Offerings · Strategy · GTM Diagnosis and Focus
Everything on your list is important. Nothing on it is first.
Structured interviews across leadership and every go-to-market function, reduced to the few initiatives that move the needle. A day, a week or a month.
The longer version of thatClose
One view of your whole go-to-market, built from the data your own functions already hold, and reduced to the few initiatives that move the number. Structured interviews from the board conversation down to the words a seller uses in a first meeting, assessed against the 6M Go-To-Market Framework.
What it is
Your functions are not disagreeing because anybody is wrong. They are disagreeing because each of them can see one part of the go-to-market clearly and is guessing at the rest, and every plan in the building is built on a different one of those partial views.
The reduction is what you are buying. Anyone with a calendar can bring you a hundred findings from your own people and most of them will be true. The judgment is which two are load bearing, which one has to move first, and what nobody said out loud because every function assumed another one was covering it.
GTM Diagnosis and Focus · What it is
The six parts
MeansUnderstand the art of the possible.
"Transform market opportunity into customer reality."
Is the offering ready to create value and to capture it? What you can deliver today, what the roadmap is promising, and whether there is proof you have delivered it before. Reference material gets inspected here, and I am looking for anecdotes rather than logos.
MarketOptimize resource yield.
"Choose winnable wars and position the troops to win."
Are resources focused on winnable pursuits at scale? Sizing and segmentation, the segments you are committed to and the ones you have decided against, and how an opportunity gets scored against your right to win. What usually exists here is a marketing list or a territory list rather than a market model, and that is a finding rather than a surprise.
MathAlign spend and activity with the outcomes your stakeholders need.
"If there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, invest in something else."
Does it add up? Conversion rates and cycle times by segment, average deal sizes by segment, and the cost and resource model underneath the plan. Frequently none of this exists by segment. Establishing that it does not is worth the week it takes.
MessageGenerate demand you can uniquely fulfill.
"Arm the troops to win the war and reap the rewards."
Is the message relevant, differentiated, defensible and aligned? Buyers and what actually drives them, whether one governed foundation exists or several competing ones do, and how the message performs in the three places it gets used: the sales conversation, demand generation, and brand.
MediumPlan for pipeline creation, progression and closure.
"Create a brain capable of managing many arms and legs."
Are you monetizing the message? It is the largest of the six by a distance, and it is where findings tend to concentrate. Channels and channel plans, campaigns and buyer journey, enablement content and tools, methodology and the discipline behind it, the revenue waterfall, and the renewal and expansion motion.
ManagementRuthlessly execute.
"Culture Eats Strategy For Lunch."
Are you executing with discipline? Goals, quota and comp against actual attainment. The customer engagement process and capacity planning. The operating rhythm. The critical sales conversations and whether anyone is coaching them. The systems that carry an account from target through to won or lost, and the talent processes underneath all of it.
The rest of what it isClose
So this starts by collecting all of them. Structured interviews across your leadership team and every go-to-market function, the material you already have reviewed alongside them, and then compression. It runs vertically, from the board conversation down to the people working live deals, and horizontally, across every function rather than through the loudest one's account of events.
All of it is assessed against the 6M Go-To-Market Framework, which breaks a go-to-market into six parts and reads strategy, execution and messaging across every one of them. The framework came out of managing multiple go-to-markets: some built from scratch, some acquired, some needing turnaround.
On the last full one, the deliverable was not the recommendations. It was the six initiatives they reduced to, in the order they had to happen, with a function named as owner for each. The one that mattered was the market sizing, because that is what finally got the leadership team aligned on where to point everything else.
- The canonical definition of the framework lives on the Method page →
- Segmentation the rest of the plan then gets built on, where focus turns out to be the constraint. TAM and ICP →
- A message written against whatever focus you land on. Conversational Messaging
- A cadence that enforces the chosen few once the readout is over, run by your own leaders. Leadership and Manager Coaching
Why it matters
What changes
Your leadership team stops arguing from different pictures.
One keep, start and stop list, carrying its evidence, written as instructions rather than observations, that leadership, the board and every function work from. The next conversation starts from the finding rather than from rebuilding the picture.
You can put a budget against it.
Every gap comes with the deficit named, what will exist once it is closed, and the function accountable for closing it. That is the difference between a list of concerns and something a CFO can fund.
The list gets short enough to start this quarter.
A set where everything is important and nothing is first becomes a short list in a deliberate order, each initiative sized against the others, so you can say yes to the first one instead of deferring the whole thing again.
The decisions survive the readout.
Most assessments end when the room empties and the quarter quietly reabsorbs the work. This one ends in a cadence with owners, metrics and dates, and a named person reporting to a named person.
The thing nobody owned gets an owner.
There is almost always a finding no interview raised, because every function assumed a different one had it. It arrives named, with a function against it, and reaches a leadership meeting for the first time.
The initiatives you fund start with a plan rather than a search for one.
The first weeks go to execution rather than to a second discovery process.
Who it is for
What I usually hear before this starts
- There are sixty things on the go-to-market priority list and all of them are important.
- We have missed two quarters and the explanations do not agree with each other.
- Every function has data supporting its own view, and the best debater keeps winning the meeting.
- We are about to make a senior go-to-market hire against a problem nobody has diagnosed.
This is the problem this offer is bought against. The full page →
How it runs
GTM Diagnosis and Focus · How it runs
Two axes, not one
Vertically, by altitude
- The board conversation, and what leadership believes happens inside a live deal
- Your leadership team
- Every altitude below it, down to the words a seller uses in a live deal
- Customers and partners, where you are willing to open those doors
Horizontally, across every function
- Sellers and business development
- Marketing
- Customer success
- Product
- Finance and operations, operating in the segments in play
- Duration
- It scales to the organization. A day for a smaller company where no deliverable is created beyond the short list of initiatives and the plan to execute them. A week for a smaller company that wants the deliverable. Up to four to six weeks where there is significant size, meaning people, and significant complexity, meaning go-to-market segments.
More on thisClose
A narrowed diagnosis also runs inside a broader transformation program. Meeting you where you are still entails comprehensive discovery.
- How it is run
- Virtually, and interview led. Pre-read materials first, then a kickoff, then interviews scheduled with agreed upon team members.
- Who I interview
- Your leadership team, and then people at every altitude below it: sellers, business development, marketing, customer success, product, finance and operations, operating in the segments in play. Customers and partners where you are willing to open those doors. Going below the leadership team is not thoroughness for its own sake. It is the only way the diagnosis gets grounded in what happens inside a live deal rather than in what leadership believes happens inside a live deal.
- What you supply
- Material you already have. Overview and investor decks. The revenue waterfall and the pipeline, target against actual. The sales process and whatever playbooks exist. Compensation, quotas and attainment. Messaging and first call decks. Whatever segmentation and target lists exist. Recent QBRs. Your internal view of the competition. Where something on that list does not exist, say so rather than building it for me. Its absence significantly informs the diagnosis.
- Before the final readout
- The draft findings and the keep, start and stop list go to your leadership team before the final document is built, so they can be debated, corrected and refined while there is still time to change them. Nothing in the final deliverable should be new to you. Being surprised in a readout is how accurate findings die.
- What it is not
- A maturity model, a benchmark scorecard or a grade. A finding is a verdict word and an instruction: keep this, start that, stop the other, and where the evidence will not carry a verdict, consider this. It is also not an implementation. It is the findings, the sequenced initiatives and a decision by you about which of them to fund.
Two reasons this works
A finding that is only true at one altitude is not a finding
A strategy finding gets tested against what is actually happening in live pipeline, and a field complaint gets traced back up to the decision that caused it. Nothing reaches the document until it has survived both ends.
Why that mattersClose
Both ends are rooms I have sat in, and more than one function.
THE RECORD
- AN APPLICATION BUSINESS FROM $2.6M TO $14.1M
- A DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS FROM $45M TO $77M AS BUSINESS UNIT EXECUTIVE
- A COMMERCE BUSINESS FROM $324M TO $394M AS CMO
Risk: you find out which failure mode you actually have, direction or execution, because one person sat in both rooms and nothing had to survive a handoff between two firms. Cost: one diagnosis instead of a strategy firm at the top and an enablement contractor at the bottom producing two documents nobody reconciles. Revenue: a recommendation true at both altitudes is one you can fund without commissioning a second process to check it.
Your problem decides where the weight lands, not the framework
The six parts are the same every time. What gets inspected under each of them is not, and neither is where the weight falls. On the last full audit nearly half of everything found sat under a single one of the six, because that is where that company's problem was.
Why that mattersClose
A generic scorecard cannot do that. It distributes attention evenly and calls the evenness rigor.
Cost: no rework cycle and no second attempt a year later against a scorecard that did not fit how you sell. Revenue: the findings are executable, because they were written against your market and your organization rather than adapted to them afterward. Risk: you are not handed somebody else's diagnosis with your logo in the footer.
The deliverable goes out in your brand rather than mine. Every page of the last one carried the client's own copyright line, because a report that reads as an outsider's opinion gets read once and filed, and one your leadership team can circulate as its own work gets executed.
Proof
enVista, an Order Management and Commerce SaaS business bootstrapped on top of a successful consulting business and aiming at a much larger share of a growing market. Twenty five interviews across the leadership team and every go-to-market function, alongside the material they already had. Sixty two recommendations, reduced to six initiatives and a governance approach, each with the function that owns it named. The first initiative was the market sizing, and it went to Finance with marketing participating rather than owning, because the number it produces is the one Finance has to live inside. That number is what got the leadership team aligned on where to point everything else.
GTM Diagnosis and Focus · Proof
The reduction
Dozens
Recommendations the interviews and the material review produced, across the leadership team and every go-to-market function.
A short set
Initiatives in the order they had to happen, with a governance approach wrapped around them and a function named as owner for each.
One first
The market sizing. It went to Finance with marketing participating rather than owning, because the number it produces is the one Finance has to live inside.
What it is like to work with me
“I had the privilege to work with Russell 3 times. After many years of selling and sales leadership where I have been trained at Solution Selling twice, Customer Centric Selling 3 times, Sandler once, Force Management 3 times, I can easily say that Russell is one of the best facilitators of sales training I have met. His ability to lead a room with 2, 3 or 400 people is absolutely incredible. Russell has this gift of feeling the energy of the people he interacts with and can instantly adapt his speech to them; Russell has an extremely strong psychology and can really lead and inspire others through a shared objective. Last point that really inspired me when I was working with him is that Russell enjoyed so much what he does that it is contagious with everyone and make them enjoying learning.”
“Russell, I can’t begin to tell you how much I appreciate your efforts this week! I’ve been through many sales trainings and this was the best I’ve ever attended, much due to you. My team is pumped!”
“Russell, I teared up at the end of your session b/c you reminded me of why I loved sales strategy so much. Thank you for your warmth, the kindness you exuded, and the passion you shared.”
“I was not exaggerating when I told you, and several others, that I have been in many training classes over the years, and this will absolutely stand out as the best one, bar none.”
“Russell’s ability to break down complex concepts into simple, actionable strategies made an immediate impact. Since then, I’ve brought him back multiple times. Russell has a unique talent for making sophisticated sales principles easy to understand and, more importantly, easy to apply in day-to-day selling. Russell immediately elevates any GTM teams efforts.”
Questions people ask
You're one person. Can you handle a company our size?
Scale shows up here as interviews and calendars, not as consultants. The last full audit ran twenty five interviews inside four weeks alongside the document review, and the binding constraint was never my capacity to synthesize. It was getting senior people scheduled. So the honest arithmetic is this: tell me how many operating segments you run and roughly how many people I would need to talk to inside each, and I will tell you whether that is four weeks or longer before you sign anything. What I will not do is put junior people on the interviews, because the synthesis happens during them and not afterward. Nor did I use AI to synthesize findings or prepare the deliverable.
Is this a way of selling us the follow-on work?
Partly, and I would rather say it than have you notice it. I do not like the term Trojan horse, but that is kind of what the audit is. Here is the discipline I put on it. I frame plans for the initiatives you prioritize whether or not I am the person to run them. I submit a proposal only where you ask for one, and only for work I believe I can actually drive results with. Some of what an audit finds is work I should not do, and the document says who should.
What if you only tell us things we already know?
Some of it you will already know, and that is not a wasted finding. The value of hearing it from your own people across every function is that it stops being one executive's opinion in a meeting and becomes a fact the room has to deal with. What you are paying for is the rest, and the rest is usually two things. Which of the things you already know is actually load bearing. And the blind spot: the thing every function assumed a different function owned, which is exactly why it has never come up in a leadership meeting.
Do we get a score, a maturity rating, a benchmark against our peers?
No. There is no five point scale and no grade. A finding is a verdict and an instruction, with the reasoning inside the same sentence. I have never once watched a maturity score cause an organization to do anything. An instruction with a named owner and a date does. The scoreboard that matters is revenue, margin, and valuation.
What if the audit says we should not make the hire we were about to make?
That happens, and it is one of the more valuable outcomes available here. A senior go-to-market hire made against an undiagnosed problem fails later for a reason nobody can name at the time. The audit is often bought at exactly that moment, and it can end in a blueprint for the incoming leader to follow rather than in a different job description. I will help you set that person up for success. I will not promise you I can find them.
We already had an outside firm assess us. What is different here?
Ask what their assessment produced. If it produced a current state document and a set of options, you have a diagnosis without a decision, and the decision is the expensive part. This ends in a short list with an order and an owner, socialized with your leadership team before it is final so that the debate happens while it can still change the answer. And it is one person from the interviews through the synthesis, so nothing is lost in the handoff from the team that listened to the team that wrote.
This is Align work: a leadership team that holds six versions of the truth getting to one, before anybody writes a plan against any of them. The growth you are after is yours to name, and so is the decision at the end about what gets funded. Taking a large pile of variables and getting quickly to what is actually driving the thing is what I am good at, and it is the part of this you should not have to be good at yourselves.
The cost of the wrong theory is a year of the right effort.
The budget gets spent either way. The headcount gets hired either way. The campaigns run either way. What differs is whether any of it compounds, and by the time that answer is unambiguous the year is gone and next year's plan has already been built on the same theory by the same people.
Start a conversation