An international customer was centralising its budgets and purchasing decisions. We were still serving it through regional relationships, each with its own way of working. The local expertise was good, but the customer experienced an inconsistent service just as it needed greater coordination.
The relationship was at risk. I led the recovery, changing the account structure, working standards and communication, as well as how we handled proposals, orders and invoicing. Conversations with the customer and our regional teams showed where change was needed. Local knowledge stayed part of the service within a more coordinated international relationship.
Customer satisfaction and revenue improved, and the customer went on to appoint us its global preferred supplier for innovation testing for three years.
A sales target would have measured the ambition to recover. It would have done little to explain what recovery required.
Every response carries a diagnosis
A business can commit to an explanation of poor growth without ever stating it. Give sales a higher target and the implied problem is insufficient commercial effort. Commission a campaign and the issue becomes awareness or persuasion. Ask product for another release and the organisation starts treating the offer as the constraint.
Each could be a sensible response. The difficulty comes when the action acquires a budget and an owner before its explanation has been examined. Subsequent reviews concentrate on whether the team delivered the activity. The business gets better at executing a response without necessarily learning whether it is addressing the shortfall.
An unsuccessful campaign can then be taken as further evidence that demand is weak. A discount can look effective because orders rise, while the contribution left after serving those orders deteriorates. The response changes the numbers and can make the original problem harder to see.
The account recovery illustrates why it matters to ask what has changed before deciding which function should do more. Regional sales effort was part of the business, but the customer needed a different relationship across regions. The operating model belonged in the commercial response.
Follow the change through the business
Start by locating the shortfall precisely. Which customers, offers, channels or buying situations account for it? What changed before the result deteriorated? A company-wide average can conceal an access problem concentrated in one channel or a service problem affecting a particular group of customers.
Then follow those differences into the buying and delivery process. Sales and margin records show where performance moved. Customer conversations can reveal a change in priorities, approval or use. Proposals, service records and lost orders help establish where progress stopped.
The aim is to build an explanation that survives contact with different sources. If customers describe delivery inconsistency, examine how work actually passes between teams. If price is blamed, look at the alternatives buyers chose and whether discounts changed their decisions. If procurement has centralised, test whether the supplier is still organising its response around people who no longer control the budget.
Loss codes and internal interviews deserve scrutiny too. A salesperson may record price because that was the final objection, even though the offer had already failed to justify the work of changing supplier. A satisfied user may have little influence over the purchase. Neither account should settle the diagnosis on its own.
Ask what would look different
A useful explanation makes a claim the team can examine. If availability is the constraint, performance should differ where the offer is reliably available. If buyers cannot secure internal approval, delays should be visible after interest or technical acceptance. If delivery costs are the problem, growing orders may leave contribution weak even where customers are satisfied.
These comparisons suggest where to investigate; they do not automatically establish a cause. Stronger outlets may also have different customers or prices. Successful accounts may receive exceptional support. Examine those differences before copying the apparent success elsewhere.
Leadership can make the discussion more demanding with one question: what evidence would make us change the recommendation? A team that cannot answer may be defending a preferred remedy rather than testing an explanation.
The answer could justify a limited commercial test, a change to the service model or a more substantial review of the offer. Use the inquiry to narrow the choice. An exhaustive list of possible causes gives management little help allocating the next budget.
Know when to act
Diagnosis has a cost. An offer with satisfied customers, sound economics and limited reach can lose valuable time while management requests another round of analysis. Greater distribution or commercial activity may be exactly what it needs.
Agree what must be resolved before making the commitment, and what can be learned while acting. A reversible change to sales materials warrants less investigation than a national campaign or an investment in a new market. Stop the inquiry once it can support that choice, and agree what the team will watch as it acts.
Keep the original expectation open to challenge as well. A plan may depend on rapid switching, easy channel access or sales support the business cannot provide. Pursuing the same target with increasing effort can absorb resources that would achieve more behind a different opportunity.
In the account recovery, more commercial pressure would have left the customer facing the same inconsistent service. We had to make the relationship work differently before we could reasonably ask for its confidence again.