Science1 publisher2 min readPublished
Sales teams with a manager outsold teams without one by 5% to 13% in 5.5 million transactions
The effect estimate comes from a field comparison of teams that happened to have a manager on them. The explanation comes from six separate experiments on how customers read a manager who is not leading the sale.
The Scientist · Science desk

What happened
- The study paired a field analysis of more than 5.5 million real-world sales exchanges at a Fortune 500 company with six related experiments run by the same three researchers.
- In the transaction data, teams that included a manager outperformed teams without one by 5% to 13%.
- The largest gain appeared when the manager joined a team handling new customers and took a supporting role in the interaction.
- In the follow-up experiments, customers read a manager's secondary support as raising the salesperson's status, and that perception increased their openness to buying.
- Store-level results improved as managers took part in more individual sales up to roughly one transaction in three, and worsened beyond that, which the authors suggest may reflect other managerial duties going undone.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- cost The coaching and role-modelling skills this literature usually recommends take time and effort to cultivate. Appearing beside a salesperson during a sale costs the manager floor minutes. The cheaper version of the intervention is a scheduling decision a store already controls.
- constraint Anyone carrying the back-seat rule into complex business-to-business deals is working past the evidence. The authors say their findings do not cover that setting, and that the useful role there may change with the stage of the process.
- precedent New salespeople who saw 10% more involvement in month one were 8% less likely to quit by month three. If that early retention result survives further work, manager selling time acquires a second justification beyond revenue. The onboarding argument draws on a different budget.
A sample this size makes the estimate precise. Whether the manager caused the gap is a separate question. The field half of this work compares teams that had a manager on them against teams that did not, as those teams occurred on a real sales floor. The write-up does not say how managers came to be on the teams that had them [1]. A manager who gravitates toward busy hours, big-ticket departments or the strongest associates would produce the same gap without causing it. The experiments are where the customer-side explanation was tested, on shoppers [5].
One of the three co-authors, writing in The Conversation, said the team was "somewhat surprised by the lift from managers taking a back-seat role" and ran further experiments to check it [14]. The two comparisons are worth keeping apart. The 5% to 13% figure is the gap between teams with a manager and teams without one, whatever role that manager played [2]. The back-seat result is the largest lift inside the manager-present group [4].
The dollar figure the authors attach to the gap is an extra $13 million in yearly revenue at that company [3]. Divided by the effect range, that implies the lift applied to about $100 million a year of transactions if the effect was 13%, or about $260 million if it was 5% [2].
The unit of analysis is the transaction in front of the manager [16]. Everything else happening in the store during those minutes shows up only in the store-level numbers.
Two prevalence figures sit side by side in the write-up and are easy to conflate. Prior research puts the share of sales managers who will help an associate close a sale at 12% to 20% [8]. In the authors' own survey of 85 business-to-consumer managers, the managers reported spending 41% of their time selling with their salespeople [7]. One is a count of managers; the other is a self-reported share of hours. The behaviour is most common in clothing and accessories and in home improvement [13].
Most of the existing literature on sales managers is about leadership behaviour, coaching and role modelling, soft skills that the same literature says take time and effort to cultivate [11]. Their selling role has been studied much less [12]. The authors say they plan to continue the work to see which of their initial insights hold [15].
What to watch
- Whether a study that fixes manager involvement in advance reproduces the 5% to 13% gap.
- A business-to-business replication testing whether the supporting role still helps at later deal stages, where the authors expect the front seat may be right.
- Longer-run retention data, which would show whether the first-month involvement effect survives past the third month.