In complex B2B purchases, the barrier is rarely that one person "doesn't understand" your proposal. Frequently, the brake is internal: stakeholders don't agree even on what the problem is or how big it is.
Brent Adamson, Matthew Dixon, Pat Spenner and Nick Toman, (authors of the book The Challenger Customer, which is the follow-up to the acclaimed consultative sales book The Challenger Sale) put it this way: in large deals, the limiting factor is usually consensus within the organization"
Consensus is a key element for any business of minimum importance to take place in an organization, and since it is the case, the priority of the B2B seller should not be to try to persuade, explain or transmit information, but rather to find that decision maker who has on one hand the internal will, and on the other hand the influence to develop that consensus.
Today we are going to base ourselves on the work of the authors mentioned above to analyze 7 types of people that the B2B seller will encounter when prospecting and how to relate to each of them to create consensus and thus be able to close higher-impact sales.
Intuitively we will realize that of the 3 types of C-Level, only the "Mobilizer" has the power to create consensus, because they have both things: will to execute and internal influence to align the necessary actors.
Anyone who has worked in sales has encountered a Blocker, who for whatever reason will be against the implementation you are proposing. These are the most dangerous, since having a high level of internal influence, they can hinder your efforts to create consensus and the correct way to deal with these blockers is not to ignore them, but rather to make a specific strategy for them.
And then, finally we will have the Talkers, who if we are not careful, can make us waste a lot of time, because they are people who although they have the will do not really have the necessary influence. Be careful because there are times when Talkers can have a decision-making position, but if they don't have the informal influence to align things, even if they have the final decision the solution they will implement, can be a more moderate or status quo solution than the one you are proposing.
Again, the strategy is not to ignore them, but to treat them in a special way.
7 Types of C-Level
Hanover Insurance Group presents a classification based on these 3 types, organized by how they react to new insights, how they behave in terms of internal information, how they talk about change, and how they communicate, and what we are going to do now is analyze each of these 7 C-Level people and how to act with each of them.
Destigmatizing the Blocker
Before we begin, we need to note that as sellers, sometimes we can have a visceral negative response to a blocker. We can take the fact that they are blocking us personally, but that's not always the case.
Sometimes the Blocker is interpreted as "opposition," but a useful (and scientifically backed) explanation is that many real decisions have a "default" alternative: do nothing. Samuelson and Zeckhauser document in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in the article Status Quo Bias in Decision Making that people tend disproportionately to stick with the status quo; they also show evidence from both experimental and real-world decisions.
This matters at C-Level because the cost of being wrong is high, and the status quo tends to feel like the option with the least immediate exposure.
That's why if you are going to take the possibility of converting a blocker into a mobilizer, you have to learn to put yourself in their shoes, and if it's not possible to convert the blocker into a mobilizer, understand the real risk that the company faces when you present change to them, that's what you need to examine in your mind all the time if you want to make presentations that have real commercial impact.
1) Mobilizer: Go-Getter (Executor)
General Explanation
With a Go-Getter, what you will observe is an orientation toward execution and cross-functional coordination. The proposal will quickly translate into operational decisions: scope, owners, resources, dependencies, risks and evaluation metrics. In a C-Level context, this profile will stand out for its ability to organize the conversation around a verifiable plan and its willingness to activate the necessary areas for the work to happen, reducing ambiguity and establishing concrete implementation conditions.
Example of How It Will Sound (Role Play)
You: "The solution will be to reduce cycle times in process X."
Go-Getter: "What will be the scope of the pilot, who will own the process, what internal resources will it require and when will the result be evaluated?"
You: "It will require participation from Operations and IT."
Go-Getter: "A phased plan will be needed with owners, risks and exit criteria."
General Communication Recommendations
Communication will benefit from an implementation-oriented structure: assumptions, dependencies, owners, timeline and success/failure criteria. It will also require specifying what evidence will be generated at each stage and how the decision to move forward, adjust or stop will be made. Imprecision in timing, requirements or internal ownership will be interpreted as operational risk.
2) Mobilizer: Skeptic (Healthy Skeptic)
General Explanation
With a Skeptic, what you will find is critical evaluation of the case oriented toward validating assumptions, limits and conditions of applicability. The conversation will focus on empirical robustness: baseline, comparators, scenarios, variables that could invalidate the result and control mechanisms. At C-Level, this profile will be associated with responsibilities where the cost of error is high (risk, compliance, safety, continuity), and their validation will function as a signal to other stakeholders.
Example of How It Will Sound (Role Play)
You: "The impact will be observed in less rework and less variability."
Skeptic: "What will be the baseline, what range of results will be plausible and what conditions will invalidate it?"
You: "These will be the assumptions and limits."
Skeptic: "How will the result be audited and under what criteria will the decision to stop or revert be made?"
General Communication Recommendations
It will be necessary to make assumptions and limitations explicit, and present evidence in ranges and scenarios, avoiding absolute statements. It will also need a measurement methodology (baseline, time window, primary and secondary metrics) and a control scheme (audit, mitigations, reversal plan). Objections will be addressed as verifiable hypotheses.
3) Mobilizer: Teacher
General Explanation
With a Teacher, what you will observe is a contribution to consensus through conceptual clarification and alignment of criteria. This profile will reduce internal disagreement by standardizing definitions and building a shared framework that allows comparing options and discussing the same problem from common references. At C-Level, their influence will be expressed in the ability to translate complexity into organizational narrative and to enable other actors to communicate the case with consistency.
Example of How It Will Sound (Role Play)
You: "We will observe friction between areas and low adoption of the process."
Teacher: "Before talking about tools, we will define what decision is made, with what information, and where variability is introduced. Without that agreement, each area will optimize something different."
You: "The flow and decision points will be mapped."
Teacher: "A framework with definitions, metrics and governance will be formalized."
General Communication Recommendations
The interaction will benefit from explicit frameworks: process map, decision tree, operational definitions and metrics. It will also require internally reproducible material (summary, glossary, assumptions, criteria) and explicit treatment of organizational implications (responsibilities, governance, process changes), integrating them into the analysis rather than as an appendix.
4) Talker: Climber
General Explanation
With a Climber, what will predominate is emphasis on visibility, narrative and rapid escalation to higher levels. The conversation will be oriented toward how the initiative is presented and when it is placed on the agenda, sometimes before there is clarity about owners, requirements and decision route. At C-Level, this profile can facilitate access, but their actual implementation capacity will depend on their effective influence and control over critical resources and actors.
Example of How It Will Sound (Role Play)
You: "To evaluate the pilot it will be necessary to include Operations and Security."
Climber: "First we will put together the presentation for the committee; then we will see who to add. We will need something for tomorrow."
You: "Who will own the process and who will be able to block it?"
Climber: "That will be resolved once it's on the agenda."
General Communication Recommendations
It will be necessary to separate communication work from governance work. It will be necessary to confirm verifiable elements: formal sponsor, process owner, indispensable participants, evaluation criteria and purchase/security/legal route. It will also benefit from documenting assumptions and minimum requirements before escalating, to reduce the risk of presentation cycles without operational decisions.
5) Talker: Friend
General Explanation
With a Friend, what you will perceive is a relational approach oriented toward facilitating conversations and reducing social friction. It will provide cultural context, background on relationships between areas and useful introductions. The limit will be that the influence to produce coordinated decisions can be low if there is no control over resources, execution agenda or decision criteria. At C-Level, this profile will tend to prioritize inclusion and harmony, and to postpone definitions that imply conflict.
Example of How It Will Sound (Role Play)
You: "We will need to agree on the problem with Finance and Operations."
Friend: "The necessary connections will be able to be made; there will be openness to discuss it."
You: "Who will sponsor and under what criteria will the decision be made?"
Friend: "First we will see who participates and then we will structure it."
General Communication Recommendations
It will be useful to map stakeholders, historical tensions and sources of informal influence. It will require asking for introductions with defined objective and explicit agenda, and establishing progress signals (sponsor, data access, scope decision, calendar). Without that structure, the process will shift toward relational conversations without closure.
6) Talker: Guide
General Explanation
With a Guide, what you will obtain is procedural knowledge about how decisions are executed: approval sequences, security and legal requirements, committees, documents and typical timelines. The main contribution will be the reduction of administrative friction and prevention of blocks due to process omissions. At C-Level, this profile will be associated with in-house trajectory and deep knowledge of how organizations work internally.
stitucional o a roles con visión transversal del ciclo de compra e implementación.Ejemplo de cómo se va a escuchar (role play)
Tú: “Se va a buscar iniciar un piloto.”
Guide: “Primero se va a requerir revisión de seguridad, después arquitectura y luego compras. Si Legal entra tarde, el contrato se va a devolver. El comité se va a reunir cada dos semanas.”
Tú: “¿Quién va a decidir?”
Guide: “Formalmente va a decidir X, pero si Y objeta, no va a avanzar.”
Recomendaciones generales de comunicación
La comunicación se va a enfocar en convertir la ruta procedimental en plan: ruta crítica, hitos, artefactos y responsables internos. Se va a requerir un listado explícito de criterios de aprobación y de stakeholders indispensables. Este perfil no va a sustituir el patrocinio; se va a necesitar un movilizador para coordinación política y operativa, mientras el guide reduce fricción de proceso.
7) Blocker (Bloqueador)
Explicación general
Ante un Blocker, lo que vas a observar será resistencia al cambio con preferencia por el status quo. La resistencia se va a explicar con frecuencia por exposición al riesgo, defensa de control o incentivos locales, más que por desconocimiento del problema. En C-Level, el costo de un error va a ser alto y el costo de la inacción suele ser menos visible, por lo que el bloqueo se va a manifestar como incremento de requisitos, cuestionamiento persistente de prioridad o exigencia de condiciones de certeza difíciles de alcanzar. Va a ser relevante distinguir bloqueos por riesgo (seguridad, auditoría, continuidad) de bloqueos por política/incentivos (territorio, presupuesto, métricas, decisiones previas).
Ejemplo de cómo se va a escuchar (role play)
Tú: “Se va a proponer un piloto acotado para medir impacto.”
Blocker: “No va a ser prioritario y va a agregar riesgo. Ya existe un proceso; integrar esto va a introducir exposición operativa.”
Tú: “¿Qué criterio va a hacer aceptable un piloto?”
Blocker: “Se va a requerir impacto nulo y riesgo nulo, y aun así justificar por qué ahora.”
Recomendaciones generales de comunicación
Se va a tratar como un problema de riesgo y gobernanza, no como un desacuerdo personal. Se va a requerir formalizar criterios: evidencia necesaria, umbral de aceptabilidad, responsable del riesgo y controles implementados. Se va a beneficiar de pilotos con contención explícita (alcance limitado, aislamiento, auditoría, plan de reversa) y de documentación de supuestos y requisitos para evitar cambios incrementales sin cierre. Si el bloqueo va a ser político, se va a necesitar mapear su fuente de influencia y fijar compromisos de decisión para evitar condiciones nuevas indefinidas.
Bibliografía
-
Adamson, B., Dixon, M., Spenner, P., & Toman, N. (2015). The challenger customer: Selling to the hidden influencer who can multiply your results.
-
Dixon, M., & Adamson, B. (2011). The challenger sale: Taking control of the customer conversation.
-
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
-
The Hanover Insurance Group. (s. f.): tipología de 7 perfiles C-Level