// GuidesHow-to
Is my VP of Sales the problem? An honest test for CEOs: 30 days, one sales cycle (2026)
Short answer
You cannot tell from the number alone. Give a new VP of Sales 30 days to show hiring and team signals and one full sales cycle to move closed revenue, the timeline SaaStr set in 2013 and Forecastio repeats in 2026. Inside that window, sort each symptom into execution, which the VP owns, or the sales model, which you own, and look one level down at what the VP’s first-line managers can show you about every rep. Decide at the end of the cycle on that evidence, never on a gut feel or one bad quarter.
How fast should a new VP of Sales show results?
One sales cycle for closed revenue, 30 days for the signals that predict it. SaaStr’s 2013 post put it in one line, "How fast should a CRO / VP Sales deliver results? The answer is always: One Sales Cycle. One." Forecastio (updated March 2026) agrees, "If your average sales cycle is three months and you haven’t seen an uptick in closed revenue after this period, it’s a red flag."
Thirty days is too early for revenue and the right time for what a good VP does first. SaaStr’s two 30-day tests are hiring tests: whether the VP brought in one or two great reps in the first 30 days, and whether the VP got rid of the worst rep you have in that time. Forecastio’s looser "No notable hires within the first 90 days" fits a company that hires through a recruiter and an approval chain.
| By when | What you should see | Where you see it | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 30 | One or two strong reps hired or at offer; the weakest rep on a plan or moved out (SaaStr’s test, not a rule) | Offers, the hiring pipeline | SaaStr, November 2013 |
| Day 30 | The team’s confidence in the VP rising | Skip-level conversations | SaaStr, April 2025 ("The team knows when someone is improving things") |
| Day 90 | Notable hires (Forecastio); a written sales process and forecast cadence (our rule of thumb) | Offers, the forecast file | Forecastio, updated March 2026 |
| End of one cycle | An uptick in closed revenue, through win rate, deal size or both | Closed-won by month against the pre-VP baseline | SaaStr, November 2013; Forecastio, March 2026 |
One sales cycle is a long time when the cycle is nine months. Split it. Closed revenue is the verdict at the end; pipeline created per rep, stage conversion and the hiring tests are the reads at 30, 60 and 90 days (our rule of thumb). If none has moved by day 90, start the one-level-down check now.
What are the signs your VP of Sales isn’t going to work out?
The signs that hold up are a drop in quota attainment, top reps leaving, a bad quarter explained away, end-of-quarter surprises, no hires, and no revenue uptick after a cycle. Each alone is a question to investigate; two or three together inside one cycle are the pattern the test below catches.
SaaStr’s list of signs (2023, updated September 2026) names three you can see from your seat: a drop in quota attainment, often a big one; top reps leaving; "We’ll make it up next quarter". The post also opens with a quoted line: "The #1 thing that undermines confidence in a CRO: Unexpected Bad News." Forecastio adds the hiring and one-cycle flags.
| Sign | What it looks like | The first question |
|---|---|---|
| Quota attainment drops | Fewer reps at plan than last year; the middle sliding | Did the number, the territories or the selling change? |
| Top reps leave | A top-three rep resigns, or stops creating pipeline with no territory change | What did the rep say, and what did their manager see a month earlier? |
| "We’ll make it up next quarter" | A miss with no named cause and no changed plan | Which deals slipped, why, and what changes next quarter? |
| Unexpected bad news | The forecast held until the last two weeks, then the quarter came in far below it | Where was the miss visible at week 6, and who saw it? |
| No notable hires | Reqs open 90 days; the same team as before the VP | The VP’s network, or your comp plan and approval chain? |
| No uptick after one cycle | Closed revenue, win rate and deal size flat against the pre-VP baseline | Did the inherited pipeline allow anything else? |
Watch out
One quarter is not a pattern
A bad quarter right after a VP arrives is often the quarter the old pipeline ran out. Compare this quarter with the same quarter last year, adjusted for headcount, plus the trend of pipeline created since the VP started. Judge on a cycle, and define a good cycle on day one.
Is it the VP of Sales or the sales model?
Separate the two before you judge either. The VP owns how well the agreed sales model is executed; you own whether that model works. Most signs above can come from either, and the two call for opposite responses.
Dave Kellogg (Kellblog, October 2016) named the trap, "If things don’t work the strong default tendency is to blame the VP of sales and sales execution, and not strategy or product." His fix is to separate how well the VP executes the model agreed with the CEO and board from whether that model works, and he holds that execution can be inspected.
| Symptom | Points to execution (the VP) | Points to the model (you) |
|---|---|---|
| Thin pipeline | Activity targets missed; no weekly pipeline review; no clear qualification bar | Activity targets hit, but the people reached do not become qualified opportunities |
| Low win rate | Losses concentrated in a few reps, or at one stage where everyone stalls | Losses to "no decision" across every rep and territory |
| Long cycle, small deals | Discounting to close; late-stage slippage on specific reps; no next step on commit deals | Long for every rep, because the buyer you chose buys that way |
| Forecast misses | Surprises in the last two weeks; commit deals with no buyer next step | The forecast is accurate and the number is too high for the segment |
| Top reps leaving | Reps cite the VP, the process or the coaching | Reps cite the product, the territory carve or a comp change you drove |
The split also says what to inspect in yourself. Scott Weiss (a16z, March 2015) set two rules for the CEO’s side, "at least 25% of my time should be spent with our customers and sales teams," and "we held 1:1s about every two weeks." You own the segment, the offer, the price, the motion, the product gaps and whether the number is realistic. Your VP owns hiring and ramp, the pipeline process, the forecast, and coaching the first-line managers. Skip the customer time and the two-week 1:1 and neither the model nor the VP has been tested.
What should you look at one level down before deciding?
The VP’s first-line managers. A VP does not produce revenue; the managers and reps do, and the VP’s work shows up in what those managers can see, say and prove about their reps each week. A CEO who has only met the VP has only met the story.
Ask for observable work, never for surveillance. 1:1s held are on the calendar. Pipeline created per rep is in the CRM, and so are committed deals gone quiet (no logged activity for 7 days on a sales cycle under 30 days, 14 for 30–90 days, 21 over 90; a rule of thumb, adjust to your data). Nothing here needs presence tracking, private messages, or a manager rating their boss.
The one-level-down checklist (30 minutes per first-line manager)
- Every 1:1 with every rep held in the last four weeks, with a note
- The manager names the two reps they are most worried about and shows the evidence
- Attainment by rep against the same quarter last year, with the middle holding
- The top two reps still creating pipeline at their usual rate
- Committed deals past the no-activity line have a dated next step, or have left commit
- Forecast accuracy over the last three months, with the biggest miss explained
- The manager describes the sales model in the words you agreed with the VP
- Coaching on the calendar, separate from the pipeline review
Read the results across all the managers together. Managers who hold their 1:1s, name their at-risk reps with evidence and describe the model in your words are running the system the VP built, whatever this quarter’s number says. Managers who cannot name a worried rep and describe three different sales models are telling you the VP has not reached the layer that sells. How to evaluate the managers themselves and whether they are coaching are separate pages.
Tip
A worked example (illustrative)
Say your VP is five months in and the quarter came in at 78% of plan. Manager A holds every 1:1, names Rep A and Rep B as at risk with evidence, and describes the model in your words. Manager B has held two 1:1s in a month, cannot name a worried rep, and calls the target customer "anyone with budget." Same VP, same number, two managers. The question for the VP is what they saw about Manager B and what they did.
The test: 30 days, one sales cycle, one level down
Six steps, time-boxed to one sales cycle from the day you start, with a hard stop at two quarters on a long cycle. The box stops you deciding on one bad quarter, or never.
- Day 0: write the model and the number on one page. Segment, offer, price, motion, ramp assumption, the quarter’s number, and what "an uptick after one cycle" means in dollars. You both sign it.
- Days 1–30: the hiring and confidence checks. Who the VP brought in, who moved out or onto a plan, and whether the team’s confidence is rising (skip-levels). A VP past 90 days answers the same for their first 90.
- Days 30–45: one level down. Thirty minutes with each first-line manager, the checklist above, evidence on screen. Note where their account differs from the VP’s.
- Every two weeks: the 1:1 with the VP, against the page. Progress on the number, pipeline created since last time, the hires, and one question per sign from the table above; the 7 questions a CEO should ask every sales manager set the evidence standard.
- End of the cycle: compare against the baseline. Closed revenue, win rate, deal size and pipeline created against the same period before the VP, adjusted for headcount.
- Decision meeting: sort the evidence, then decide. Every finding goes in the execution column or the model column. A model problem is yours to fix first; changing the VP will not fix it. An execution problem with no movement across a full cycle is your answer. What you do about a person, and how, is a conversation for HR or an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction.
How diffi helps
The one-level-down check assumes each first-line manager can show you evidence about every rep. diffi is used by those first-line managers. It keeps a living file for every rep from Salesforce or HubSpot (read-only; it does not write to your CRM), the Slack public channels the manager picks, the Gmail labels or Outlook folders they select (or the whole inbox if none is selected), and calendar and recorded meetings, and shows a summary, a cross-source timeline, active signals with their evidence (disengagement, turnover risk, deal and pipeline risk, coaching gaps), open actions and 1:1 prep. There is no executive dashboard and no roll-up above the manager; ask each manager to open their team and walk you through who they flagged, what the evidence was and what they did. If your managers have no per-rep evidence, your VP has nothing to manage them with, so give the managers diffi first, then run the cycle. What the evidence says about your VP stays your judgment. Book a demo to see a manager’s view.
See it on your own teamShould you keep an OK-but-not-great VP, and what does 19-month tenure tell you?
Usually yes, for now, while you fix what the test showed. SaaStr’s 5-point test (April 2025) puts it plainly, "a ‘pretty good’ VP of Sales is almost always better than no VP of Sales at all." SaaStr’s own estimate, in its hiring rules (December 2025), is that getting the hire wrong "costs you a full year"; on our own arithmetic, a replacement search and ramp costs most of another.
The question that separates OK from failing is the one Rose Garden Consulting (December 2021) asks first, "Did you miss your target by a lot or a little?" A VP who missed by a little, saw it coming and changed something usually shows up one level down as managers running a system. A VP who missed by a lot and explained it afterwards is the "unexpected bad news" case. Keep the first while you close the gaps you own; give the second the rest of the cycle, against the page from day 0.
Note
VP of Sales tenure: the numbers and where they come from
The figure that circulates is 19 months. It comes from Gong’s 2018 post (last modified March 2026), which says the average VP of Sales tenure fell from "a healthy 26 months" to "just 19 months"; Gong’s own figure, with no dataset shown on the page (checked September 28, 2026). Beacon Talent (September 2026) repeats "roughly 19 months, the shortest of any executive role," citing Majhi Group’s 2026 data, which we could not read directly, so treat it as secondhand. Nineteen months is about six quarters, and the average includes every mis-hire, so it says the base rate is unforgiving and nothing about your VP.
The other circulating number is 70%. SaaStr (December 2025) restates it as its own long-held view, "about 70% of first VP Sales hires don’t make it past 12 months," and calls the mis-hired VP of Sales the most common mis-hire in B2B. No methodology is published with it, and the pages that repeat it cite SaaStr (checked September 28, 2026). Read it as an experienced investor’s estimate, and as no evidence about the person in your role.
Frequently asked questions
How fast should a new VP of Sales show results?
One full sales cycle for closed revenue, and 30 days for the early signals. SaaStr (2013) says the answer to how fast a VP of Sales should deliver results is always one sales cycle, and its two 30-day tests are whether the VP brought in one or two strong reps and moved out the weakest one. Forecastio (updated March 2026) calls it a red flag if closed revenue has not ticked up after one average cycle, or if there are no notable hires in the first 90 days.
How do you know if you hired the wrong VP of Sales?
You do not know from one quarter. The signs that hold up are a drop in quota attainment, top reps leaving, a miss explained with "we’ll make it up next quarter," bad news you did not see coming, no notable hires in 90 days, and no revenue uptick after a full sales cycle. Sort each into execution, which the VP owns, or the sales model, which you own, and check what the VP’s first-line managers can show you about each rep before you decide.
Is it the VP of Sales or the sales model that is failing?
Separate the two, as Dave Kellogg advises: how well the VP executes the model you agreed on, and whether that model works. Thin pipeline with activity targets hit, losses to "no decision" across every rep, and a cycle that is long for everyone point to the model. Missed activity, losses concentrated in a few reps or one stage, late-stage slippage and end-of-quarter surprises point to execution.
What is the average tenure of a VP of Sales?
The figure in circulation is 19 months. It comes from Gong’s 2018 analysis (page last modified March 2026), which reports a fall from 26 months to 19; Gong shows no dataset behind it. Beacon Talent (September 2026) repeats "roughly 19 months, the shortest of any executive role," citing Majhi Group’s 2026 data, which is secondhand. No public 2026 dataset was found.
Is it true that 70% of first VP of Sales hires fail?
That is SaaStr’s own claim, restated in December 2025 as "about 70% of first VP Sales hires don’t make it past 12 months," with no methodology published. The other pages that quote it cite SaaStr. Treat it as an experienced investor’s estimate, a reason to test early, and no evidence about your own VP.
Should I fire a VP of Sales who is OK but not great?
Usually keep them while you fix what the test shows. SaaStr’s 5-point test (April 2025) holds that a pretty good VP of Sales is almost always better than none; on our own arithmetic, a replacement costs most of a year. Ask first whether they missed by a lot or a little, whether they saw it coming, and what their first-line managers can show you. How you act on the decision is a matter for HR or an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction.
What should a CEO look at before deciding about the VP of Sales?
One level down. Meet each first-line manager for 30 minutes and ask for evidence: 1:1s held, the two reps they are worried about and why, attainment by rep against last year, whether the top reps are still creating pipeline, committed deals gone quiet, forecast accuracy, and whether they describe the sales model in the words you agreed with the VP. Managers who can show all of that are running the system the VP built.