"Extreme Ownership" Is Not a Contractual Obligation

A few peeps came back with "but closers should take extreme ownership."

Pump the brakes.

Yes they should. We ALL should.

I'm not saying a closer shouldn't have a great attitude.

I'm not saying they shouldn't take action to get that potential buyer back on the phone.

What I AM saying is this:

"Extreme ownership" is a character trait.

It's a posture. A way of being.

It is NOT a contractual obligation or an agreement clause management gets to weaponize when their funnel is treading water.

Here's where this whole thing gets loony.

When a rep says "I'm getting crushed by no-shows"...

...and management responds with ~ "well a GOOD closer would take extreme ownership and...bla bla bla"

What just happened?

Glad you asked.

What just happened is management (all in one breath):

AVOIDED investigating their own flippin' system, blamed the rep for a problem they didn't create, added [likely] UNPAID responsibilities to the rep's workload, and made the rep feel like THEY'RE the problem.

All under the guise of "extreme ownership."

It's not "extreme ownership" if you're forcing it on someone.

The only thing that's extreme here is the amount of SCOPE CREEP that just happened.

Classic example of companies dodging what is their responsibility to fix while at the same time getting FREE labor from the contractor who's scrambling about tryin' to put a bandaid on a bullet wound.

All we're doing is exploiting someone under the GUISE of holding them accountable.

Listen.

IF handling no-shows is actually part of the job (which is fine if it is)... then it better be written in their agreement, part of their training, and built into how they get paid.

But here's where most agreements fail:

They say "handle no-shows this way" without ever defining a benchmark.

What's an acceptable no-show rate? 15%? 20%?

And what happens when it jumps to 40%? 50%?

At what point does "handling no-shows" become "drowning in a broken system"?

If that's not defined... it's a moving goalpost.

And moving goalposts exist for one reason: so companies can absolve themselves of accountability.

A rep signs up expecting to handle occasional no-shows.

They did NOT sign up to be the band-aid for a funnel that's hemorrhaging.

And here's the other piece:

HANDLING no-shows and fixing WHY they happened in the first place are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

I've never seen a sales rep have "fixing WHY people don't show up" in their agreement.

If a no-show happens, cool — the rep should be able to handle it (according to the SYSTEM in place, mind you).

But diagnosing and fixing the upstream problem? Not in their scope.

And you don't get to retroactively add it under the banner of "extreme ownership."

Here's the distinction:

A rep who chooses to go above and beyond because that's who they are = character.

A company that expects it to cover gaps they refuse to define = manipulation.

One is virtue.

The other is making a SYSTEM problem out like it's a people problem.

And here's the part where the naysayers get their noodles cooked:

Even if the rep IS dropping the ball... that's STILL a systems problem.

Yes, that's a "gotcha".

How, you ask?

Easy:

Did you define the expectation clearly? That's a system. Did you train it? That's a system. Did you track it? That's a system. Did you hold them accountable when they DIDN'T do it? That's a system. Did you hire wrong in the first place? That's a system.

There is no version of this where "the rep just sucks" is the final answer.

Because if they suck... why are they still there?

And if they're still there... who's responsible for THAT?

The rep is always downstream.

Always.

Whether the problem is a leaky funnel or an underperforming closer... the system either created the problem or allowed it to continue.

That's on leadership.

Period.

Here's the bottom line:

If your closer is doing something wrong... NAME IT. Train it. Fix it.

But throwing out vague "extreme ownership" language when YOUR system has a 40% no-show rate?

Last time I checked that isn't what defines great leadership.

And if you want to talk about "extreme ownership"

Are companies going to take extreme ownership for the amount of churn they're gonna have when they treat people like this?

Doubtful. Their reality is that the rep just "isn't hungry enough".

Thanks for playing.