The "Activity Trap": Are Your Reps Busy, or Are They Productive?
By Shawn Hamilton, M.S., DBA(c) Shawn Hamilton is a leading sales leadership advisor and doctoral researcher at the University of Houston, specializing in Sales Leadership.
The "Activity Trap": Are Your Reps Busy, or Are They Productive?
A new sales manager, let's call her "Jane," pulls up her team's dashboard. She smiles. Her new rep, "Tom," is a star. He's logged 110 dials, 85 emails, and 15 new contacts today. He is a model of activity.
Then she looks at her top-performing veteran, "Sarah." She's logged 12 dials, 7 emails, and 1 new contact. By these metrics, Sarah is a slacker.
Yet, at the end of the quarter, Sarah will be at 150% of quota, and Tom will be at 70%, blaming his "bad territory."
Jane has fallen into the "Activity Trap." She has created a team that is obsessed with busyness but has forgotten how to be productive.
The Problem with "Productivity"
In the modern sales era, our CRMs have given us the power to measure everything. We can track dials, clicks, emails sent, talk time, tasks completed, and a dozen other metrics. And because they are easy to measure, we put them on a dashboard and call them "KPIs."
The problem is, we are measuring inputs, not outcomes.
This is a classic organizational dysfunction, perfectly explained by foundational research on goal-setting theory. In their decades of research, Edwin Locke and Gary Latham (2002) demonstrated that specific, difficult goals are a powerful motivator.
But a critical nuance is often lost: if you set specific goals on the wrong thing, you will get a highly-motivated team executing a flawed strategy.
When a sales leader sets a goal of "100 dials per day," the rep will make 100 dials. They will not, however, be focused on having 100 quality conversations. They will rush calls, "click-to-dial" their way through a list, and log low-quality contacts just to hit the number and get their manager off their back.
You've successfully motivated "activity," but you've accidentally punished "productivity."
"Activity" vs. "Productivity"
This is the critical distinction a true sales leader must make:
Activity is a measure of effort. It's quantitative. (e.g., How many dials?)
Productivity is a measure of impact. It's qualitative. (e.g., How many meaningful conversations led to a next step?)
Your A-player, "Sarah," knows this instinctively. She spends 45 minutes researching one high-value account before making a single, targeted call. That one call is more productive than Tom's 110 random dials.
But in a culture that rewards the "Activity Trap," Sarah is penalized. Her "numbers" look bad on the dashboard, and she's constantly forced to justify her process. Meanwhile, Tom is praised for his "hard work," and his failure to close is blamed on something else.
Actionable Takeaways: How to Escape the Trap
If your team is "hitting their activity numbers" but "missing the quota," it's time to change your approach.
Measure Conversion Rates, Not Inputs. Stop obsessing over the top of the funnel. The most important metrics are in the middle.
Bad KPI: Dials made.
Good KPI: Dials-to-Conversation Rate.
Bad KPI: Meetings booked.
Good KPI: Meeting-to-Pipeline-Created Rate. This shifts the focus from "how much work did you do" to "how effective was your work."
Separate "Activity Metrics" from "Performance Reviews." It's fine to use activity as a diagnostic tool. If a rep is failing, their activity numbers might tell you why. But it should not be the primary measure of success. Your 1:1s should not be about "hitting 100 dials." They should be about "the three most important conversations you had this week."
Set "Quality" Goals. Instead of "100 dials," set a goal for your team to "contact 10 'perfect fit' accounts this week and identify the primary economic buyer in each." This goal aligns the activity (research, targeted calling) with the productive outcome (high-quality pipeline).
Stop celebrating busyness. Start measuring what actually matters. Your A-players will thank you, and your B-players will finally have a clear map to success.
References
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
