Objections are automatic emotional reactions (System 1 in Kahneman’s terms), designed to protect the buyer’s interests. They constitute natural defense and survival mechanisms, inherent to any change process. It is no coincidence that, as Mark Hunter writes, there is no salesperson who escapes the “democratization of objections.”
Indeed, Dixon and McKenna (The Jolt Effect) show that the main sales stopper today is buyers’ fear of making mistakes whose consequences are directly attributable to their action (errors of commission). Especially when they are saturated with information and have low confidence in their own ability to make quality decisions.
On the seller’s side, it is natural and intuitive to perceive objections as rejection, as a sign of little interest and affection. In fact, Blount in his book Objections explains that people, at the emotional level, experience objections with the same emotional register as rejection. Therefore, we tend to react defensively, seeking to refute or neutralize arguments with evidence, success stories, or proof of concept. In doing so, the only thing we achieve is deepening the resistance.
We struggle to activate System 2 (deliberate, conscious, reflective) to see that objections are, in reality, often the indirect expression of fears, confusion, and unmet needs. While they seem like a door slammed in our face, they can be the opportunity to get a foot in the door. Properly understood, objections express interest in gaining clarity about the proposal in question. They are an opportunity to connect with the client on another level, building trust. As Marshall Rosenberg would say, the other person’s complaint or aggression is an unfortunate expression of their unmet needs.
However, in different industries, we see that Objection Handlers focus on responding with rational arguments to objections that arise at an emotional level. While they are usually structured using the APAC model (acknowledge the objection, probe with questions, respond, and agree on next steps), the focus is on how to dismantle or address technical doubts with rational information.
Now, what can we do to transform objections into opportunities for closing and connection?
Two complementary suggestions:
A. A model for formulating questions when everything invites us to respond:
We could say that objections are automatic judgments. Rafael Echeverría’s model of grounding judgments can help us prepare and execute questions at 5 levels. Let’s consider the following example:
“Today we see no reason to incorporate this molecule. The price is high, the implementation tedious, and it’s not clear to us that it will actually change clinical outcomes.”
1. Future (connect with the underlying need behind the objection) What type of metrics or criteria would you need to ensure clinical outcomes?
2. Standard: (Understand the client’s frame of reference more objectively): When you talk about tedious implementation, what do you mean—the timelines, the samples, the patient selection?
3. Domain: (to move away from monolithic views of reality/broad generalizations) When you talk about the limited effectiveness of clinical outcomes, are you thinking of any particular patient group or subgroup?
4. Evidence: (inquire about the facts that drive the objection): What specific cases or examples have you experienced regarding the impracticality of implementation?
5. Contrary Evidence (to help the client move beyond their partial view of the judgment) And in no patient subgroup do you consider this molecule could be a differential valued by physicians and patients?
Something extremely important: with these questions we are not seeking to manipulate the client with “prosecutorial questions” aimed at changing their opinion. They must be asked with genuine curiosity and openness to hear whatever needs to be heard.
B. Anticipate objections (name them before they emerge explicitly).
In their book The Jolt Effect, previously mentioned, the characteristics of TOP performers are identified when it comes to reducing or limiting the amount of available information to avoid paralysis by over-analysis. One trait of the best salespeople is that, upon detecting any type of signal of doubt or distance in the client, they are proactive in naming examples of objections the client may be perceiving, to open a frank and collaborative conversation about them. Instead of continuing with the conversation to avoid awakening the client’s concerns, they take control of the conversation by naming what the client is thinking.