Taking Control of the Sale
Assert and maintain momentum throughout the sale — assertively, not aggressively
Taking control is the third pillar of the Challenger model, defined as the ability to assert and maintain momentum across the entire sales process — from the initial qualification conversation through to final contract negotiations — without becoming aggressive or abrasive. Challengers control the sale at three distinct levels: they control the intellectual discussion (holding their ground when customers push back on the reframe), they control the commercial discussion (not capitulating immediately on price or terms), and they control the process (teaching customers how to buy rather than waiting for customers to figure it out).
The most common misconception is that taking control is synonymous with end-of-sale negotiation. In reality, Challengers take control from the first interaction — qualifying whether a customer opportunity is real by demanding access to decision-makers, setting expectations about what is needed to advance the sale, and proactively mapping the customer's purchase process. The rep who only asserts control at the negotiating table has already ceded enormous leverage.
The core insight is that most reps are far too passive, not too aggressive. Research shows 75 percent of reps believe customers have more power in the negotiation — while 75 percent of procurement officers believe reps have more power. This mutual misperception causes reps to give in before they need to, and before they even understand the customer's rationale for their request.
- Taking control happens throughout the entire sale, not only at the negotiating table — Challengers who wait for the end-of-sale negotiation have already lost significant leverage.
- 75 percent of reps believe customers have more power; 75 percent of procurement officers believe reps have more power — the actual power balance is far more equal than most reps assume.
- Reps' natural tendency is toward passivity and premature closure, not aggression — the real risk is excessive accommodation, not excessive pushback.
- Challengers thrive in ambiguity because they have built a strong rational and emotional case for value through commercial teaching; that case is what creates confidence to hold firm.
- Purposeful pre-call planning builds the confidence to hold firm in the moment; most reps give in not because customers are right but because they have no plan for the conversation.
- Qualify access to decision-makers earlyWithin the first interaction, test whether the customer is genuinely evaluating suppliers or merely running a verification exercise to justify a pre-made decision. Push for access to key stakeholders as a condition of continued engagement. If access is denied without clear rationale, exit the opportunity — your time is better spent elsewhere.Pro tipChallengers recognize 'foil' opportunities (nearly 20 percent of all RFPs) where customers have already chosen a vendor and are simply doing diligence. The tell: a junior contact manages the process and access to senior stakeholders is persistently blocked.
- Coach customers through the purchase processRather than asking 'Who needs to be involved?' tell customers who should be involved based on past successful implementations. Rather than asking customers how they make decisions, teach them what an effective decision process for this kind of purchase looks like. Challengers 'lead and simplify' instead of 'learn and react.'WarningLetting confused customers lead the purchase process invites stalling, redundant approvals, and re-litigation of already-agreed points. Taking control of the process reduces these friction points.
- Make powerful requests at each stageClose every meaningful interaction with a specific, concrete request tied to value already established: 'From our discussion, we've agreed that X would save you $Y. To capture that saving by Q1, I need a signed contract from [name] by [date].' Powerful requests clarify what is needed, connect it to value, and create a timeline that keeps momentum.Pro tipState the business impact that drives the timeline before stating the deadline — it makes the request feel customer-motivated rather than rep-motivated.
- Defer and investigate concession requestsWhen customers push for discounts or other concessions, use the Acknowledge and Defer technique: explicitly promise to address the request while asking permission to first ensure you fully understand all their needs. Then Deepen and Broaden the conversation to surface everything that matters to the customer before running to price.WarningNever simply refuse a concession request — this feels aggressive. And never simply grant it without deferring and investigating — this signals you have more to give and destroys your credibility for subsequent requests.
- Concede according to plan, not pressureUsing pre-call planning tools (the SSN template), map out your power positions, the customer's likely requests, your planned responses, and a sequenced concession strategy before every significant negotiation. Concede low-value-to-you, high-value-to-customer items first. Never start with large concessions — it signals there is more room and invites further pressure.Pro tipThe goal is for both parties to feel they won. Concession patterns that create resentment — 'take it or leave it' offers; concessions that grow larger as negotiations proceed — are as harmful as being too aggressive.
DuPont equipped reps with a prenegotiation planning template mapping power positions, anticipated customer requests, planned responses, and a sequenced concession strategy. Reps then practiced different concession patterns in role-play workshops, experiencing how each pattern felt from both sides. The two-day Situational Sales Negotiation workshop broke reps' habit of giving in too quickly.
A rep needed to implement a substantial price increase at a time when no other suppliers were raising prices. Purchasing refused flatly and threatened senior leadership involvement and contract cancellation. Rather than caving, the rep secured a meeting with the plant manager, laid out the value delivered, and asked the plant manager to mediate with purchasing.
The taking control pillar emerged from the SEC's analysis of what specifically differentiated Challenger reps: being 'comfortable discussing money' and being 'able to pressure the customer' were two of the six statistically significant Challenger attributes. The authors identified three major misconceptions about control (it is only about negotiation; it is only about money; it makes reps aggressive) and dedicated a full chapter to dispelling them. DuPont's Situational Sales Negotiation methodology, developed with BayGroup International, provided the most comprehensive real-world case study of systematizing control across a sales force.