Latest / Sales Leadership with Fexingo: Quota Carriers, Sales Managers, and Revenue Teams / How Top Reps Use Mutual Action Plans to Close Faster
Transcript
- Lucas: Luna, I was looking at a dataset from Gong earlier this year — it showed that deals where the rep introduced a mutual action plan within the first two meetings closed at a rate nearly twenty percent higher than those that didn't. Luna: Okay, mutual action plan — that's the document where both sides agree on the steps and timeline to get to a decision, right? Lucas: Exactly. It's not a sales process document you hide in your CRM. It's a shared living document — often a simple spreadsheet or a collaborative tool — that the buyer's team and your team both update. Each party has their own action items with deadlines. Luna: So it's like a project plan for the deal. Lucas: Precisely. And the key insight is that it shifts ownership. Instead of the rep chasing the prospect for the next step, the prospect sees their own tasks listed with dates they agreed to. A VP of Sales I spoke with at a cybersecurity firm said his reps started using mutual action plans last year, and their average deal cycle dropped from ninety days to sixty-five. Luna: That's a big move. But isn't there a risk it feels pushy — like you're forcing a timeline on the buyer? Lucas: It can feel that way if you present it as a take it or leave it schedule. The best reps introduce it collaboratively. They say something like, 'To make sure we're both using our time well, can we map out what needs to happen on both sides for this to move forward? I'll share what I think, and you add your team's internal steps.' Luna: So it's co-created. That makes sense — the buyer feels ownership. Lucas: Right. And it surfaces hidden bottlenecks early. I saw a deal where the rep assumed the decision would take three weeks, but during the mutual action plan conversation, the buyer mentioned they needed a legal review that typically takes four to six weeks. That changed the entire timeline and the rep adjusted expectations upfront. Luna: That's a perfect example. Without that conversation, the rep would have been chasing a phantom close date. Lucas: Exactly. And the other benefit is that it disqualifies deals faster. If the buyer is unwilling to put their steps on a timeline with dates, that's a red flag. They may not be serious or may lack authority. Luna: So it's a diagnostic tool as much as a planning tool. Lucas: Exactly. And that's actually where I want to go deeper. Let me walk through a real example from a $2 million enterprise software deal I studied. The rep was selling a data analytics platform to a retail company. The buying committee included the VP of Analytics, the CIO, and the head of Procurement. Luna: Classic multi-stakeholder scenario. Lucas: Right. The rep created a mutual action plan in a shared Google Sheet after the second meeting. She listed the steps on her side: product demo, security white paper, pricing proposal, reference call. Then she asked each stakeholder to add their internal steps: the VP of Analytics needed to run a pilot, the CIO needed a security review, Procurement needed to issue a purchase order. Luna: And everyone contributed? Lucas: They did, because she framed it as a way to keep the project on track for all of them. The pilot was scheduled for week three, security review in week four, PO approved by week six. The deal closed in week eight. The rep told me that previous deals with similar committees had taken four to five months. Luna: That's a massive compression. But I wonder — does this work for smaller deals too, or is it just for enterprise? Lucas: It scales down. I've seen reps use a simpler version for ten thousand dollar deals — just a five-line checklist in an email. The principle is the same: both sides agree on the next concrete steps and who owns each one. Luna: So it's about clarity and commitment, not complexity. Lucas: Exactly. And there's a cautionary tale here too. A SaaS startup I know rolled out mutual action plans to the whole sales team. But they made it a mandatory field in the CRM, and reps started filling them out after the fact — just checking a box. The plans were never shared with buyers. They became internal post-mortem documents, not collaboration tools. Luna: That completely defeats the purpose. Lucas: Totally. The VP of Sales told me they saw no improvement in close rates until they retrained the team on the 'why' and removed the mandatory field. Now reps use the plan only when they think it will help the buyer — which is most enterprise deals, but not every single transaction. Luna: So it's a lever, not a rule. Lucas: Right. And actually, if this kind of practical framework is useful to you, that's exactly why we keep these conversations ad-free. If you want to help keep it that way, you can buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure — just a way for listeners who get value to support the show. Luna: Yeah, and we really appreciate it. It keeps us independent and focused on what works in the field. Lucas: So back to mutual action plans — one thing I love is how they naturally prevent the 'no decision' outcome. When a buyer has agreed to specific tasks with dates, they have a psychological commitment to follow through. It's not about pressure; it's about mutual accountability. Luna: I've heard that called 'commitment and consistency' from Cialdini. Lucas: Exactly. Once someone writes down 'I will run a pilot by October 15', they're much more likely to do it. And if they don't, you have a natural reason to check in — 'Hey, I noticed the pilot milestone passed — can we troubleshoot?' Not a pushy check-in, but a collaborative one. Luna: It gives you permission to follow up without feeling like a nag. Lucas: Precisely. And it also helps with the internal champion. If your champion is fighting for you inside their company, they can point to the mutual action plan and say, 'We agreed to this timeline. We need to get legal review done by Friday.' That's way stronger than the champion saying, 'The vendor called again.' Luna: So it arms the champion with a tool. Lucas: Yes. And it reduces the number of status update calls. Instead of the rep asking 'Any updates?', both sides can see the plan. They only need to meet when a milestone is hit or blocked. Luna: I like that — more time selling, less time chasing. Lucas: Exactly. Now, a common objection I hear from sales leaders is, 'Our deals are too complex for a simple timeline — there are too many variables.' But that's precisely when a mutual action plan is most valuable. Complexity demands structure. Luna: So you're saying it brings order to chaos. Lucas: Exactly. I watched a rep sell a multi-million dollar platform implementation that involved data migration, custom integrations, and training. The mutual action plan had three phases over six months. Each phase had milestones for both sides. The buyer later said that plan was the reason they chose that vendor over a competitor — because it showed the rep understood the complexity and had a concrete path forward. Luna: That's a differentiator, not just a tool. Lucas: Right. And it forces the rep to understand the buyer's process deeply. You can't create a credible mutual action plan without knowing how the buyer's organization makes decisions, who signs off, and what internal steps they need. Luna: It's almost like a diagnostic in itself. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why top reps often create the plan during a working session with the buyer — a whiteboard or shared screen. They ask questions like, 'After we demo, what are your next steps internally? Who needs to see the results? How long does that usually take?' Luna: That also builds trust because you're showing you care about their process. Lucas: Absolutely. Now, let's talk about a specific pitfall. Some reps make the plan too detailed upfront. They try to map every single step for the next six months. That can overwhelm the buyer. The best practice is to start with the next few milestones and add detail as you go. Luna: So iterative, not exhaustive. Lucas: Right. Think of it as a rolling plan. You agree on the immediate next steps, and after each milestone, you update the plan together. That keeps it relevant and actionable. Luna: That also makes it less intimidating for the buyer. Lucas: Exactly. And one more thing — the plan should include explicit decision criteria. What exactly needs to be true for the buyer to say yes? If they can't articulate that, the plan is incomplete. Luna: So it forces clarity on the decision itself. Lucas: Yes. I had a conversation with a rep who lost a deal she thought was on track. When she debriefed, she realized the buyer's team never agreed on what 'success' looked like. The mutual action plan had all the steps but no definition of the finish line. Luna: That's a painful lesson. Lucas: It is. So now she includes a row that says 'Decision criteria' and asks the buyer to fill it in. Things like 'Must integrate with Salesforce', 'Must reduce reporting time by 30 percent', 'Must be under $X per year.' Then each milestone is tied to proving those criteria. Luna: That makes the plan a living business case. Lucas: Exactly. And it shortens the cycle because you're not discovering deal-breakers at the last minute. I think the takeaway is that a mutual action plan, done right, transforms the sales process from a push-pull dynamic into a collaborative project. Both sides have skin in the game. Luna: And it helps reps focus their time on the right deals. Lucas: Exactly. Because if a buyer won't co-create a plan, that's a strong signal to deprioritize and move on. Luna: So it's also a qualification tool. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why I think every sales org should consider it — not as a mandate, but as a technique that top reps can adopt to build alignment, reduce cycle time, and close more deals. Luna: I'm going to try this on my next call. Start with a simple version and see how it feels. Lucas: I think you'll be surprised at how much clarity it brings — even if the deal doesn't close, you'll know why much sooner.