Anthony T. Gilliam writes about sales leadership and management, with a focus on coaching, developing teams, and fixing the systems that shape sales performance.
A LinkedIn-first sales leadership voice for structural sales problems and coaching-led development.
Best for
Sales enablement thought-leadership campaigns about coaching, management systems, and realistic sales expectations.
Not for
Volume lead-generation campaigns for AI prospecting or sales-automation vendors whose promise conflicts with their message.
Key takeaways
A revenue problem is usually a system problem, not an effort problem.
Metrics are not a substitute for development.
Self-awareness is a leadership method, not a personality trait.
Check first: Confirm follower audience breakdowns, recent post reach, and any sponsored or campaign post results.
Main ideas
A revenue problem is usually a system problem, not an effort problem · Metrics are not a substitute for development · Self-awareness is a leadership method, not a personality trait
Gilliam writes about sales leadership and management.
Their posts challenge leaders to look beyond individual effort and examine how coaching, management, and the sales system shape performance.
They are useful to readers interested in how sales teams can develop skills, give and receive feedback, and work under realistic expectations.
Gilliam connects frontline leadership choices to the conditions around them.
They argue that pressure to increase activity can distract from problems such as weak positioning, poor qualification, or an ineffective sales process; that metrics do not replace coaching; and that leaders need self-awareness to make feedback safer.
Their practical, opinionated advice includes a “Never List” for newer sales leaders and a critique of sales-job promises that may not match operational reality.
Follow their work for pointed questions about what leaders should teach, what organizations should fix, and when familiar management habits are getting in the way.
Ask Gilliam for examples of signature books, shows, or earlier work beyond LinkedIn.
Gilliam writes about sales leadership and management.
Across the posts, the argument recurs: sales underperformance is usually misread as an effort problem when it is a system, coaching, or leadership problem.
They push leaders to diagnose before demanding more activity, treat coaching as the job rather than a supplement to reporting, and examine their own defensiveness before blaming a team or a generation.
Their plain, direct, list-driven posts often take on common sales-industry language head-on.
A revenue problem is usually a system problem, not an effort problem
Gilliam argues that organizations default to a primitive equation: revenue is down, so salespeople must sell more.
Read more
Activity becomes the stand-in for progress.
The post asks leaders to challenge that assumption and look upstream: at the wrong market, weak positioning, poor qualification, inadequate differentiation, bad messaging, an ineffective sales process, weak management, poor customer experience, unrealistic pricing, or a product that does not create enough economic value.
In a related post, they say that when a company lacks a repeatable, proven sales process, motivational language about opportunity and upside fills the gap, leaving sales reps to solve structural problems.
Gilliam calls that bad math: more people instead of better systems.
The Squid Game post stacks modern selling’s vocabulary—consultative selling, social selling, AI, sales enablement, intent data, automation, personalization—against the plain equation underneath it.
Managers monitor calls, emails, meetings, pipeline, and conversion rates.
Gilliam points to a contradiction: modern selling gives salespeople more information about buyers than ever, yet less freedom to think about them.
The post opens with a line it credits to the fictional Front Man character: “Rules create order, but desperation breaks them.”
Gilliam says too many leaders answer skill gaps with denial: push activity harder, assume people should already know how to hold a difficult conversation, or demand a better work ethic.
Read more
More pressure and reporting will not fix a rep who avoids conflict, cannot think through a problem out loud, or waits to be told every next step.
They call that administration disguised as leadership.
Activity metrics, accountability, and performance standards still matter, but standards must be explicit, observable, teachable, and coachable.
Leaders now have to teach deliberately what earlier generations may have picked up implicitly.
The post lists the skills it wants leaders to coach deliberately: how to have a difficult conversation, ask better questions, give and receive direct feedback, think critically through a problem, disagree without becoming defensive, and own the next step.
It notes that the digital backdrop has changed the conditions that once taught people to communicate, navigate disagreement, and accept feedback.
The response, the post argues, is to state standards plainly, not lower them.
Self-awareness is a leadership method, not a personality trait
Gilliam argues that sales leaders often conflate the way they learned with the way everyone else must learn.
Read more
When someone questions their method, they hear criticism of their character, and that defensiveness shuts down adaptation and the feedback they need.
Gilliam names the fears that can sit underneath: becoming irrelevant, losing authority, and seeing past success fail to translate forward.
The post traces the organizational cost of low self-awareness: feedback flows upward less freely, innovation slows, trust erodes quietly, and the culture tilts toward compliance rather than contribution.
It also makes a sharper point: leaders who complain about team members or younger generations avoiding feedback may be creating the very environments that make honest feedback unsafe.
The post turns the phrase “know thyself” into questions leaders can test against their own behavior: How often do people challenge assumptions openly?
Is disagreement rewarded or punished?
Are mistakes treated as learning opportunities or character assessments?
A “Never List” for newer leaders who want to avoid unwinnable situations
Gilliam argues that most leadership advice arrives as long checklists and complex frameworks people will not remember, so newer leaders are better served by a short list of situations to avoid.
Read more
The five rules: don’t waste time on uncoachable people, and define what coachable means rather than trying to convert people who don’t fit; don’t tolerate experienced reps who refuse to change; don’t manage a rep you can’t fire, because if someone on the team is beyond accountability, your authority is an illusion and you may be the one who leaves; don’t work for a boss who refuses to help solve problems; and don’t work in an organization that can’t recruit talent, because weak recruiting makes every other leadership challenge harder.
Gilliam treats recruiting as the rule that makes the others possible, writing that whether rules one, two, and three can even be applied depends on the hiring function, not the manager’s effort.
This post takes a different angle from the coaching-first argument elsewhere in the same body of work.
One post says the leadership job is to make standards teachable and develop people; the Never List is more willing to move people out or steer a leader away from a role entirely.
The two positions can coexist: develop deliberately, while recognizing that some situations are structural rather than fixable.
Gilliam argues that AI makes it dramatically easier to produce more prospecting, messaging, research, follow-ups, and content.
Read more
If the fundamental sales problem has been misdiagnosed, AI won’t solve it.
It removes friction from a volume strategy that was already wrong, letting the organization pursue it faster and at greater scale.
The implication: diagnose the market, positioning, qualification, and process before adopting AI.
Gilliam’s compact version of the point: AI can simply let the organization play Squid Game faster, extending the post’s earlier description of selling as a survival game driven by quotas and short-term revenue.
Check common sales-recruiting promises against the system behind the role
Gilliam argues that when a company lacks a repeatable, proven sales process, its recruiting and retention message fills the gap with claims that rarely match operational reality.
Read more
The post announces five claims and spells out four: unlimited earning potential, when earnings are almost always constrained by structural limits; quota is attainable, when quotas are often built backward from company revenue targets rather than actual market capacity; leads will be provided, when lead flow often looks different after hiring; and top performers thrive here, when high earners frequently succeed because of structural advantages rather than skill alone. Gilliam advises sellers and leaders to look past the promise at the system that will determine whether it can be kept.
For Gilliam, the point that a “quota is attainable” is not a claim about whether anyone can hit the number. It is about how the number was set, which determines whether the promise was ever within the manager’s control.
What should sales leaders do when reps lack communication, conflict, or problem-solving skills?
Read more
Start with Gilliam’s case for coaching over added pressure.
Gilliam argues that leaders often respond to real skill gaps with denial: push activity harder, assume people should already know how to hold a conversation, or demand a better work ethic.
The post calls this administration disguised as leadership.
Its argument is that the conditions for learning communication, disagreement, feedback, and workplace expectations have changed, so standards must be explicit and teachable.
It names the skills leaders need to coach intentionally: difficult conversations, better questions, direct feedback, critical thinking, disagreeing without defensiveness, and owning the next step.
Accountability and metrics still matter, but metrics cannot substitute for development.
For brands planning a campaign
For a B2B sales enablement thought-leadership campaign, this offers a ready-made case for manager coaching content, frontline development guides, or workshop material. It frames skill gaps as a coaching challenge: turn standards into observable behaviors rather than adding reporting pressure.
Why do experienced sales leaders resist new methods, and how does that resistance affect team feedback?
Read more
Gilliam offers a clear entry point into leadership self-awareness.
Gilliam separates personal identity from leadership method.
The post argues that too many leaders conflate the way they learned with the way others must learn, so they hear a challenge to their method as criticism of their character.
That defensiveness, the post says, shuts down adaptation and feedback.
It identifies fears that may underlie this response: becoming irrelevant, losing authority, and finding that past success no longer translates.
Organizations led with low self-awareness may see feedback flow upward less freely, innovation slow, trust erode, and a culture tilt toward compliance over contribution.
The post ends with questions leaders can use to test themselves: How often are assumptions challenged openly?
Is disagreement rewarded or punished?
Are mistakes treated as learning opportunities or character assessments?
For brands planning a campaign
This original supports thought leadership on adaptive sales management, psychological safety, and why experienced leaders resist change. A sales enablement company could use it to frame an assessment, interview series, or manager workshop that treats self-awareness as a practical leadership skill rather than a personality trait.
Does more sales activity—or more AI—fix weak sales performance?
Read more
Gilliam connects sales pressure, system design, and AI adoption in one argument.
Gilliam opens with a quote attributed to Front Man: rules create order, but desperation breaks them.
The post contrasts sophisticated sales language—including consultative selling, social selling, AI, enablement, intent data, automation, and personalization—with a primitive equation: revenue is down, so salespeople must sell more.
In that system, activity becomes a proxy for progress, and managers monitor calls, emails, meetings, pipeline, conversion rates, and activity levels.
Gilliam points to a contradiction: modern selling has more information about the buyer than ever, while salespeople may have less freedom to think about the buyer.
The post lists the familiar demands—more calls, emails, meetings, pipeline, opportunities, follow-up, personalization, and AI—then challenges the assumption behind them.
Is the real problem the wrong market, weak positioning, poor qualification, inadequate differentiation, bad messaging, an ineffective sales process, weak management, poor customer experience, unrealistic pricing, or a product that does not create enough economic value?
If the sales problem is misdiagnosed, the post argues, AI can simply help an organization play the game faster.
For brands planning a campaign
This piece suits diagnostic thought leadership that examines market, positioning, qualification, differentiation, and process before adding activity or AI. A campaign could use it to support a webinar, research report, or sales-system health assessment that helps buyers question whether their pipeline problem is really a selling-effort problem.
What situations should early sales leaders avoid before accepting or staying in a leadership role?
Read more
Gilliam offers a compact, opinionated starting point.
Gilliam argues that leadership advice often comes in long checklists and complex frameworks people will not remember.
Instead, the post recommends building a Never List with five items.
First, never waste time on uncoachable people: define what coachable means and do not keep anyone who does not fit.
Second, never tolerate experienced reps who refuse to change and evolve.
Third, never manage a rep you cannot fire; if a rep is beyond accountability, authority becomes an illusion, and the manager may be the one who leaves.
Fourth, never work for a boss who refuses to help solve problems.
Fifth, never work in an organization that cannot recruit talent, because weak recruiting makes every leadership challenge harder.
The post frames recruiting as a leadership constraint that determines whether the first three rules are even possible.
For brands planning a campaign
This piece could anchor a practical sales leadership resource, such as a manager onboarding checklist, downloadable discussion guide, or short video series. For a B2B sales enablement campaign, it offers a direct way to discuss accountability, recruiting, and management constraints without relying on abstract leadership frameworks.
Why do sales job promises often break down, and where should a seller or leader look for the real problem?
Read more
Gilliam makes the case for systems over motivation.
Gilliam argues that when a company lacks a repeatable, proven sales process, motivational language about opportunity and upside often fills the gap.
Sales reps then become the variable expected to solve structural problems—a case of what the post calls bad math: more people instead of better systems.
Many sales organizations, it says, rely on narratives that sound motivating but mainly serve recruiting and retention.
The post says it lists five common claims, then gives four numbered examples.
First, unlimited earning potential is almost always constrained by structural limits.
Second, claims that quota is attainable are often built backward from company revenue targets rather than actual market capacity.
Third, promises that leads will be provided often look different after hiring.
Fourth, claims that top performers thrive here often point to structural advantages rather than skill alone.
The post warns sellers and leaders to examine the system behind a role before taking sales promises at face value.
For brands planning a campaign
This original supports content about sales transparency, hiring, retention, and system design. A sales enablement company could use it to argue for honest diagnosis before recruiting or setting quotas, or as source material for a campaign on why better systems—not more pressure—create reliable revenue.
Diagnose the sales system before demanding more selling
In two posts, Anthony T.
Read more
Gilliam argues that sales organizations often mistake a revenue problem for an effort problem: revenue is down, so salespeople are told to sell more.
The posts urge leaders to challenge that assumption and examine whether the issue is the wrong market, weak positioning, poor qualification, inadequate differentiation, bad messaging, an ineffective sales process, weak management, poor customer experience, unrealistic pricing, or a product that creates too little economic value.
One post says that when a company lacks a repeatable, proven sales process, motivational language about upside and opportunity fills the gap, leaving reps to solve structural problems.
Uses rhetorical questions and sharp contrasts, such as modern, sophisticated selling language versus a primitive revenue-down, sell-more equation.
The posts do not reject activity metrics; they argue that activity becomes a false proxy when the underlying system is misdiagnosed.
For brands planning a campaign
A sales enablement brand can build thought leadership around sales-system diagnostics, pipeline and qualification audits, and buyer-first process design. Rather than pushing more activity, the hook is a structured way for leaders to determine whether the problem is effort, market, messaging, or process.
Replace administration disguised as leadership with deliberate coaching
Anthony T.
Read more
Gilliam says too many leaders respond to skill gaps with denial and more pressure: push activity harder, assume reps should already know how to have difficult conversations, or blame work ethic.
The posts advocate intentionally teaching skills previous generations may have learned implicitly: having difficult conversations, asking better questions, giving and receiving direct feedback, thinking critically through a problem, disagreeing without becoming defensive, and owning the next step.
A separate post offers a starter Never List for new leaders: do not waste time on uncoachable people, tolerate experienced reps who refuse to change, manage a rep you cannot fire, work for a boss who refuses to help solve problems, or work in an organization that cannot recruit talent.
Direct address, plain-spoken lists, and a starter-list format that turns leadership advice into memorable rules.
One post emphasizes teachable standards and development, while the Never List is more willing to move people out or avoid certain organizations. A campaign should choose a coaching-first tone, a consequences-first tone, or a deliberate blend.
For brands planning a campaign
A campaign can pair coaching content with manager-training resources, conversation guides, feedback routines, and hiring or retention standards. The Never List format could become an interactive assessment or workshop prompt for frontline sales managers.
Make self-awareness a leadership method, not a personality trait
A post on self-knowledge argues that sales leaders often conflate how they learned with how others must learn.
Read more
When their methods are questioned, they hear criticism of their character, and defensiveness shuts down adaptation and feedback.
The post describes fears of becoming irrelevant, losing authority, or discovering that past success does not translate forward.
It says leaders who complain that team members or younger generations avoid feedback may create the very environments that make honest feedback unsafe.
Questions for leaders include how often people openly challenge assumptions, how often disagreement is rewarded rather than punished, and how often mistakes are treated as learning opportunities instead of character assessments.
Borrows the philosophical phrase “know thyself” and turns it into a set of uncomfortable leadership questions.
For brands planning a campaign
A leadership-development brand can create reflective content, self-assessments, and team-feedback exercises to help managers separate identity from method. This suits campaigns about psychological safety, adaptive leadership, and coaching culture.
Set explicit standards for a changed workplace instead of blaming a generation
Anthony T.
Read more
Gilliam writes that the conditions that once taught people to communicate, navigate disagreement, accept feedback, and meet workplace expectations have changed in the digital age.
That is not an excuse for lower standards, the post says, but a reason to make standards explicit and teach them.
The self-awareness post adds that blaming a team or an entire generation often masks fear; leaders who complain about younger generations avoiding feedback may be creating unsafe feedback environments themselves.
Reframes a common complaint about younger workers or soft skills as a leadership-design problem.
For brands planning a campaign
A campaign can help sales leaders turn vague expectations into observable, teachable, coachable standards. Useful formats include manager playbooks, feedback scripts, and workshop modules on modern workplace communication that avoid generational stereotyping.
Challenge common sales-hiring promises with structural reality
One post catalogs five claims sales reps hear from employers that rarely match operational reality: unlimited earning potential, attainable quotas, provided leads, a thriving environment for top performers, and the implication that success depends mostly on individual skill.
Read more
The post says earnings are almost always constrained by structural limits, quotas are often built backward from company revenue targets rather than actual market capacity, and lead flow often looks different after hiring.
It also says top performers frequently succeed because of structural advantages, not skill alone.
The post connects these false narratives to recruiting and retention goals.
A numbered myth-versus-reality list, with each employer claim followed by a structural counterpoint.
The post openly criticizes employer messaging, making it a fit for brands willing to challenge common sales-recruiting language rather than repeat it.
For brands planning a campaign
This is strong material for a campaign about transparent sales hiring, realistic quota design, lead-flow audits, and retention. It can help sales leaders write job posts and quota plans that match what the role actually provides.
Treat AI as an amplifier of the existing sales problem
In a post drawing on the Squid Game metaphor, Anthony T.
Read more
Gilliam argues that AI makes it easier to produce more prospecting, messaging, research, follow-ups and content.
But if an organization misdiagnoses the fundamental sales problem, AI may simply help it play the game faster.
The post also notes that modern selling gives salespeople more information about buyers than ever, while leaving them less freedom to think about those buyers.
An extended pop-culture metaphor and a series of short, repeated lines show how activity pressure escalates.
For brands planning a campaign
An AI-in-sales campaign can focus on diagnosis before automation: better qualification, clearer positioning, and buyer-relevant use cases instead of unchecked volume. The angle is AI as a tool for improving judgment, not just increasing output.
Gilliam name no brands, employers, clients or sponsors.
They discuss sales leadership, coaching and sales systems in general terms; the only brand-like text is hashtags such as #SalesLeadership and #SalesEnablement, which are topic tags rather than named companies.
Ask for disclosure details before assessing commercial relationships.
Gilliam writes essay-style LinkedIn posts for sales leaders and managers.
Across them, they argue that when sales underperform, the industry reaches for more activity when the real problem is usually the system, the coaching, or a leader's unexamined habits.
Start with the Squid Game post, which puts the case in one place: modern selling gives sellers more buyer information than ever, but less room to think about the buyer.
Then read the five recruiting claims for a structural critique of how quotas, lead flow, and earning potential get sold to reps.
The Never List and the self-awareness post cover another recurring theme: what leaders should coach on purpose and what they should stop blaming on a team or a generation.
Gilliam's posts are short, list-driven, and blunt about sales-industry language; readers looking for frameworks will find direct argument rather than process templates.
Three creators offer related but distinct angles: Paul Acott makes the activity-versus-outcomes argument from revenue operations and enablement, Doug Davidoff works at the deal and pipeline level, and Sean O'Shaughnessey pairs it with benchmark data, a podcast, and a community.
Acott makes a similar central claim: implementing AI tools is not transformation, and AI mostly makes it easier to produce more activity without improving revenue.
Read more
Both treat activity volume as a false measure of progress and look to the commercial operating model, not the seller's effort, for the diagnosis.
Acott writes from inside revenue operations and GTM enablement, close to tooling, released capacity, and operating-model redesign. Gilliam focuses on sales leadership: how managers coach, set observable standards, and recognize their own defensiveness.
Davidoff also writes practical B2B selling content built on frameworks and numbered lists, and shares Gilliam's interest in why sales efforts underperform rather than simply demanding more work from reps.
Read more
Davidoff works at the deal and rep level: pipeline as a portfolio, scoring deal quality, mapping the buying committee, and controlling the timeline. Gilliam works one level up, on leadership behaviour, coaching standards, and organisational diagnosis.
O'Shaughnessey also argues that another prospecting tool or activity push is not the answer, and that sellers should invest in their own development.
Read more
He makes a comparable point about AI making volume cheap while qualified pipeline is what matters.
O'Shaughnessey anchors his work in podcasts and a named community (Two Tall Guys Talking Sales, AI Tools for Sales Pros, the B2B Sales Lab), and draws on quota benchmark data and tooling frameworks. Gilliam publishes standalone essay-style posts about leadership mindset and system failure.
Gilliam as a LinkedIn-first placement for sales-leadership and coaching work.
Their LinkedIn follower count was 3,964 on 8 October 2026, a rough measure of scale.
Five posts published from 7 March 2026 to 20 August 2026 target sales leaders and managers, with recurring themes of coaching, accountability, self-aware leadership, and the systems behind quota pressure.
Before booking a sales enablement thought-leadership campaign, request a current LinkedIn follower report with location and seniority breakdowns, any audience survey covering job function or company size, a recent 90-day view of typical post reach, and results from a sponsored or campaign post to compare delivery with organic reach.
LinkedIn followers
3,964
LinkedIn account for Anthony T. Gilliam · 2026-10-08
Gilliam says that Anthony has a sponsorship, brand partnership, or paid collaboration format, and no official partnership policy, rate card, media kit, or inquiry route is published in the posts here.
The posts show a writer who shares commentary and leadership frameworks rather than promoting products or naming commercial partners.
For a campaign aimed at sales-enablement thought leadership, that means there is no published sponsored-format inventory to plan around in these posts, and no verified way to submit a partnership request through an official channel.
A buyer should treat the scope of a possible collaboration — sponsored posts, co-authored articles, webinar or workshop appearances, or consulting-style advisory work — as something to be negotiated directly rather than chosen from a published offer.
The absence of a published offer in the posts here is not a statement that no sponsorships have been or would be accepted; it only reflects what these posts contain.
A B2B sales enablement company wants a thought-leadership campaign on sales leadership and coaching, and wants to know whether Anthony T.
Read more
Gilliam should carry it.
This is the clearest fit.
Across five full posts, Gilliam holds one consistent position: the sales problem is usually structural, not an effort problem.
They name the structural candidates directly — wrong market, weak positioning, poor qualification, weak differentiation, bad messaging, an ineffective sales process, weak management, poor customer experience, unrealistic pricing, or a product that does not create enough economic value — and argue that when these are missing, motivational language about upside fills the gap and reps get treated as the variable that fixes a broken system.
For an enablement buyer, that is a usable diagnostic story rather than generic motivation.
The coaching need is equally well served.
Gilliam argues that leaders answering skill gaps with more pressure are doing administration disguised as leadership, and lists what should be taught instead: difficult conversations, better questions, direct feedback, critical thinking, disagreeing without defensiveness, and owning the next step.
They keep accountability and metrics in place while saying metrics are not a substitute for development — a nuance that matters when the campaign audience is sales leaders who will reject anything that reads as excuses.
A separate post makes self-awareness a working method rather than a personality trait, and another offers a memorable starter “Never List” for new leaders, covering coachability, resistance to change, accountability you cannot enforce, unsupportive bosses, and weak recruiting.
Gilliam also brings formats a campaign can reuse: a numbered myth-versus-reality list about sales-hiring claims, a starter-list structure, a set of self-test questions, and an extended Squid Game metaphor for quota-and-activity pressure.
These are shareable, quotable formats for assessments, manager guides, and workshop prompts.
Before proceeding, ask for audience geography, seniority, function, and engagement data; the only available audience figure is a LinkedIn follower count of 3,964, observed 8 October 2026.
The posts carry no dates, so cadence and current relevance are unverified.
No sponsored format, rate card, or inquiry route is published, so commercial terms must be negotiated rather than selected from a published offer.
Proceed on content strength, not distribution claims.
When to choose a specialist
A sales-automation or AI prospecting vendor wants a volume lead-generation campaign — a sponsored content series driving demo requests and pipeline, measured against a defined buyer audience by seniority and company size.
Read more
This is a poor fit on three grounds.
First, the message runs against the product.
Gilliam's Squid Game post argues that if the underlying sales problem is misdiagnosed, AI does not solve it; it lets the organization play the game faster.
They describe modern selling as having more information about the buyer than ever while the salesperson has less freedom to think about the buyer, and list the escalating demands — more calls, emails, meetings, pipeline, follow-up, personalization, AI — as the symptom rather than the fix.
A vendor selling more prospecting volume would pay a creator whose stated position undercuts the promise.
That is a real editorial tension, not a tone problem to smooth over.
Second, there is nothing to commit to commercially.
No sponsor disclosure, partner mention, rate card, media kit, or inquiry route appears in the posts, and no past sponsored-post performance is published.
A campaign that needs delivery guarantees or benchmarked reach has no basis here.
Third, the audience cannot be targeted as described.
A follower count of 3,964 confirms the channel only; occupation, seniority, employer, and geography are unknown.
Ask for audience data before committing to a campaign that requires a defined buyer set.
A related poor fit is worth flagging: an employer-branding or sales-recruiting campaign built on “unlimited earning potential,” attainable quota, or provided leads, or one highlighting top performers as proof of opportunity.
Gilliam's post on sales-job promises treats each as a claim that rarely matches operational reality, tying those narratives to recruiting and retention goals rather than rep success.
A campaign in that shape would ask them to publicly contradict work they have already published.
A worked campaign example
Angle: “Diagnose before you push” — a three-part co-authored thought-leadership series with a downloadable working resource, aimed at sales leaders and frontline managers.
Part 1, the system diagnostic.
Take Gilliam's list — wrong market, weak positioning, poor qualification, weak differentiation, bad messaging, ineffective process, weak management, poor customer experience, unrealistic pricing, insufficient economic value — and turn it into a short scored self-assessment a sales leader completes before deciding to add headcount, activity, or AI.
Open with their point about AI: if the sales problem is misdiagnosed, more tooling just lets the organization play the game faster.
Part 2, the manager coaching module.
Build from Gilliam's argument that leaders answering skill gaps with pressure are doing administration disguised as leadership.
Convert the six behaviours they name — difficult conversations, better questions, direct feedback, critical thinking, disagreeing without defensiveness, owning the next step — into observable coaching routines, keeping their framing that metrics matter but are not a substitute for development.
Pair it with their self-awareness questions: how often are assumptions challenged openly, is disagreement rewarded or punished, are mistakes treated as learning or as character assessments.
Part 3, the “Never List” workshop. Use Gilliam's starter-list format as a fill-in template rather than a finished checklist — coachability, resistance to change, accountability you cannot enforce, unsupportive bosses, weak recruiting — and close with their myth-versus-reality list on sales-job promises as a hiring and expectation exercise.
Sequencing and next step: lead with the diagnostic, the widest-appeal hook and strongest match to an enablement audience; follow with the coaching module; close with the Never List. Each piece ends with one concrete action — complete the assessment, bring the list to a team meeting, or run the hiring exercise with a candidate.
Why it suits this creator: every element reuses an argument and format Gilliam already uses, so the campaign requires no repositioning and does not ask them to endorse the practices they criticize.
Negotiate and confirm the collaboration shape and compensation before producing anything; no published partnership terms exist.
Decide between sponsored posts, co-authored articles, a workshop or webinar appearance, or advisory input.
Ask for a current follower report with location, seniority, and function breakdowns, a 90-day view of typical post reach, and results from any past sponsored post.
How this fails: if the brand needs guaranteed pipeline volume or precise demographic targeting, ask for supporting audience and performance data before committing.
Measure on content engagement, list signups, and lead quality instead.
If the brand's product is one of the tools the diagnostic sheet puts in question, expect that tension to surface in the copy.
For a campaign on revenue operations, GTM technology adoption, or sales productivity rather than leadership coaching, Paul Acott's posts are a better fit.
Read more
They draw on implementation experience with Clari, two Gong deployments, outreach programmes for SDRs and AEs, and AI in proposals, RFPs, enablement, and content creation.
A strong alternative angle is skepticism about AI transformation claims: Acott argues that implementing tools is not transformation and that the better interview question is which commercial outcomes improved.
For a campaign on AI adoption or productivity—or for a buyer seeking root-cause thinking on freeing seller capacity—Acott offers specific operating detail.
Their admin and delegation post works through transport cost: a one-minute task delegated can become three minutes of organisational work.
It sets a practical test: if you give a seller five hours back, show what you get for those five hours.
An enablement vendor could build a workshop or assessment around that productivity argument.
Compared with Gilliam, Acott's posts focus on RevOps, GTM technology, and productivity economics—not sales-leadership culture, coaching behaviours, or self-awareness.
They offer little on coaching frontline managers or handling difficult conversations.
The audience implied by the posts is operations and commercial leadership rather than frontline reps or sales managers, so a leadership-coaching campaign would stretch beyond what the posts demonstrate.
Before booking, ask for audience data, commercial terms, and sponsorship history.
For deal execution, opportunity management, and qualification coaching—the work frontline sellers and managers do on live deals—Doug Davidoff's posts are a better fit.
Read more
They define deal running as active management, not passive participation: owning the process, assessing deal quality, managing the buying journey, coordinating resources, controlling the timeline, and navigating obstacles.
Another post treats pipeline as a portfolio and lays out qualification tests: pain intensity rather than pain existence, mapping the whole buying committee, and assessing competitive position honestly, including walking away when the deal cannot be won.
For an enablement campaign aimed at improving win rates, forecast accuracy, or deal reviews, these frameworks can become a diagnostic, manager guide, or deal-scoring exercise.
Davidoff also reports coaching reps to score every deal monthly and cites 30–40% higher win rates from that practice—a usable proof point.
What Davidoff's posts gain in deal-level practicality, they give up in leadership culture and system critique.
They rarely address coaching behaviours, self-awareness, or the structural causes Gilliam names: market, positioning, pricing, management, and product value.
A sales-leadership thought-leadership campaign would be more tactical than Gilliam's and may need additional voices to cover leadership.
Before booking, ask for audience size, engagement, and commercial availability.
For benchmark evidence on quota attainment or practical guidance on AI prospecting and seller development, Sean O'Shaughnessey's posts are a better fit.
Read more
The quota post cites four 2025–2026 benchmarks—ICONIQ, Bridge Group, Salesforce, and Ebsta + Pavilion—showing miss rates from 36% to 78%.
It argues that salespeople must invest in their own development rather than wait for employer coaching, a research-led frame for a campaign on seller development or sales performance.
The AI prospecting post examines autonomous prospecting agents and their role: identifying who deserves attention, why timing matters, what is worth saying, which signal merits action, and when a human should take over.
It also lays out a Neglected-Market Pilot with a human handoff and measurement on qualified pipeline rather than automated activity, and references a 12-part Cognitive Revenue Stack.
For an enablement buyer selling sales technology or community-based development, O'Shaughnessey offers both a benchmark hook and an implementation test.
The posts feature named offers and destinations—the B2B Sales Lab, a podcast, and an episode link—so a campaign may overlap with existing commercial activity.
Agree on clear separation before booking.
The content leans toward individual seller development and AI tooling, not sales-leadership coaching or the structural and managerial critique that defines Gilliam's fit.
A campaign centered on frontline manager coaching or sales culture would need more than these posts demonstrate.
This profile is based on five complete LinkedIn posts published on Anthony T.
Gilliam's LinkedIn account, read in full.
The posts cover sales leadership and coaching, leadership self-awareness, sales systems and AI in sales, a starter "Never List" for newer leaders, and common sales-hiring claims.
The posts carried no publication dates, so the profile describes recurring arguments rather than how Gilliam's positions have changed over time.
The only audience figure available is a LinkedIn follower count of 3,964 observed on 8 October 2026; no demographic, seniority, or engagement data was provided.
No books, videos, podcasts, non-LinkedIn articles, or earlier work were available, and no brand, employer, client, or sponsor relationships are documented in the posts here.
Comparisons with other creators draw on six full posts by three other LinkedIn authors working on closely related sales topics.
