes reliable.

If desire disappears, stop trying to solve a motivation problem with more skill coaching.

Change dials.

That is a fundamentally different way to develop a sales organization.

Desire Determines Development

The best coaching system in the world cannot substitute for a person deciding to improve.

Managers can create clarity. They can provide tools. They can offer feedback, practice, reinforcement, and support. They can help sellers understand why development matters and connect change to something the seller genuinely wants.

But eventually the seller has to choose.

That is why ASLAN believes the question is not simply:

Who needs coaching?

It is:

Who is willing to do something with it?

Because desire determines development.