Avoid if you are mid-level or experienced in sales.
Pros
Strong support from district level and regional management. Adequate resources and systems with ok benefits, including unlimited PTO.
Cons
The compensation is out-paced by demands of the role and is not up to industry standards. Many of the Account Executives have vast experience with over 15 plus years in the industry. We have provided feedback on multiple areas, many times, that simply is dismissed. For example, anonymous feedback is asked for leading up to our SKO. This provides an opportunity for leadership to hear directly from folks in the field and address concerns from direct contributors. Instead of hearing those concerns with careful consideration, the feedback was publicly met with hostility and frustration that the same topics keep getting submitted. One of those concerns is obviously compensation. Of course, everyone everywhere would like to make more. However, the belief that a 50k base with 10% commission for field sales reps is competitive in the industry is misplaced. This is further reduced by a mandatory RIT, reinvestment tax, taking 1% of GM directly from sellers that support an over $12 billion a year organization. This without even a hope of any incremental pay increase even with positive annual reviews and overachieving goals. Feedback on this topic from seasoned reps that are well meaning and rather enjoy their jobs was met with a tone of "if you don't like it leave". Hardly how I think leadership would like us to address customer feedback. I would imagine telling customers that "I'm perfect and if you don't like it...kick rocks" would land me in hot water. Other feedback around increased goals with added KPIs was met with the same tone. No one likes increased demands but leadership should address feedback seriously and not just dismiss this with "suck it up". They seem to believe that the company has missed it's targets because tenured sales reps don't know how to sell so we will micromanage them into success. In 25 years in this industry, never have I seen this tact be successful in the long term. Managing people with fear and brute force may have short term gains but long term losses. Structural changes within the company are also changing to the detriment of SHI. A decade ago I used to have one maybe two bosses and today it sits at four to five. The bloat in middle management and the top heavy nature of the company has fostered an us vs. them mentality. Hire people you trust to do the job that matters without constantly looking over their shoulder. Hours and days are lost to satisfying reporting up the chain, duplicating inputs in CRM, spreadsheets, emails to DMs, RMs, VP, SEs, on all activity. The kind of micromanagement only seen other places when under a PIP, usually reserved for punitive situations, is commonplace. Culture is now non-existent. This has never been something I considered too much with previous roles with other OEMs or VARs but when faced with the "new" SHI and experiencing a culture where all groups are heavily siloed, out of touch senior leadership, inspection of every customer meeting, mandatory "contests" which are just added shadow KPIs with no motivating payout, and no real recognition unless from your own team is having an affect on retaining quality culture. My belief is this stems from the announcement of being "IPO ready" by X date. Outside consultants have taken hold and what used to make SHI special, where you may work there for less because of the amazing work environment, is dead. Just a generic soulless, bloated, rudderless corporation remains.
