Turnover Rates in Tech Sales Leaders
Sales leadership positions in the technology sector are notoriously volatile. Recent data shows that the average tenure for a tech VP of Sales is roughly 18–19 months, dramatically shorter than in the past
gong.io This trend has worsened over the last decade – for example, one analysis noted a drop from about 26 months average tenure around 2010 to just 19 months by 2017
gong.io. High-growth tech companies, especially startups, often cycle through sales leaders quickly if expectations aren’t met. In fact, venture firms have observed that a large proportion of first-time sales VPs “do not work out,” reflecting the challenging fit and high bar for success in these roles. By comparison, in more established industries sales executives historically stayed longer (often 24– thirty+ months)sellingpower.com, but tech’s fast pace has made long-term stability in sales leadership rare. High turnover means many tech sales leaders barely have time to unpack before they’re under pressure to deliver results.
Average tenure of a tech VP of Sales has fallen from ~26 months to ~19 months in recent years gong.io. This shrinking tenure illustrates the instability facing sales executives in high-turnover tech environments.
Voluntary and involuntary turnover among sales leadership remains elevated. In the wake of recent talent shake-ups (e.g. the “Great Resignation”), even sales managers and executives aren’t immune to job-hopping or burnout. One 2021 survey found 15% of sales leaders changed jobs within two years due to lack of good management support, while those who stayed often credited strong support and enablement from their company xactlycorp.com. This highlights that leadership attrition isn’t always purely performance-based; the work environment and support system matter too. However, performance pressure is the dominant factor in the tech sector. Companies facing missed revenue goals often react by replacing their Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) or VP Sales in hopes of a quick fix. As a result, sales leadership roles carry a high risk of turnover whenever quarterly targets are missed. In tech, it’s common to see new sales VPs cycling in every 1–2 years as companies push to find the right formula for growth.
It’s also important to note that tech and software companies experience unusually high turnover in their sales teams, which adds to leadership challenges. Industry research by Xactly found that tech/software firms had 67% more sales reps leave than companies in other industries in a recent year xactlycorp.com. This means a tech sales leader is often contending with higher rep attrition, constant hiring needs, and team disruption – all of which make it harder to consistently hit targets. This environment can accelerate the “revolving door” for sales executives: if a VP cannot quickly stabilize the team and revenue, they may be replaced by someone who promises to. In summary, the tech sector’s combination of ambitious growth goals and high team turnover creates a precarious situation where sales leaders have shorter tenures and higher turnover rates than almost anywhere else.
Primary Reasons Sales Leaders Are Dismissed
While the turnover numbers are stark, it’s critical to understand why so many sales leaders in tech lose their jobs. In most cases, it boils down to performance and its underlying causes. Here are the primary reasons for sales leadership dismissals in the technology sector:
Failure to Meet Sales Targets: The single biggest reason is missed revenue quotas or growth goals. Sales leaders are ultimately accountable for their team’s results. If quarter after quarter the sales team falls short of targets, the VP of Sales or CRO is typically on the chopping block prosalesconnection.com. Tech companies (especially startups with investor pressure) often have little patience for missed numbers. Even missing a couple of quarters can trigger replacement, as boards and CEOs look for someone who can “make the numbers.” This performance-based firing is so common that sales leaders jokingly refer to “hitting the number” as essential for survival. An experienced sales executive knows that consistent target attainment is their job security – and conversely, consistent shortfalls are usually attributed to leadership, rightly or wrongly.
Underperforming or Unprepared Team: A closely related reason is having a sales team that is underperforming or poorly developed. If the reps aren’t closing deals, lack product knowledge, or struggle with basic selling skills, it reflects on the leader’s ability to hire, train, and motivate the team. In many cases, sales leaders are let go because they did not build a strong team or sales culture. As one industry expert put it, “Not building a great team will almost certainly cost sales leaders their job sooner or later.”
This can manifest in different ways: maybe the leader failed to coach reps effectively (e.g. spending too little time on training), kept low performers too long, or didn’t recruit the right talent for the sales motion. Especially in tech, where products can be complex, if the salesforce isn’t adequately trained or enabled, the blame often lands on the head of sales. In short, CEOs expect sales leaders to be “talent developers” – if your team is weak, your position is weak.
Missed Forecasts and Poor Pipeline Management: Another common reason is a pattern of inaccurate sales forecasts or pipeline issues. For instance, if a sales VP repeatedly commits to numbers that the team fails to hit (perhaps due to overestimated “big deals” that slip, also known as “elephant hunting” gone wrong
), credibility is lost. Tech CEOs and boards demand predictability; a sales leader who can’t accurately assess their team’s pipeline or who is blindsided by gaps (often tied to not having the right data or training on process) may be shown the door. This often ties back to training as well: a well-trained team with a solid sales process is more likely to produce reliable forecasts.
Poor Alignment or Cultural Fit: Although performance is king, leadership fit and alignment also play a role. Some sales leaders are dismissed because they clash with the CEO or other executives on strategy, or they don’t mesh with the company’s culture. For example, a sales leader used to enterprise sales tactics may struggle in a product-led growth tech culture, leading to friction. While this isn’t directly about training, it’s a notable reason especially in startups – if the sales head’s approach doesn’t align with the founder’s vision, turnover can result. (This is less quantifiable but frequently cited anecdotally as a reason many first-time VPs of Sales fail to last.) That said, even these issues often surface when sales performance is underwhelming; cultural or strategic misalignment becomes a deal-breaker when revenue isn’t coming in.
Lack of Resources or Support (Leading to Failure): Interestingly, sometimes the cause of a sales leader’s failure is not solely personal performance, but the lack of sufficient resources (budget, tools, training) to succeed – essentially being set up to fail. If a company doesn’t invest in headcount, marketing leads, or training, even a capable sales VP might fall short. One startup-focused study noted that a great VP of Sales needs a realistic budget “for hiring, tools, and training” to build a successful team, and that failing to provide this is a “surefire way to make them seek greener pastures.”
In practice, a sales leader might be fired for missing targets that were unattainable given the under-resourced team. This reason is a bit ironic – the leader is let go for poor results, but the root cause was the company’s underinvestment in the sales enablement (like training) that could have driven better results. Nonetheless, it contributes to the high turnover: when sales execs don’t get what they need to succeed, either they leave or they get pushed out when numbers disappoint.
Most sales leadership turnovers in tech are performance-related at the surface – failing to hit revenue, whether due to a weak team, bad strategy, or other execution issues. The common thread is that a sales leader’s fate is tightly linked to how well their team executes in the field. If the team is underprepared or unsupported (e.g. insufficient training, poor onboarding, no coaching), they will likely underperform, and the leader will be held accountable. Understanding these root causes is key to addressing the turnover problem.
Training Investment equals Executive Job Security
The correlation between training investment and the security/longevity of sales leaders is increasingly evident. Simply put, sales leaders who champion and secure investment in their team’s development tend to see better results and longer tenure, whereas those in organizations that ignore training often face a ticking clock on their job.
Multiple studies affirm that training and performance go hand-in-hand. Companies that prioritize sales training are significantly more effective: one analysis noted such firms are 57% more effective than competitors who do not invest similarly qwilr.com. They also enjoy impressive returns on training spend – average ROI of 353% on sales training initiatives spotio.com– through higher sales productivity and win rates. For a sales leader, these numbers are more than budget arguments; they’re lifelines. Improved performance from training can be the difference between making quota or missing it. Hitting quota, of course, is the strongest protection against being replaced. In contrast, organizations that skimp on training often see stagnant or declining performance. Over time, that gap shows up in the quarterly results that determine a VP’s fate.
Several expert insights underline this connection. Korn Ferry’s research emphasizes that if sales managers lack coaching and commercial skills, it will “impact the bottom line,” and even finds that one ineffective sales manager can cost a company millions in lost sales and high seller turnover kornferry.com. Scale that up to the entire sales force: if an entire team is underperforming due to poor training, the lost revenue is huge – and boards tend to respond by changing leadership to “stop the bleeding.” On the flip side, when sales leaders invest time and money in developing their people, they often create a buffer for themselves. A well-trained team is more resilient and can weather market challenges, which reflects positively on leadership in the eyes of CEOs. In fact, sales leaders who last longer often cite a strong training and enablement culture as a key to their success, because it creates consistent execution.
There is also a preventive aspect: strong training programs can reduce the likelihood of sales crises that lead to executive firings. For example, regular training and coaching can keep the pipeline healthy (reps prospect effectively, deals advance properly) so that there are fewer nasty surprises in the sales forecast. It can also reduce rep turnover, meaning the sales leader isn’t constantly backfilling positions – a scenario that often buys a leader some goodwill from their superiors. Conversely, poor investment in training is a risk factor for sales leadership churn. It’s telling that in startup environments, a common reason sales VPs “fail” is because they weren’t given the necessary resources, including training budget, to build a high-performing team openviewpartners.com. Essentially, the company set them up with an underprepared team and expected a miracle. When the miracle doesn’t materialize, the VP gets axed. Thus, inadequate training investment can indirectly cause a capable leader to lose their job, simply because the team wasn’t enabled to execute the plan.
From the perspective of CEOs and boards, many are beginning to recognize this correlation as well. Rather than reflexively blaming the sales leader for any miss, some are asking: Did we arm the team with what they need to succeed? Those companies that do ask this are more likely to address training or process gaps before replacing the executive. It’s a smarter approach – firing and hiring a new VP is expensive and not guaranteed to fix the real problem if the issue was systemic (like lack of sales enablement). Case in point: SaaStr’s Jason Lemkin warns CEOs to be careful about the “blame game” and not to do serious damage by firing too hastily out of frustration for a miss saastr.com. If everything else is broken (processes, training, product-market fit), swapping the leader alone won’t help.
At the same time, a sales leader concerned about job security would do well to advocate for training. Many successful tech CROs make sales enablement a top priority in their first months – they know that boosting team capability early can pay off in improved numbers for the long run. Enabling even the mid-tier reps to close a little more (say, raising middle performers’ close rates by a few percentage points) can have a huge impact on revenue and ease the pressure on leadership gong.io. This is exactly how training protects a leader: it lifts the whole team’s performance, which in turn helps ensure targets are met and the leader is seen as effective.
In summary, the equation is increasingly clear: Better-trained team = better sales results = more stable sales leadership. Companies that neglect training are often the ones frequently changing sales leaders because they never address the root cause of poor sales. Those that invest in their people tend to see not only lower rep turnover but also less churn in the leadership ranks. Executive job security in sales is never guaranteed, but building a well-oiled, skilled sales team is one of the best insurance policies a sales leader can have.
Case Studies and Expert Insights
To illustrate the above points, consider a real-world example and some insights from sales leadership experts:
Case Study – Undertraining Almost Outsourced a Sales Team: Computer Aid, Inc. (a tech firm) found itself with an underdeveloped sales development team and considering drastic measures. The business development reps (BDRs) were undertrained and underperforming, to the point that the company contemplated outsourcing the entire BDR function
cortadogroup.com. Sales leadership at CAI lacked the bandwidth and experience to properly train and develop the in-house team on effective prospecting and lead generation
cortadogroup.com. The immediate result was a weak sales pipeline (only a 27% lead conversion rate) and overburdened managers
cortadogroup.com. Rather than immediately firing the team or the leaders, CAI engaged outside help (Cortado Group) to implement a robust training and enablement program. The solution focused on cultivating a learning environment – introducing weekly training meetings, one-on-one coaching, and structured playbooks for the team
cortadogroup.com. The turnaround was dramatic: within a few months, lead conversion jumped to 71% and monthly qualified leads grew by 46%
cortadogroup.com. All deals closed in the quarter originated from the now-effective BDR team. This case underscores how investing in training rescued the sales effort – and likely saved sales leadership jobs as well. By developing the team instead of blaming them, CAI’s sales leaders were able to deliver results. It’s a positive example showing that the right response to an undertrained team is training, not termination. Had the training not been implemented, it’s easy to imagine the BDR team being cut and the head of sales (or marketing) being replaced for lack of pipeline. Instead, success was achieved by upskilling the existing people.
Expert Insight – The Hidden Cost of Replacing Leaders: Firing and hiring a new sales leader is not a guaranteed fix and can even set back a company’s growth. Mike Faherty, a sales leadership consultant, pointed out that on average it takes about “6 quarters” (18 months) for a sales leader to either resign or get fired in many companies
prosalesconnection.com. Replacing a leader comes with disruption – new strategies, lost momentum, and time for the new leader to get up to speed. Faherty emphasizes proactive leadership behaviors to avoid that fate, notably inspiring the team and constantly coaching
prosalesconnection.com. His advice: make training and coaching a daily priority, because even talented reps need continuous development to stay on top. By coaching “every day” and focusing on team improvement, a leader not only drives better results but demonstrates value to the organization. This insight aligns with the earlier data: the more a leader invests in their team, the more secure their own position becomes. Conversely, if a sales leader neglects these areas (doesn’t inspire, doesn’t coach), they essentially “get themselves fired” over time prosalesconnection.com by allowing the team to stagnate. The takeaway from experts is clear – sales leaders must be team builders and enablers above all. Those who excel in that area tend to last, while those who do not will face turnover.
SaaS Industry Perspective – Avoid the Blame Game: Jason Lemkin, a well-known SaaS investor and founder of SaaStr, cautions CEOs about reflexively firing sales execs when things go wrong. He notes that sometimes startups will fire a VP of Sales (and even a VP of Marketing simultaneously) after a bad quarter or two, thinking a clean sweep will solve the problem
saastr.com. However, Lemkin observes that “firing the whole revenue team” usually doesn’t work and can backfire badly saastr.com. If the underlying issues – perhaps lack of product-market fit, or insufficient sales enablement – aren’t fixed, the new hires won’t do any better. He urges leaders to carefully analyze whether the issue is truly the person or the context. Sometimes giving the existing VP more support (maybe hiring enablement staff, adding training budget, or simply adjusting strategy) is wiser than starting over. This perspective highlights that churn at the top is costly, and that sales training/enablement might be a better lever to pull than leadership churn. For sales leaders, it’s a reminder to actively communicate needs to the CEO: if more training or tools are required to hit goals, they must make the case rather than silently hoping for a miracle. Lemkin’s insight essentially is: don’t be too quick to blame people when process and training might be the culprit – a viewpoint that both executives and their managers should heed to reduce unnecessary turnover.
Leadership Tenure and Training Culture – A Virtuous Cycle: Some organizations have broken the cycle of constant sales leadership turnover by building a strong training culture. For instance, companies that rank highly for sales enablement (lots of coaching, robust onboarding, continuous learning programs) tend to also report longer average tenures for their sales managers and leaders. A positive example can be seen in certain enterprise software firms where the sales enablement function is highly developed – they provide each rep with 60+ hours of training a year on average theprequal.com, have formal coaching for managers, and align training with strategy. These firms often enjoy higher quota attainment and less infighting. As a result, their sales VPs are not in constant jeopardy; they can actually focus on long-term growth instead of short-term survival. One might look at companies like Salesforce or Microsoft’s enterprise sales divisions – they invest heavily in ongoing development and as such have many sales leaders who’ve lasted a long time, rising through the ranks instead of being replaced. While specific tenure data from such companies isn’t public here, the principle stands: a strong team makes for a stable leader. When the whole sales org is continually improving and adapting through training, there’s less need to change captains mid-voyage.
Conclusion
Sales leaders in the technology sector operate under intense pressure, and their job security is tightly intertwined with the preparedness of their teams. The research and examples make one thing abundantly clear: undertrained and underdeveloped sales teams are a liability that can cost sales executives their jobs. High turnover among sales leadership is not a random inevitability – it is often the culmination of preventable issues, with lack of training and coaching high among them. When companies neglect to invest in their salespeople’s skills, they are inadvertently undermining their sales managers and VPs as well. The fallout is seen in missed quotas, high rep churn, and the short tenures of those at the helm.
Conversely, the path to stability is paved with investment in people. Organizations that treat sales training and enablement as a strategic priority tend to enjoy better sales outcomes and more stable leadership. A well-trained sales force hits its numbers more consistently, reducing the knee-jerk blame on leaders. Leaders who foster continuous development – from onboarding to ongoing coaching – effectively “armor plate” their teams and, by extension, their own positions. In tech, where products and markets evolve quickly, continuous learning is not a luxury but a necessity for survival at all levels.
In summary, the percentage of sales leaders who lose their jobs due to undertrained teams may not come as a neat statistic, but the narrative is evident: a large share of sales leadership turnover is rooted in team performance problems, which in turn stem from training and development gaps. By closing those gaps, companies can improve sales results and break the cycle of turnover at the top. The data and expert opinions suggest a powerful message to CEOs and sales executives alike: develop your salespeople if you want to keep your sales leaders. Investing in training is investing in the success – and longevity – of the entire sales organization, from the newest rep to the head of sales.
Ultimately, a culture of continuous improvement in the sales team creates a foundation where targets are met more often, reps stick around longer, and sales leaders can focus on growth strategy instead of constantly looking over their shoulder. In the high-stakes world of tech sales, that could mean the difference between a revolving door and a resilient, high-performing sales engine led by a stable leadership team.
Sources: Recent industry reports and expert commentary have been used to inform this analysis, including data on sales turnover and training from Xactly
, Gong
, Harvard Business Review via Prequal
, Spotio/Qwilr
, and insights from sales consultants and SaaS industry veterans
. These sources reinforce the strong correlations between sales team development, performance outcomes, and the tenure of sales leaders.
Comments