Technical sales training works when it’s designed specifically for technical people, treats commercial development as an ongoing discipline rather than a one-off event, and addresses mindset before technique. Most of it fails because it does none of those three things. The question worth asking isn’t “does technical sales training work?” It’s “what would it need to look like for it to actually work for my team?” Those are very different conversations.
Why this is harder than it looks
- The word “training” is part of the problem. Training implies something that happens to someone – a session, a course, a two-day event. But learning to sell can’t be done to someone. It can only be done by them. Nobody catches a ball they don’t want to catch. And even if they catch it, they won’t run with it unless they see personal rewards for doing so. The firms that get this right stop thinking “we need to put training on” and start thinking “how do we continuously help our people improve?” That’s a fundamentally different question.
- Generic sales training is actively harmful for technical people. It asks engineers to behave like salespeople – to use techniques, language, and approaches that feel dishonest to them. The result isn’t confidence. It’s anxiety. Engineers who’ve been through bad sales training are often harder to help than engineers who’ve had no training at all, because they now associate commercial development with discomfort and inauthenticity. The damage takes time to undo.
- Most technical sales training tackles the wrong problem first. It goes straight to technique – what to say, how to handle objections, how to close. But the real blockers for technical people are usually mindset and self-image. An engineer who doesn’t believe that having commercial conversations is part of their job, or who is fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of selling, will not apply techniques regardless of how good those techniques are. Mindset has to come before method.
What good looks like in practice
- Technical sales training that works is built around how engineers actually think and learn – not borrowed from a generic sales model and applied to technical people. It uses their natural strengths: precision, problem-solving, process thinking, credibility. It reframes commercial conversations as a diagnostic and engineering challenge rather than a persuasion challenge. Engineers who experience this kind of support don’t feel like they’re being turned into something they’re not. They feel like a better version of what they already are.
- It’s ongoing, not a one-off. If someone offers to show you how to pack your own parachute before bailing out of a plane, you’d ask them to show you again a few more times, then watch you do it a few times, before checking and confirming you’d done it right. One-off sales training is no different – the stakes are just quieter. Small shifts, applied consistently, compound over time in ways a single training event never can. The best commercial development programmes build a continuous improvement loop – applying new approaches in live conversations, reflecting on what happened, adjusting, trying again. That cycle, supported by the right coaching and accountability, is what drives lasting change.
- Leadership owns it. The firms that see the biggest commercial improvement are the ones where leaders are actively involved – not just sending their people to training and hoping for the best. If your leadership want their people to sell better, they have to sell that idea to their people first. And they have to keep the momentum going after any external support has done its job. The external specialist gets things started. Internal leadership keeps the heart beating.
Where most engineering firms go wrong
- They focus on the training budget rather than the learning outcome. What most businesses actually want isn’t “training” – it’s improved commercial performance. Those aren’t the same thing. A two-day course might tick the training box and do almost nothing for performance. The right question to ask any provider is not “what does your training cover?” but “how does your approach actually change behaviour on the job, and how do you measure it?”
- They use a sheep-dip approach. Everyone goes through the same session, the same content, the same experience – regardless of where they actually are. But your engineers aren’t all in the same place. Some are resistant. Some are willing but lack skills. Some have skills but lack confidence. Some are ready to go but have no system to work within. The right development approach finds the weakest link for each person and works to strengthen it. Generic programmes can’t do that.
- They abdicate rather than delegate. They bring in an external provider, hand over responsibility, and expect the provider to fix the problem. It doesn’t work. You can use external expertise to design and accelerate, but you can’t outsource ownership of your team’s commercial development. Leaders must stay involved, must reinforce the behaviours, must create the conditions for people to practise and improve. When leadership pulls back, so does the team.
Where to start
Before you buy anything, have the right internal conversations. What’s the actual commercial problem you’re trying to solve? Is it lead generation, conversion, account development, or something else? Are the people who need to improve aware that they need to improve – and do they want to? What does your current system reward, and does any of it reinforce commercial behaviour? What have you already tried, and what happened?
The answers to those questions shape everything that follows. They’ll tell you whether you have a training problem, a system problem, a leadership problem, or some combination. They’ll tell you which engineers are ready to develop and which ones aren’t there yet. And they’ll help you avoid spending money on the wrong solution – which is the most common and expensive mistake in this space.
The thing worth checking in your business
Think about the last time your business invested in commercial development of any kind. What changed as a result – specifically, measurably, on the job? Not what people said in the feedback forms. What actually changed in how your engineers had conversations with customers? If you can’t answer that question clearly, it’s worth understanding why. Either the investment didn’t work, or you don’t have a way of knowing whether it worked. Both of those are worth fixing before you spend anything else.
Want to know where your team actually stands?
Use the free commercial diagnostic tools to find out exactly where the gaps are in your team’s sales effectiveness, and what to do about them. Takes 10 minutes. The report is specific and actionable.