Md Riaz Uddin

Md Riaz UddinAug 5, 2026

Most SDR hires don't fail in the interviews. They fail in the first 90 days because nobody built a proper ramp. I run a five-person SDR team across three countries. Hired four myself. Promoted two to Senior in a year. The difference was never the hiring - it was the structure after day one: - a scorecard two interviewers score the same way - a week-by-week first 90 days - a week-6 checkpoint that tells you it's working (not month 4) - a weekly cadence someone actually runs This month I'm pressure-testing SDR ramp plans for 5 B2B SaaS teams hiring right now. 30 minutes, free, no pitch. Bring the JD and whatever onboarding plan exists; leave with the gaps and how to close them. Comment "ramp" or DM me.

Md Riaz UddinAug 10, 2026

The most expensive sentence in sales hiring: "Let's give them another month." I've hired four SDRs and run a five-person team across three countries. Every ramp question I get comes down to week 6, because by then a structured ramp has already told you which of four checkpoints the new rep is clearing: 1. Activity volume: Are they doing enough? If not, it's a work habits conversation. 2. Activity quality: Is the research and personalisation any good? If not, that's coaching. 3. Meeting quality: Do meetings turn into real conversations? If not, work the discovery and the pitch. 4. Pipeline conversion: Do meetings move? If not, look at the handoff and account fit before you blame the rep. The order is the whole trick. Failing at 4 while clearing 1 to 3 is a completely different problem than failing at 1. Most "underperforming SDR" conversations treat them the same. That's how good reps end up on PIPs and bad fits survive to month 6. And if week 6 arrives and you can't say which checkpoint your rep is clearing, that's not a rep problem. The ramp has no structure yet. I put the whole thing on one page - the hiring scorecard plus the checkpoints. Comment "scorecard" or DM me and I'll send it over.

Md Riaz UddinAug 18, 2026

One of my reps was sitting at 46% of quota The instinct in that situation is to assume a skill gap More coaching, more call reviews Maybe a harder conversation about fit I looked at where his week actually went first Roughly half of it was research About 20% was actual pitching He wasn't underskilled; he was overpreparing and calling it diligence So we: - capped research at 20% of the week - restructured his calendar around call blocks - put a weekly 1:1 with fixed checkpoints in place Nothing exotic 3 months later he hit 100% At 6 months, he was at 121% What stayed with me is how close he came to being managed out for the wrong reason If I'd diagnosed skill instead of time allocation, the plan would have been more training The numbers wouldn't have moved, and the conclusion would have been that he couldn't do the job Most underperformance I've seen since has been one of four things: activity volume activity quality meeting quality, or pipeline conversion Each of them needs completely different conversations Figure out which one before you build the plan