Adam Outland

So when we looked at the capacity issue on the other side, we also looked at our retention problem.

So something Dave just shared is, you know, it's a lot better if you can have a client

for 10 years than maybe a high-level client for one.

And I think there's a lot of value to that idea of longevity and retention in our relationships.

So when we looked at our client retention, it wasn't bad, but it definitely wasn't great.

We realized it wasn't due to the

coaching that we provided, but more due to the retention of our coaches themselves that could come in and come out.

In a sales model where you have a direct sales force, there's always going to be some turnover.

You want to reduce it.

You want to make it as little as possible.

There's always going to be some turnover there.

What you don't want

is turnover to be there in the delivery part and in the service part of your model.

You want that to be as stable as possible.

So with a stable delivery team, you have stable retention.

There's a very long-winded way to say that a couple of realizations we made is that by bifurcating our sales and our coaching delivery team,

we stood a better chance at having our coaches have a two, three, four, five, six-year retention because we could actually be assigning our clients to our top-tier coaches that already have great retention and then allow our sales team to actually pursue sales and the creativity that comes with an enterprise sale, a local sale, and everything in between, and they could continue on to sales leadership.

So that's a little bit of the journey and the exploration we're on right now.

Yeah.

One of the biggest concerns was that part of our identity was in this practitioners of what you preach, that our salespeople was part of the advantage of our delivery team, that they were still selling in the field.