Playing the field

by IainBate 24. January 2013 11:55

At a time of year when employees may look for a fresh start, Naysan Firoozmand explains how to keep talented personnel on side.

147542579 Pharmaceutical reps can usually spot a medical analogy from a mile away. On a recent online pharma discussion board one contributor reposted an article from the Gallup Business Journal, ‘Turning Around Employee Turnover’ – originally written by Jennifer Robinson in 2008. This article explored the available research into employee retention and how it can be used to identify key warning signs that organisations should look out for. The attention grabbing metaphor?

Sadly, too many managers have tied all the tourniquets around the wrong limbs, yet they’re wondering why their teams keep bleeding.

Or, to move slightly away from the world of triage and A&E, even the most potent remedy will not successfully deal with the patient’s symptoms if the underlying diagnosis is faulty. Nor will the HR equivalent of a ‘cure-all’ be any more effective than a placebo: if the presenting symptom is high turnover or repeated loss of key talents, the task is not to attempt a blanket cure, but to identify which of many potential complaints is triggering the organisational malaise.

Vision and strategy
The qualities that are readily admired in rising talents can often be out-of-step with those that the emerging leader’s followers are looking for. Indeed in its 2010 White Paper, The Leadership Challenge in the Pharmaceutical Sector, the Center for Creative Leadership identified ”having too narrow a functional orientation” as the greatest potential derailment factor for budding pharma executives.

While their own expertise and knowledge provide a shortcut to establishing trust within their organisations, technical knowledge is not all that is required of them. A successful leader needs to provide more: the ability to provide vision and strategy, the emotional intelligence to relate to others interpersonally and show a willingness to engage with them, and a desire to inspire achievement and attainment.

In the context of the pharmaceutical sector, they must also typically be able to communicate effectively and credibly with an audience that comprises highly intelligent and critical individuals working in various scientific, research and academic or supporting roles. Moreover, to do so requires them to effectively deploy emotional intelligence in an arena where intelligence and factual reasoning will often hold greater appeal than self- or social awareness, never mind self- or relationship management.
It’s not you, it’s me

Like any relationship scenario, whether they involve two people or many more, a high turnover rate or the loss of ‘someone special’ probably suggests there’s a problem. Perhaps a key member of staff really has found ‘someone new, someone truly special’ and your previously perfectly adequate contribution to their life and wellbeing simply can’t compare. Naturally, that stings a little at the time, but these things do happen: if you are seeking lifelong dedication and fidelity, swans would be a better proposition – although their sales skills would no doubt be highly questionable!

But, like any frequently dumped or jilted partner, an organisation that keeps finding itself on the receiving end of ‘the big elbow’ should start asking itself why this is a recurring pattern. There comes a point when it’s not them: it probably is you – although former employees might say otherwise during their exit interview. And at that point, the employer becomes both the question and the answer.

If you’ll excuse a further pun, engagement – and the factors that encourage it – provides some potent clues. In another Gallup report from 2002, A Hard Look at Soft Numbers, the article compared responses to Q12 Surveys across 308,987 employees from 10,885 organisations. Apart from, probably unsurprisingly, revealing that business units with high employee engagement have a 44% higher success rate – less turnover – than those with low engagement, its meta-analysis also showed 9 of its 12 factors as having ‘strongest positive correlations’ with retention. One further factor (recognition) has a ‘positive, generalised relationship’ – which it is probably arguable is stronger in the pharma sector, given the role that peer review plays in the development of individuals’ personal ‘portfolios’ and the importance of validation within the industry. Only two factors (having a best friend at work and having opportunities to learn and grow) were not clearly statistically proven.

Looking specifically at companies with sustained profitability and revenue growth, a commitment to quality and a working culture in which respondents strongly agreed that “at work, my opinions seem to count” both showed 20% improvement by comparison to the overall Gallup database.

Different challenges
Statistics, of course, speak in terms of generalisations. Each organisation will face different challenges, driven partly by their internal structure and culture and partly by sector-specific issues and general trading and operational environments. Leaders and managers who can provide clarity and cohesion around vision, mission and strategy have an important role to play: it is hard for anyone to engage with something that is nebulous, unclear or contradictory. Until organisations can answer the theoretical question ‘What do you want?’ it is impossible for companies to provide it no matter how willing, or otherwise, they might be.

Organisations can, to revisit the earlier relationship metaphor, help themselves by thinking of this stage as what might be called the ‘wooing’ period. The more clearly an organisation can explain what it is offering potential recruits and talented individuals – in terms of culture, opportunities and the recognition and reward practices that aren’t measurable in cash terms – the better the chances that it will not endure a series of unfruitful blind dates or tempestuous but short-lived flings. An industry that is built on research and product development processes with long timeframes is more dependent than most on not just the recruitment, but the retention of its key talents: the more honestly and transparently it can set out its stall, the better the prospects of a happier and more enduring outcome. While history may have shown us that successful scientific endeavour can often be a result of serendipity, life science companies should not, indeed cannot, rely on achieving success through mere chance – although they can create opportunities for serendipity amongst and between the individual talents that they procure.

Staying onside
This process – creating a compelling employee value proposition – doesn’t end when the contract is signed, however. Nor is it all about talking: it’s probably more about listening, the traditionally more neglected element of ‘communication’. Compelling is what compelling does, to rework a careworn phrase. And this listening extends to many other elements of broader talent management practice.

The pharmaceutical industry can be partly characterised by two motivational characteristics of those within it. The first, in many cases, is an altruistic wish to serve humanity by helping to eradicate diseases, treat symptoms and reduce distress and suffering. While altruistic tendencies may be out of place in many sectors, or at least poorly aligned with organisational missions, in the case of pharmaceuticals there should, surely, be a close degree of alignment with the organisation’s strategies and vision. As long, of course, as that element of the vision is clearly visible to those helping to work towards it.

The second characteristic – a desire to achieve professional recognition, often from peers in scientific practice who may be external to the organisation – may present a more difficult challenge in relation to talent retention. But an organisation that recognises the possible threat of departures to competitors and the importance of providing opportunities to shine may face fewer problems. And there’s an element to be learned from Cinderella, at least in terms of the role of job design and career progression pathways. Sometimes, no matter how much pressure might be applied to shoehorn one thing into another, it’s the shape of the shoe that needs to be adjusted rather than the foot.

Naysan Firoozmand is a Managing Consultant at ASK Europe plc.

Novartis names head of development

by emma 9. November 2011 10:27

© Novartis AG Building

Novartis has appointed Dr Timothy Wright as its new Global Head of Development.

Dr Wright joined the pharmaceutical company in 2004 and most recently served as Senior Vice President and Global Head of Translational Sciences at Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research (NIBR).

His previous positions include exploratory therapy area leader for Inflammation at Pfizer and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Eucomed leader receives IVEC award

by emma 7. November 2011 12:19

John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson (pictured), Chief Executive of Eucomed, has received a special Career award from the International Vascular and Endovascular Course (IVEC) in Milan.

The award recognises the medtech industry’s contribution to the development of vascular and endovascular surgery.

IVEC Chairman Giorgio Biasi presented the award to John Wilkinson to “honour the excellence of a distinguished scientist and eminent colleague who has contributed enormously in promoting, divulging and spreading culture, development and achievements in the field of vascular and endovascular techniques.”

Following the award presentation, Wilkinson gave the Edmondo Malan Lecture on ‘Development and Achievements in Endovascular Procedures as a Result of a Continuous and Ingenious Co-operation between Physicians and Industry’.

He discussed the long history of collaborative working between clinicians and industry over 200 years, with ideas from doctors and surgeons being developed by companies, culminating in such revolutionary devices as the drug-eluting stent.

Wilkinson also emphasised the need for innovation to be built on a platform of ethical interaction and transparency, and for industry to support education and training in the delivery of new therapies.

Finally, he drew attention to the demographic and economic challenges facing Europe’s health systems, and called for a collaborative approach between all stakeholders to support innovative solutions to these urgent problems.

Eucomed is the leading European medical technology industry association. It represents 4,500 designers, manufacturers and suppliers of medical technologies.

Burnham blasts ‘catastrophic’ reforms

by emma 28. October 2011 12:25

Andy Burnham

The top-down reorganisation of the NHS is David Cameron’s “biggest single mistake” during his time in office, Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham (pictured) has said.

Mr Burnham claims the decision to combine the challenge to make £20bn of efficiency savings at a time of the biggest reorganisation in the history of the NHS is a “catastrophic error of judgment” by the Coalition Government.

Bringing a day motion on the coalition’s record on the health service, he accused the Prime Minister of breaking promises to push through the Health Bill and using pre-election statements to “help the Conservatives win votes in marginal seats”.

“People will remember only too well, running up to the general election, the then leader of the opposition’s ostentatious shows of affection for the NHS,” said the MP for Leigh. “His airbrushed face on the posters and three very personal promises: real terms increases in every year in this Parliament; no A&E and maternity closures; no top-down re-organisation of the NHS.

“He protested his love for the NHS, and at photocall after photocall on the wards, routinely wore his heart on his sleeve. He was protesting a little too much and today we expose the hollowness of his promises.”

The Shadow Health Secretary added that if Mr Cameron continues with the Health Bill he will “ultimately pay a heavy price for it”. When speaking about his counterpart Andrew Lansley, Mr Burnham also claimed that the controversial Bill was “unravelling before his eyes” and that the health policy introduced by the Government was currently in a chaotic state.

Bill survives Lords votes

by emma 13. October 2011 12:54

Pf NHS News

The Health and Social Care Bill is set to continue its progress after the Government won two key votes in the House of Lords.

Peers voted 330 to 262 against an amendment to refer parts of the Bill to a special select committee and also rejected an amendment to block the legislation altogether.

Ministers say that the votes show the Bill now has wide spread support but the BMA has again called for it to be “withdrawn” or “substantially amended”.

A line by line examination of the Government’s controversial reforms will now begin in the House of Lords on 25 October. Labour has said it will again “fight” the proposals despite the outcome of the votes.

The amendment to block the Bill was put forward by Labour peer and former GP Lord Rea, who argued that it was never a manifesto by either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. It was rejected 354 votes to 220.

Attempts to delay the progress of the Bill, which Lord Howe said my “prove fatal” to the NHS, were tabled by two crossbench peers, Lords Owen and Hennessy. The two called for its referral to a special select committee, which would have allowed witnesses and experts to provide evidence on the proposals after concerns were raised about the responsibility of the health secretary and the role of the NHS’ regulator Monitor in promoting competition.

A spokesman for the DH says decision by Lords “moves us one step closer to delivering a world-class health service that puts patients at its heart and hands more power to health professionals”.

But Andy Burnham, Labour’s recently appointed Shadow Health Secretary, says hearts “sunk around the NHS” when the Bill survived the votes and the Government is “digging in for the long haul” as it faces more opposition.

Doctors’ leader Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of the BMA, says it continues to have concerns about “many areas” of the Bill and says the council will continue to raise its opposition “at every available opportunity”.

Dr Meldrum called for an assurance that patients’ choice of provider of care would not be given priority over the development of integrated services and fair access.

“We also need to see an explicit provision that the Secretary of State will retain ultimate responsibility for the provision of comprehensive health services. In addition, we continue to have significant concerns over the arrangements for public health and education and training and we will be looking to see improvements made in these areas too.”

Read more on this story on Medtech Business.

Andy Burnham returns as health team leader

by emma 7. October 2011 10:07

Andy Burnham

Shadow Health Secretary John Healey has been replaced by former health minister Andy Burnham (pictured) as the Labour Party prepares to oppose the NHS reforms.

The appointment follows Healey’s resignation in light of the Party’s decision to abandon cabinet and shadow cabinet elections.

Andy Burnham, MP for Leigh, is currently Education Secretary, but was Health Secretary for the last six months of the previous Government, and formerly worked as Culture Secretary.

Healey’s resignation was joined by Business Secretary John Denham after the Labour Party Conference approved leader Ed Miliband’s call to scrap Party rules regarding shadow cabinet elections and give the Party leader personal control over the selection of cabinet.

In his resignation letter to Ed Miliband, Healey claimed that family commitments were his reason to resign as shadow Health Minister.

New chair at Actelion

by emma 28. September 2011 15:00

Jean-Pierre Garnier

Actelion has appointed the experienced Jean-Pierre Garnier (pictured) as the Chairman of its Board of Directors.

Members of the board nominated Mr Garnier in favour of its existing chair Robert Cawthorn, who has held the position since the company’s inception.

Mr Cawthorn said he was grateful for the opportunity and is delighted that a “highly experienced and very successful leader with an unparalleled career in the healthcare industry” will lead the company.

Mr Garnier was the first CEO of GSK after its inception from 2001 to 2008. Prior to that, he served as President of Schering-Plough’s US business and served as CEO at Pierre Fabre Labs for two years after leaving Glaxo.

He has been awarded various accolades for his work in healthcare and also serves on the Boards of Directors of the United Technologies Corporation, Renault S.A, and Cerenis.

“I am extremely proud to have been nominated as Chairman of the Board of Actelion,” said Mr Garnier. “I'm very impressed with the company’s track record and its position today as Europe’s largest biopharmaceutical company.

He added that since joining the company earlier in the year, he has become “even more convinced” of the company’s capacity to transfer drug discovery into “meaningful therapeutic solutions”.

“Since joining the company this spring, I have become even more convinced of Actelion’s capacity to translate superior drug discovery into meaningful therapeutic solutions and long-term business success. I look forward to guiding the company in the next phase of its growth together with my fellow Board members, management and all the Actelion employees.”

Leadership’s struggle through the recession

by emma 26. September 2011 17:24

In times of economic turmoil, we are all feeling the pinch of our increasingly tightened belts, even those who are working in positions that are thought to be significantly safer.

In fact, recent statistics collected by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have revealed that business leaders are actually missing adequate leadership skills.

According to the CIPD’s survey, UK Highlights: Global Leadership Forecast, only a third (36%) of UK leaders and one in five (18%) of UK HR professionals rated the quality of leadership as ‘high’ at their own organisations. These figures are unsettling as leaders have admitted lacking the key qualities to encourage success in the workplace.

As we all know, effective leadership in pharma is important to managing a team and achieving success in long-term business strategies, especially as we have now apparently double dipped ourselves in the already soul-destroying recession. It just seems a shame that leaders don’t feel like they are sufficiently trained to be ‘leader of the pack’.

So why are leaders suddenly feeling self-conscious?

Maybe it’s the pressure? I’m sure that everyone has felt a knock of confidence since the recession began. So, leaders must truly feel the blunt of the blow as they try to muster enough poise to carry on and motivate their team. And it’s true. As a figurehead, the leader must represent their employees as one and motivate them through this dark time.

Of course, there remains many talented leaders in the marketplace - both within pharma and outside of it -  but as businesses tighten the purse strings, attracting them against a backdrop of fiscal prudence, is proving challenging. Companies are desperately seeking leaders with innovative ideas for growth - but finding and attracting them is another matter.

Vanessa Robinson, Head of HR Practice Development, CIPD, notes the predicament that we face, as “Leadership development budgets remain tight, particularly in the UK, yet effective leaders make a real difference to the success of organisations.”

So it seems the issue of leadership creates a catch-22 effect as we come to realise the importance and worth of great leadership to encourage business success but also struggle to find the money to fund it. Perhaps ‘speculate to accumulate’ should be our way of thinking when it comes to leadership in future? How would you rate the leadership at your organisation?

Leading the way

by emma 22. September 2011 09:53

Pf featured article

Every organisation strives to be successful and maximise the potential of its workforce. Apodi’s Tony Swift discusses how a solid strategic leadership model can help drive individual and corporate success.

For many years I felt that it was harder to define individual and team achievement in business than it was in sport, as there seemed to be no clear definition of success, or of winning, in the corporate world that individual employees could relate to and affect.

That was until I came across the definition of success given by John Wooden, the most successful American basketball coach of all time who was named Coach of the Century by ESPN, elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame, and even awarded the Presidential Medal Of Freedom.

His definition of success is as follows: “Success in coaching or playing should not be based on the number of games won or lost, but rather on the basis of what each individual did in comparison with others when taking into consideration individual abilities, the facilities with which you had to work, the calibre of the opponents and so on.

“True success only comes to an individual through the self satisfaction in knowing that you gave everything to become the very best that you are capable of. In the final analysis, only the individual himself can correctly determine his success. You may be able to fool others, but you cannot fool yourself.

“It is impossible to attain perfection, but that should be your goal. Less than 100% of your effort toward obtaining your objective is not success, regardless of how many games are won or lost.

“Others may have far more ability than you have, they may be larger, faster, quicker etc. but no-one should be superior in team spirit, loyalty, enthusiasm, cooperation, determination, industriousness, fight and character. Acquire and keep these traits and success should follow.”

Many observers, particularly those with the responsibility for delivering financial results to their bosses, their boards or their shareholders, may review this definition with a certain amount of cynicism. Indeed, they may find it difficult to relate to it given the pressures of their everyday lives and the nature of the results they are expected to achieve.

Five-star model

A closer inspection of the Wooden definition, and a careful analysis of where and how it can fit into the hard-edged world of business, shows that his opinion, rather than being somewhat irrelevant, should form the foundation stone of leadership practices at every level in all organisations – whether in business, sport or other enterprises.

A simple five-stage process for a model of leadership can be developed to drive success within organisations that builds on the definition given above: An exciting overall vision for the organisation can often energise it and help sustain motivation, focus, effort and productivity, as can the setting of regular and periodic goals.

However, the establishment of ridiculous visions and goals that are clearly not achievable is one sure way of totally demoralising an organisation. And sadly, this practice is more common than many people realise.

I have seen numerous examples of organisations establishing goals that were almost impossible to achieve. More often than not in business these are financial targets that the organisation insists on achieving, even though most realistic observers with the full facts would assess the chances of success, given the various constraints in play, as being virtually zero.

In some cases, leaders refuse to acknowledge that the problem is not the performance of the team or the individuals within it, but rather with their own goal setting. In such scenarios monthly meetings are held where the leader demolishes the team for under performance, resulting in a demoralised workforce and a total loss of respect for the team’s leadership.

The founding father of the study of management, Peter F Drucker, identifies how effective team leaders need to act and think if they are truly committed to the team’s success. He said: “The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I’. And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I’. They don’t think ‘I’. They think ‘we’; they think ‘team’.

They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don’t sidestep it, but ‘we’ gets the credit. This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.”

Essentially, leaders who talk ‘I’ rather than ‘we’, are normally either self-promoters, lacking in confidence and self belief, or actually fundamentally do not understand the function of leadership.

I have often mentioned in this series of articles about the importance of the recruitment process in establishing effective organisations. It follows that establishing an effective recruitment process and selecting the very best possible candidates for the team is critical.

Of course, many leaders do have constraints within which they need to work. The most obvious constraint – but by no means the only one – is the availability of finance. For example, in the Premier League, Manchester City’s net spend – players bought less than players sold – has been more than £400m between 2006 and 2011.

Compare this with that of their near neighbours Blackburn Rovers whose net spend in the same period has been minus £35m. Given this vast gulf in spending ability, it is clear to see that Manchester City is in a far better position to access talented players. As a consequence, it would be unfair to judge the respective merits of both teams’ leadership as though on a level playing field.

Similar constraints exist in business and all that can be expected of any leader is to recruit the best people given the constraints that exist.

It is important that terms such as the ‘very best’ should be defined and communicated in a clear and concise way. In helping to achieve this, a leader should focus on the process of improvement and not on the ultimate goal. This empowers the leader to make a valuable contribution to an individual’s success – every minute of the day.

Many people find the transition from team member to leader difficult. They find it distinctly uncomfortable to be in a position where the efforts of others take precedence.

However, more adept leaders understand that a key role is that of a teacher and, as put by John Wooden, they “must never forget that he is, first of all a teacher. He must be present, diagnose and correct. He must continuously be exploring ways to improve himself in order that he may improve others...”

Effective leaders must ensure there are processes in place for planning, preparation, practice and performance. Within these processes should be a focus on continuous improvement. This has become a feature in modern business life since it was popularised by Japanese industry, where it is known as ‘Kaizen’.

The goal is to improve processes and products over time, taking care to maintain improved performance levels while seeking out further opportunities for improvement. Whilst very powerful, I have to say that I have seen very few successful continuous improvement programmes in business and even fewer that are truly focused on the improvement of an individual’s performance.

However, in sport, continuous improvement is a necessary process conducted by all top performers. For example, Johnny Wilkinson ensured that he was coached by the best kicking coaches in the world and practised hard to achieve perfection. “Each week leading up to the big day, I hit about 250 to 300 practice place kicks alone. I average 200 to 250 punts using my left foot and exactly the same number using my right. A daily total of 20 dropped goals with each foot and 15 to 20 restarts, six to seven times a week, would pretty much constitute a solid pre-preparation build-up. That makes a total of about 1,000 kicks to prepare for just 20 – kicks in the game. That’s near enough 50 rehearsals for each single defining event,” said Wilkinson.

The important point to note here is that the review process is not a biannual appraisal, but a constant and consistent review process that is focused on improvement.

Born to lead

We have all heard the statement, ‘they were born to lead’. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases, leaders are made and not born – that is they have to learn the art of leadership – it is not an innate talent that exists in just a few.

I believe a great starting point on this learning process is to adopt the fundamental definition of success created by John Wooden – it focuses all of us on looking to make the best use of our talents and for those in leadership positions to assist others in doing the same.

Tony Swift Tony Swift is the Managing Director of Apodi.

The right results

by emma 26. July 2011 17:10

Pf featured article In his latest article exploring the dynamics of high performance in the workplace, Apodi’s Tony Swift examines how line-managers have the power to determine whether teams are successful or not. Drawing on his own experiences, he discusses what makes a great manager and leader, and why measurements of success are so important.

According to Tom Peters, the renowned business guru, the number one source of dissatisfaction amongst employees is the quality, or lack of it, of the first-line management in companies, sports teams or organisations. For many employees not even the best pay and conditions in the world will make it tolerable to work for a bad manager.

The varying quality of management is a little surprising given the fact that most employees will quickly make their own assessment of the quality of management in the team they work for and, if asked, will readily give their opinion.

It is seemingly more difficult for senior management to make this assessment because there are considerable variations in the quality of first-line management and organisational structures may make it difficult to see where problems may lie. Yet it might be that assessing quality by senior management is not the problem per se. It could be that inertia and an underestimation of the important role that first-line management plays which enables poor management to exist in some companies in the first instance.

Throughout my own sporting and business career I have been fortunate to be managed by superb coaches and captains at various times. Conversely, I have seen some very poor attempts at leadership – even at the most senior levels. Superb coaches and captains have a habit of getting the very best out of the talent at their disposal. The first England international rugby captain I played with was Bill Beaumont. Bill had a number of attributes that made him ideal for leadership, including fearlessness, humility, amiableness and empathy. Even the most senior players within the team listened to him and respected him. When he retired England missed his leadership and for a number of years went through a very unproductive and unsuccessful time.

Therefore one of the most significant strategic business decisions any company makes is who to promote or recruit into management. For an organisation to make the most appropriate hiring decisions for management, a good starting point is to first of all identify what good managers actually do.

What great managers do

Here are just some of the practices implemented, and excelled at, by great managers:
1. Recruiting the right team – this is key to ongoing success. I have discussed recruitment in previous articles in Pharmaceutical Field, so please take a look at these for more ideas on this subject.

2. Setting the direction – simply put, people need to understand specifically what is expected of them and how they will be measured. Research undertaken by Apodi shows that this is not always the case. Many pharmaceutical companies are establishing Market
Access teams and Key Account Management teams to address the new healthcare economy. However, those that are being successful have very clearly identified the role of these teams, how they should operate, be measured, and constantly communicate the benefits internally to the rest of the organisation.

3. Enforce results, manage activities – successful sales people within the same teams often deliver required results through different types of behaviour and activities. If a manager attempts to standardise these approaches it may result in blunting much of the talent within the team. Good managers need to understand when to stand back and let the sales people deliver in the way which best works for them.

4. Making tough decisions – all managers at some stage in their career find that one of their reports is not going to make it. Good managers find this out quickly and act immediately. Poor managers let the problem fester – the effect of this is to undermine performance in the business and also undermine the manager’s standing within the team. Good employees tend to know when poor performing employees are being tolerated,
which can be incredibly damaging. That is because high performing employees tend to share a sense of mutual accountability which gives employees and teams the confidence they need to take on more challenging tasks. This is just not possible with poor performing
people. At its extreme, I have seen certain teams almost take it out of the manager’s hands and rid the team of poor performers when and if a manager prevaricates.

5. Work on strengths, not weaknesses – whilst it is possible to improve people’s weaknesses through coaching and mentoring, the improvements are often minimal. Many organisations waste considerable resources in this area and better returns can be realised
by:

• focussing on people’s strengths

• designing the organisation in such a way that the strengths of an individual are maximised and the weaknesses minimised.

Figure 1 (see below) highlights some top-line research on the effectiveness of individual business development executives within a team. Each executive was marked out of five (1=poor-5=very effective) for different but relevant talents.

The research highlighted a number of factors. Each individual had particular strengths and weaknesses apart from Executive 1 who was a strong all-rounder. Rather than working on individual weaknesses it was decided that it would be more effective if the executives worked in a team environment – rather than as individuals – where their strengths could be maximised and weaknesses eliminated. The research also showed a general weakness in
the prospecting area and, rather than attempting to train people to be more effective in this area, it was agreed to recruit a new executive with specific prospecting skills.

6. It’s always ‘show time’– a number of the above practices are viewed as ‘hard edged’. Great managers complement these practices with the softer skills necessary to motivate team members. For example, making tough decisions is only respected by team members
when these decisions are fair and in the interest of the team as a whole – being tough for the sake of it wins no support or respect from fair minded people.

Great managers also know there is no let up – they are on ‘show’ all of the time as far as team members are concerned. This means displaying all of the traits they want displayed by their team members – hypocrisy just does not work in management.

Why measurement matters

If the key practices above are put in place and actively pursued, then high performance is the likely outcome. There are examples of this in every walk of life. Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager of Manchester United Football Club, implements these practices and displays
these attributes, which has resulted in a hugely successful career. From my own point of view, I have found it difficult to identify any high performing team where managers do
not display these practices, whether in commerce, sport or the charity sector. However, not all managers are in such high profile roles that their performance is there for all to
see. This is why it is so important for managerial qualities and competencies to be valuated against measurable criteria.

Measuring manager performance

When I review how managers are measured, it is rare to see all of these practices being part of the assessment process. I believe organisations would be well served by incorporating ways of measuring managers’ performance in their existing assessment processes in the following areas:

• The ability to recruit effectively
• Establishing the right direction for the team
• Enforcing results and managing activities – only when necessary
• Making tough decisions if required
• Coaching ability – focusing on strengths
• Having the ability to carry the team with you.

Measuring team performance

A common scenario we are seeing in pharmaceutical companies is where they establish a Key Account Management team and Market Access team but are then unsure as to how
well these teams are performing and whether or not the investment has been worth it. It is critical that they know the answers to these questions.

The primary reason companies are unable to answer is because they have not developed a measurement system the organisation trusts sufficiently in order to base decisions on. Market Access teams are typically established in pharmaceutical companies some 6-12 months prior to a launch of a product. Normally the role of this team is to create a favourable environment with the NHS to ensure maximum sales when the product is launched. Clearly in the first 6-12 months prior to launch there is no sales data and therefore the ultimate measure of success does not exist.

The company’s strategy has to be clearly defined and the team’s performance needs to be measured against this. It will usually be a mixture of quantitative inputs and qualitative
outputs. The reliance on qualitative outputs with its heavy reliance on subjectivity means that a company can only entrust the management of this to extremely competent, talented and experienced managers.

Getting it right

Pharmaceutical companies routinely make multi-million pound investments in the deployment of teams. As the guardians of such investments, the team management has to embrace, and be adept at implementing, the practices we have looked at. Therefore, not only is selecting the right management vital to success, but so is putting in place ongoing assessment of key practices.

An effective, results-based management process demands both superb management and effective monitoring in equal measure. It is likely that only when these particular conditions are in place, will true high team performance be achieved.

 

figure

image  Tony Swift is the Managing Director of Apodi.

TextBox

Tag cloud

RecentPosts

Calendar

<<  May 2013  >>
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789

View posts in large calendar