The Hotel Russell, Bloomsbury, sets the scene as Detective Inspector Pinching pulls up two tan leather armchairs for another caffeine-laced exchange. The man he’s facing is GSK’s Director, Academic Liason, CBE and Harry Redknapp-tormentor, Malcolm Skingle.

It’s bloody freezing. I need a chat that’s going to warm my cold editor’s heart. I arrive, and an incredibly enthusiastic woman leads me into the upmarket reception room of this legendary bed and breakfast establishment. Malcolm has the relaxed expression of a man who has stayed in practically every hotel on Trip Advisor. It was time to talk about football, erm, I mean pharma.

Hello Malcolm, what’s your story?

I trained as a pharmacologist and this defined the first half of my career, before I eventually started running a research group. I was fortunate to be part of a great department and during my time in the labs we discovered and developed some ground-breaking medicines including, Zantac, Trandate, Salbutamol, Salmeterol, Imigran and Zofran. After 20 years of bench science, I went to work at the interface of academia and industry, and this is an area I now know well. In the past the interactions between universities, medical schools, funders and pharma were clunky, and the challenge has been to vastly improve these vital relationships.

What exactly does your job involve?

I leverage science that helps underpin what GSK is doing. That might involve a technology that the company needs to drive one of its programmes, or talking to the head of a funding agency about working together on a certain scientific topic. I’ll form collaborations with anybody, either carrying out or funding good science; this includes government departments, charities such as the Wellcome Trust, the research councils and universities. We have academic collaborations in around 50 UK universities and interact with educational institutions in over 25 other countries.

How has your role changed over the years?

Universities and pharma companies are now far more open to collaboration. Twenty years ago big pharma would work in secret and not share information and best practice. We used to be fat cats, and money wasn’t an issue, but things have changed quite dramatically as companies try to get their research budgets to stretch further. We now work together in consortia, underpinning in-house efforts. The Structural Genomics Consortium, Dundee signalling consortium and EU Innovative Medicines Initiative are all collaborations where several pharma companies fund joint projects and share information. This type of activity will increase in the future as we collectively create the new knowledge required to develop new medicines.

What is your relationship like with the ABPI?

I sit on the Innovation Board and chair their academic liaison group. GSK takes the lead in several areas and we use it to share best practice. Pooling knowledge and data is positive for the industry.

How pivotal is the ABPI’s role in terms of reform?

They’ve got big responsibilities when it comes to collating messages from different pharma companies, who may not always have identical views on certain topics. Stephen Whitehead works hard to collate and articulate a consensus view.

Where do you stand on Ben Goldacre (metaphorically speaking)?

I’ve never met him, but I’d like to. The industry gets a bit beaten up in his book, but I do agree that we need to build greater trust with both the public and media. You need radicals like Ben Goldacre to make people rethink certain issues. I joined Glaxo straight from school; did my degree and PhD through the organisation and, in 40 years, I can put my hand on my heart and swear on my children’s lives, that I have never seen anything unethical.

How important is transparency and sharing information?

Companies are at different stages of wanting to share. Our Chief Executive, Andrew Witty, is a great leader and the sort of guy you would follow over the wall into battle. He was the first pharma chief exec to say that we’re going to publish all our clinical trial data. Some other companies aren’t quite there yet, but I am sure they will come around in the near future. It is vitally important to share data with other scientists, so that it can be validated.

GSK seems like an organisation that likes to be ‘out there’

We’re easily the most visible pharma company at the academic-industry interface and we have more collaborations than anyone in the country. This includes, not only pharma, but also companies from other sectors like aerospace and energy. Every two years the ABPI collect the data from all UK pharma, and GSK publish it. Part of my mission is to go around talking about what we do and I am passionate about GSK being transparent, our great science and being a good partner.

What partnership venture are you most excited about?

We’ve got an open access lab in Tres Cantos, Madrid, working on diseases in the developing world. This includes high containment facilities for pathogens, 120 GSK scientists and the capacity to take an additional 60 outsiders. The open access agreements mean that if someone has a bright idea for treating malaria or TB, for example, you can go there and have access to our chemistry and drug development technology. We’re serious about making a difference.

What successes have emerged from this project?

Five of our scientists screened two million compounds, by hand, in order to find leads against the deadliest malaria parasites. We then published a database last year containing all the 13,500 structures, which anybody can access as potential leads. Over 80% of these were proprietary and discovered by GSK. We want to share, as we can’t possibly carry out all the science connected with something like malaria on our own, so we stimulate interest in order to take a drug through. It’s been so successful that MMV (Medicines for Malaria Venture) has provided our compounds to more than 100 labs around the world. People feel proud to work for the company because of that.

Tell me more about what you’re doing with the universities

The most fruitful thing we do is post-doc collaborations that involve intellectual inputs from both the academics and us. We will also, at any one time, have around 250 PhDm studentships, which we co-fund with the research councils.

Are GSK keen to continue operating in the UK?

We’ve got a chief executive who is British, he’s Chancellor of Nottingham University and we’ve got our headquarters in Brentford. Does that sound like a company that’s just about to bugger off to New Jersey?

Malcolm, you’re clearly on the road a lot how do you strike the old work/life balance?

My wife is very understanding – I earn reasonable money and she’s good at spending it – and I’ve got two wonderful daughters. I love sport and used to play semi-pro football in the Isthmian League, and that has helped me to apply myself 100% to everything I do.

Hold on, who did you play for?

Firstly, Bishop Stortford – my home town – then Borehamwood for six years, before the company moved me to Greenford, and I joined Kingstonian. When they moved me back again, I played for Hertford. We had a few cup runs at Borehamwood, drawing at home with Swindon Town in the FA Cup, and losing the replay 2-0; we also won the league with 103 points. I don’t think that total has ever been beaten.

What position did you play?

I was a winger and also used to score goals, playing off a big man. When I got slower I drifted into central midfield.

Did you encounter any big names?

Yeah, I would regularly play against people, either on their way up or coming back down, like Gordon Hill, who was at Southall and went on to play for Manchester United and England. Sometimes I think I’m dreaming it, but when Bobby Moore finished playing and West Ham more or less dumped him, he managed the Oxford City team that I scored against. I remember it was pouring down with rain that day and Harry Redknapp was playing for them, just before his managerial career took off.

When I arrive at our agreed location (14 minutes early), I notice that the PM Society’s Anneliese Cameron (General Manager) and Carys Thomas Ampofo (Communications) have already had a coffee and been perusing the last two editions of the rebooted Pf mag. It’s a relief to know these ladies are alert and of uncommonly good taste. As I undrape my burgundy scarf, I realise that I am on the threshold of something rather wonderful. I order more coffee (the card machine is broken and the till guy is unapologetic – I rise above it) and begin the interrogation.

What do you think of the relaunched Pf ?
Carys: How much are you paying us?
As much as it takes.
Anneliese: I think it’s really refreshing to see a pharma mag with a consumer feel to it, and it’s lovely to focus on individuals. It’s got a real community feel.

Enough about me. What role will pharma play, as reform starts to unfold?
Carys: There are opportunities for all the healthcare industries to really help the reform process by not just providing and supporting treatments, but bringing experience from the private sector in order to understand processes, especially at a local level and with joint working.
Anneliese: It’s all about perception and, ultimately, we’re all patients. In the mainstream press there is a lot of negativity but, actually, pharma does a hell of a lot of good and that will continue to emerge in the next few years.

What does pharma need to do, in order to start hanging out with the NHS on equal terms?
Carys: Pharma needs to get smarter. Pharma personnel have to establish the same level of knowledge as the people they are talking to within the NHS. They must understand local needs, the role they can play in improving patient outcomes and how their product might fit into the bigger picture. One of the biggest challenges in the UK is where companies are expected to deliver campaigns that have been developed at a global level. There is no such thing as one size fits all now.

What is the PM Society doing to help people improve their performance?
Anneliese: The PM Society has undergone a period of modernisation in the last 12 months. It has identified some key areas of healthcare marketing that are hot topics at the moment, including market access, NHS partnerships, personal career development, digital platforms and patient engagement. With an interest group in each of these areas, led by an expert in the field, we are looking at providing the information, content and education which tackles those challenges. The role of today’s marketer has changed; there needs to be a much more fundamental understanding of all aspects of the industry, whatever role you work in.
Carys: It’s really important to get everyone that is involved in the drug development process switched on to health technology and marketing needs early on in the trial stages. You will then get the information that is appropriate to support the product, when you actually bring it to market. When the marketers at a national or global level release promotional material they also need to appreciate that the sales rep needs flexibility in how they canvas the information. This requires a significant cultural change.

Can changing a company’s ethos get results?
Carys: The most forward-thinking companies I have worked with in healthcare communications are those that bring everyone around the table, as part of a brand planning team, allowing contributions from all areas of the business and developing a strategy that suits everyone. I worked on one project with Daiichi Sankyo where this approach was put into practice brilliantly.
Anneliese: Yes, they’ve also really embraced info-sharing technology and all its sales staff have an iPad. It’s about presentation; doctors like to see how medication actually works, and what the benefits are for their practice and patients. This is much more exciting if it comes from an iPad rather than a flip chart. These days marketers need to be digital pioneers.

What have been the notable landmarks for the PM Society in the last year?
Anneliese: Personally speaking it would be taking the role of General Manager; a position that the PM Society has never had before. The organisation has been around for 30 years, but it needed to change from primarily a social entity into a forwardthinking, innovative organisation with a solid grounding in business.
Carys: It was a question of drawing a line in the sand, saying, ‘how can we meet our members’ needs in 2013, not 1983’, and preparing the Society for the next 30 years. We now offer greater flexibility, more visibility and, since 2005, marketing-specific modern training programmes, which really make a difference.
Anneliese: In the past we were perceived as bit of a club. But now we are a valued, completely independent organisation run by a voluntary executive committee and dynamic office team.

Do pharma employees regard the PM Society as a support system for their development?
Anneliese: Very much so. We are a none profit organisation, so they don’t feel like there is any pressure from a corporation. We provide impartial advice without charging a fortune for events and content. For me, it’s about making a positive difference during this exciting new phase. Members will also benefit from a partnership agreement we have just signed with the ABPI, which recognises the opportunities to communicate with pharma professionals at all levels.

Your recent market access gig, which I attended, was refreshingly enthusiastic about the possibilities of joint working and breaking down boundaries.
Carys: The meeting was a great example of how the PM Society can help pharma companies develop their skills to meet the changing market. The key experts and experienced speakers from the NHS made pharma employees start thinking about the possibilities of working with public sector colleagues. People attending definitely demonstrated a desire to form positive partnerships; they want to make things happen. It’s also about spreading the word, because inspirational partnerships between the NHS and pharma companies are already happening.

Your awards tend to recognise companies that have demonstrated positivity and teamwork.
Anneliese: The Advertising Awards are about creativity, but it’s also deeper. We examine the campaigns and look at what the outcomes were for both the companies and patients, and how effective those campaigns were in capturing public imagination and making a difference. We also have the only healthcare-specific Digital Media Awards, which last year saw a 30 per-cent increase in entries.

What nuts are you looking forward to cracking in the next 12 months?
Anneliese: I want us to dig deeper into pharma and raise awareness, not to a few individuals in a company, but the entire workforce. We’re very ambitious about creating a real community, which embraces all areas of healthcare. We’re also really keen to introduce ABPI members to our services.

Right ladies, I’m bringing the tone down. You both have high-pressured jobs, what do you do to relax?
Carys: I don’t really have much time to relax! I have three daughters, of six years and under, and have also found myself Chair of the Parent Staff Association (PSA) at their school.

Is that much different to the the PM Society?
Carys: Yes, but the politics are 100 times worse! Being a mother is very much part of who I am; it’s a really difficult balance, as a working woman; giving quality time to your family and also working productively. Intellectual stimulation is really important; I think I’d go mad if I had to spend every day with my children! In the future it would be great to see more professional flexibility for women.

How do you chillax, Anneliese?
Anneliese: I love rugby. I’m a big supporter of Dorking Rugby Club, who my son plays for. My partner is Welsh, so my allegiances have switched a bit, and last year I went to the Millenium Stadium for the first time, to watch Wales vs Italy [John’s internal voice – ‘Traitor!’] I’ve got two dogs and I love walking in the Surrey Hills. My partner recently launched Tillingbourne Brewery, so I help to promote cask ale in my spare time.

Will you be drinking the profits?
Anneliese: There’ll be plenty of market research!

On that note, do you think it’s important that pharma recruits more people from the ‘outside’?
Anneliese: I spent 15 years in the music business. I worked for Polygram [now Universal], on the classical side, during the ‘Three Tenors’ period. Although I didn’t know much about pharma and healthcare when I started, I knew a lot about marketing. I remember in my first year of running the PMEA, at a reception with Rob Wood (then a director at AstraZeneca). He asked me where I came from and, when I told him, he said, ‘that’s fantastic, we need more people from different industries’. Nowadays pharma is bringing talent from other sectors, and that’s really important, because they provide such a range of different attributes. Marketing, advertising and PR skills can always be adapted to a new environment.

You don’t necessarily need to know the secret ‘pharma’ handshake anymore.
Carys: I think it’s changed for the better, and it’s brought fresh thinking. If you only have people from a regulated system it can hinder creativity. Some of the best people I’ve worked with, in pharma, have come from outside, with fresh, exciting perspectives.

To get involved with the PM Society go to www.pmsociety.org.uk.

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

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.

As Valentine’s Day nears, pharmaceutical sales professionals may feel tempted to blend work and romance. But is an office affair the sugar or the strychnine in your coffee?

We spend more time at work than awake in any other place. The office environment brings people into contact for 30 to 40 hours every week. That’s the equivalent of a long weekend, at least in clock terms. And the office clock is bigger than any clock you’ll see at home. As winter thaws into a bright and breezy spring, what could be more natural than a touch of office romance?

The vital statistics are persuasive. According to the recruitment website careerbuilder.com, four in ten workers have dated a colleague – and of those, three in ten ended up living with that person. And you thought having a shared Tupperware box in the company fridge was taking a chance.

The advantages of dating a colleague are obvious. In a busy life, it makes dates easy to arrange, it ensures that you spend plenty of time together. It also ensures that your lover understands your working life and that the two of you have some common interests and experience. And... no, that’s it.

The disadvantages – where do you start? It’s like taking two drugs that have contraindications a mile high. Love is a fatal distraction from work. Work is a fatal distraction from love. It’s near-impossible to be apart from someone you share an office with – great if they are your world, but (sorry to break this to you) life’s not always like that. A bust-up could break not only your heart but your career.

So are you willing to jeopardise your health, income and happiness? Are you willing to look like a fool, cry into your keyboard, and have your manager feel sorry for you? Are you willing to break the 11th commandment (Thou defo shalt not get frisky with a workmate)? Are you willing to confuse the professional and the personal against all rules of corporate conduct and private good sense?
As HR love to tell us, every challenge is an opportunity.

Tender proposals
Let’s examine a couple of case studies. Firstly, Mike and Claudia (names changed to protect the not so innocent) of Munchkin Pharma. These two talented young professionals worked in separate departments: Mike in sales, Claudia in marketing. That ensured regular contact but also lots of time apart, and soon their meetings developed a subtext. Within a few weeks, the subtext had become the text. When they accidentally on purpose met in the kitchen, the text was reduced to captions under pictures better not described. Then Mike fell out with his manager and left the company. Claudia moved in with him, and her enthusiasm for the job waned. Within a month, she had gone too.

Maxine says: 8 out of 10 for romance – I’m docking one point for the kitchen routine, and another point for being too cute. 2 out of 10 for professional conduct – that’s one point each for managing to remember where you worked.

Secondly, Liz and Aaron of Yellow Brick Road Pharma (company name changed to maintain professional confidentiality). These two experienced professionals were a couple before they worked together. Liz, a sales manager at YBR, wangled a freelance web design role for Aaron. All went well until Aaron and a female sales colleague (who shall remain nameless) developed an especially close working relationship. After reading a text from Nameless on Aaron’s iPhone, Liz announced a ‘clear desk policy’ in the office and handed the two miscreants the fragments of their shattered desktop computers in matching bin liners.
Maxine says: nothing.

Code of misconduct
To live outside the law you must be honest. Or as my line manager usually puts it, we need some rules here. Based on frank dialogue with colleagues (during the staff Xmas party), and on bitter experience (following said party), here are Maxine’s 10 tips for a successful, sustainable and survivable office romance.

1. Don’t date the boss. Not ever. If you do, you’re finished both personally and professionally. And that includes flirting. Don’t engage in idle conversation about how James Spader and Maggie Gyllenhaal are your favourite screen actors, then innocently remark “Oh yes, and they made a film together...” Don’t leave a well-thumbed copy of 50 Shades of Grey on your manager’s desk with your name, mobile number and MSN account details in it.

2. Don’t go too fast. Romance is not a time and motion study, and you’re not being assessed on productivity. Resist the temptation to place your dates on the department’s schedule. Don’t suggest meetings to set targets for the partnership and draw up a list of action points.

3. Keep it outside the office. No touching, no ‘quiet word’ chats, no typing ‘I love you’ in Morse code on your secret other’s computer. Romance and work are mutually hostile programs: don’t mix them on your system. However, that doesn’t mean you should maintain poker-faced indifference towards your SO in the workplace. A smile, a discreet “Hi” and a readiness to pick up signals (if your lover gouges your name out of the staff list in the signing-in book, that’s often a bad sign) can go a long way.

4. Don’t let booze drive the agenda. If you only want your SO when you’re drunk, it’s the bottle you’re dating. If that’s the way you want it, fine – but don’t fool yourself it’s a romance. The office gives you an opportunity to assess your feelings towards your SO while sober. If the result makes you want to drink, go and drink alone.

5. Maintain a solo working routine. Don’t engineer situations where you and your SO work together. Few intimate relationships and fewer jobs flourish on those terms. Don’t let your romance drive your working day. If all you can think about is when you will next see your SO and exchange meaningful glances, get a life.

6. Don’t let technology be your cupid. Sending private e-mails or Skype messages under cover of work is a major waste of your time and attention. Imagine making the same effort to contact a meercat on Mars – that’s how stupid it is. (And if that thought turns you on, you are ill.) Besides, technology sets the wrong tone: romance is about male and female (or female and female, or male and male), not e-mail and voicemail.

7. Let technology be your cupid. Romance, like sales, calls for good timing. In your own time, use the magic of telecommunications to source romantic items and services and to set up the perfect delivery. From overnight trips to picnic hampers (see page 22 for some ideas), from flowers to Byronic poetry, Google will put arrows in your bow.

8. Keep your dignity. Nowhere in the office is soundproof. Not for a ‘quiet word’, certainly not for an argument, and absolutely not for intimacy. Sex on a desk isn’t naughty, it’s just sad. And uncomfortable.

9. Have an exit strategy other than resigning. If the romance ends, make sure neither of you is harmed professionally. Resist any temptation to make working life difficult for your ex-SO: that will lose you the sympathy of your colleagues. Like a working relationship, an affair has to be wound up in a way that leaves both parties ready to accept the past and move on. Alternatively, there’s violence.

10. There are no short cuts. Don’t treat your romance like a service contract. Don’t use NLP in the bedroom. Above all, don’t regard patience as a ‘nice-to-have’ that you can sacrifice to the god of efficiency. Hasty, distracted and routine liaisons corrupt your heart with the ethos of the office – the worst crime of all.

APODI’S Jan Cox examines the importance of focusing on individuals’ strengths and talents when recruiting.

Over the past decade, Gallup has surveyed more than 10 million people worldwide on the topic of employee engagement, and only one-third “strongly agree” with the following statement: “At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.” A natural conclusion is that in an average organisation, approximately two-thirds of employees do not believe they are maximising the talents they have.

The repercussions of such a massive waste of talent – for the economy, for individual organisations, and to the quality of life of every one of those employees – is mind blowing. When attempting to explain to our clients the impact that such a scenario has on performance, we suggest that they explore this by changing the roles of a small number of employees to maximise their talents. The results are usually dramatic. We then ask the organisation to consider these outcomes if they were to be extrapolated across the whole company.

Implications for recruitment

The implications of such findings for recruitment, development and promotion strategies are significant. At Apodi, we have built a recruitment model that incorporates four key attributes that we test when recruiting every individual. These are: strengths/talent, competencies, cultural fit and mental toughness. Most companies traditionally recruit on competencies (i.e. what people can do) rather than on strengths/talent (what they are really good at, have a passion for and are usually inherent within an individual). The problem with recruiting based solely on competencies is that organisations risk hiring people that can do something, but may have no real inclination to do it. They may lack passion or excitement, display little energy for their work and therefore underperform. This results in disengaged employees who are unlikely to stay with a company for long.

Conversely, those companies that have adopted a strengths/talent-based approach to recruiting are showing dramatic results. Banks in the US are seeing significant increases in sales revenue from representatives recruited based on strengths. Financial services companies in the UK are reporting ‘improvements in quality and lower staff turnover’, and Starbucks have established a clear link between recruiting for strengths/talent and customer satisfaction.

The benefits can be summarised as follows:

Talent , competencies and strengths

The link between talent, competencies and strengths is simple: talent + competencies (knowledge/skill) = strengths. Talent can be defined as those capabilities that individuals naturally exhibit based on experiences and knowledge usually gained in early life, or those that an individual seems to be ‘born with’.

Talent can obviously be displayed in diverse circumstances, however, wherever it is utilised, it gives individuals energy and enthusiasm. Knowledge and skills are those things that are learned, studied and practiced. When combined with innate talent, skills and knowledge can be converted into real strengths. It is these strengths which drive performance. It is because of this causal link that leading recruitment organisations recommend that clients assess talent and competencies separately and as part of a strength-based assessment process.

How to assess for strengths

A strengths-based selection process has many similarities with that used for assessing for competencies. There are, however, some fundamental aspects which must clearly focus on the strengths of an individual. Assessing for strengths can be summarised as follows:

a) Strength-based role profile

A company can develop the profile by reviewing organisational structure and business strategy, developing performance criteria for the role in question, and studying the best performers in the role to identify the strengths that are contributing to success.

To help identify and define the strengths it is seeking, organisations can turn to experts in this field for guidance. For example, Tom Rath in his book Strength Finder identifies 34 particular strengths that may be important in different roles in commercial organisations. For instance, a company looking to recruit sales representatives may identify the following strengths as being the key to success in the role:

• Achiever/results focus – real focus on results, targets,completing tasks, meeting deadlines
• Empathy – identifying with customers and seeing what is important from their perspective
• Resilience –dealing with rejection and setbacks easily and moving forward positively
• Self confidence – strong self belief in own abilities
• Initiative – working independently and taking important decisions quickly to make things happen
• Communication – bringing propositions to life through effective communication.

b) Strength-based profiling tool

An appropriate profiling tool should be used to assess the key strengths of each individual applicant and how well they fit the selection criteria. The report generated can then be used as part of the strength-based interview.

c) Strength-based interviews and assessment centres

Fundamentally, interviews and assessment centres need to be focused on how individuals have previously
used their strengths to achieve success in their business and personal lives. In addition, they should also explore whether:

• The aspirations each individual has for the future
  are consistent with the strengths they display
• The individual will be able to apply the strengths
  they have to the specific challenges the company
  faces and the challenges of the role.

d) Review and measurement process

Recruitment decisions are among the most important that management can make and yet recruitment is one of the most ‘under’ managed processes in corporate life. It is rarely subject to stringent review and measurement, and consequently many ineffective and unsuccessful recruitment processes remain in place. Those more enlightened companies considering strength-based recruitment should ensure that new processes are reviewed and measured systematically and regularly. This will drive a system of continuous improvement and encourage buy-in from senior management and the organisation as a whole.

Conclusion

A reliance on purely competency-based processes for recruitment decisions is almost certain to ensure suboptimal recruitment decisions and, ultimately, sub-optimal performance. However, world-class recruitment processes are a strategic imperative for a company’s future success. Not only has the strengths/talent model been shown to add value to recruitment decisions, it can be a catalyst for performance improvement across any organisation.

The Health & Social Care Bill has finally completed its arduous passage through parliament. In normal circumstances, the landmark of Royal Assent would provide a key moment of clarity for the future of the healthcare in the UK. But this is the NHS – and nothing is ever that simple. Whichever way you look, the health service is bedevilled by variability. NHS Alliance CEO Mike Sobanja and Cegedim Relationship Management’s David Round look at the implications of the Bill for industry in the next 12 months.

The Health & Social Care Bill has, as we all suspected it would, survived the onslaught and made the statute book. But the hard work really does start here. In truth, implementation of the reforms on the ground began many months ago – but the process will continue for some years to come. It is a time of great uncertainty for NHS and industry alike. We now have official confirmation of where we are heading, but do we really know how we are going to get there? And with health need omnipresent, what should we be doing to protect the needs of patients today as we journey towards the health system of tomorrow? The wider call is for more collaborative working between the industry and the NHS. And there is much that the industry can do to support the significant challenges its customers face.

So where are we now? And what do pharmaceutical companies, facing an NHS in flux and customer groups in transition, need to do to support the health service and drive improvements in care? At a time of uncertainty, the industry must first do two things: follow the law, and follow the money.

Following the law and the money
At the moment – in law – we still have the presence of 151 Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). These are, of course, clustering together, while alongside them a high number of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are steadily being established. For now, however, PCTs remain legally responsible for the delivery of healthcare services in the UK – and will continue to do so until April 2013. PCTs are currently accountable for about 80% of a total NHS budget of roughly £110 billion. It is estimated that approximately £30 billion of this has already been delegated to around 250 CCGs. But whilst PCTs can legitimately delegate their powers, they cannot delegate accountability. If someone in a shadow CCG busts the budget or, worse still, a patient dies by virtue of a poor decision elsewhere – the ultimate responsibility still lies with the PCT.

The situation on the ground is therefore complicated. Power currently rests with a number of PCT clusters acting on behalf of still legal and existing PCTs, who are delegating cash and power on the ground to CCGs. In turn, the CCGs are enjoying increasing control over finances, though technically, they are not yet legally in existence.

So if the task for 2012 is to follow the law and follow the money, pharma must focus on developing its powers of local intelligence. The fundamentals are simple, but the devil is in the detail. The law tells us who is technically responsible, the money tells us who has been delegated the power and the pound. The £30 billion question for pharma, however, is: where has the money been delegated? And the answer, of course, varies from locality to locality.

Developing the knowledge: think local, and national
And so the industry is playing a new game called ‘Spot the Commissioner’. To compete, pharmaceutical companies – and in particular their field-based professionals – need to build and maintain knowledge of local circumstances that, to a large extent, they’ve not previously had.

The move towards a localised health service is a direction of travel rather than an absolute. Moving forward, the industry perhaps needs to view the NHS as a healthcare system that operates within a national framework, but with more local decision-making. The balance of power between local and national is dependent upon which aspect of the healthcare service, and which therapeutic area, is being discussed. NICE provides a good example. In theory, the statutes require that funding is made available for technology appraisals as formal TAGs within three months of NICE making a declaration. But the reality is that whereas NICE doesn’t have to consider affordability, local decision-makers do – and therefore exactly how they implement that will inform their local decision.

As such, pharmaceutical sales professionals need to keep one eye on the national scene and one eye on the local scene – and apply that knowledge to their individual therapeutic area. They need to think very hard about how any national decisions will affect their product at a local territory level. The promotion of pharmaceuticals has moved beyond the traditional sequential sale – it is now much more sophisticated. This sophistication is only likely to increase in the future. An example of this will be the introduction of Health and Wellbeing Boards. These are already establishing under the umbrella of local authorities and will bring together interests from a wide variety of other groups: employers, magistrates, courts, local authorities etc. These will have a significant influence on local health services.

Variability: process, progress and prescribing
In such a changing and dynamic customer marketplace, the challenge of playing Spot the Commissioner becomes ever more difficult. Ironically, the only one constant is the prevalence of variability. There is variability right across the system, particularly in terms of progress around the health reforms. For example, there are local areas adjacent to one another where one locality has seen significant lawful delegation of powers to CCGs, while its neighbours have seen very little. This variability is likely to continue for some time – beyond the point where CCGs are authorised as official legal bodies. Authorisation itself is not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – it may be conditional. A conditional authorisation may mean that a CCG has power to make decisions over some things, but not others. A CCG may, for example, be authorised to commission acute services locally, but not mental health services.

At a wider level, variability in local progress with NHS reforms is surpassed by the even more significant issue of variability in care across the UK. The introduction of the Atlas of Variation in November 2010 has brought the issue into much sharper national focus and highlighted areas where progress can be made. There is, of course, variability in every disease area. Here are two very different examples. For patients with type II diabetes, the likelihood of suffering a lower leg amputation as a result of the disease is greater in the South West of England than it is in the South East. On the other hand, around the issue of cancer referral times, there is huge variation across the country in terms of GPs referring patients to secondary care for earlier diagnosis. The latter is an example of variability in health care – the former is a great illustration of variability in health outcomes.

Addressing inappropriate variability is a key priority for the NHS. And it is an area where the pharmaceutical industry can help make a real difference. Pharma companies could start by looking at the variability in the prescribing of their own products. If they can identify where that variability is and draw it to the attention of the health service locally, they will be better placed to offer support to help address it. The industry could consider undertaking Health Equity Audits to generate disease-specific data to support commissioning. For example, if you are a sales professional, what could you tell a customer about how your therapy is used in terms of its distribution among social classes, poor or rich and ethnic groups? What can you say about its relative prescribing across geographical areas? This is key information. It’s likely that there will be all kinds of variability going on that the industry could be helping the NHS address – and in doing so, it will also drive the market. By combining publicly-available prescribing data with activity data and other readily-available metrics, companies can improve their sales and marketing strategies by providing customers with the best information to help inform commissioning decisions.

The value of data
Robust data and information is the lifeblood of good commissioning, and good commissioning is the lifeblood of good health outcomes. At present, few, if any, commissioners will have complete and comprehensive access to the right data on which they can base critical commissioning decisions. But, in a collaborative environment, many would be willing to work with the industry to help create that evidence-base. As the NHS restructure unfolds, pharma can be a credible source of information for commissioners – though probably only one of a number of sources. Increasingly the health service will seek to identify data itself, and the Atlas of Variation is a good example of that. Increasingly, there are good examples of joint working where parties have come together and delivered results. In a collaborative era, wracked by challenge and change, the industry and the NHS have a responsibility to develop that relationship further.

Pharma can certainly emerge as a valuable partner to the NHS as it moves through its transition. But the generation and communication of robust and relevant data will be key to progress. In the game of Spot the Commissioner, the best sales professionals will be those who understand the local situation, understand what is driving it and align their key messages so that they are seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. Undoubtedly, access to good data will underpin everything.

Mike Sobanja is CEO, NHS Alliance. David Round is General Manager, Cegedim Relationship Management.

The number of global pharmaceutical sales jobs fell by nearly two per cent (1.8%) last year as the industry faced a challenging twelve months, according to new research.

An audit by Cegedim Strategic Data (CSD) found the number of sales representatives fell from 421,223 in 2010 to 413,565 last year.

However, the decline in medical sales positions would’ve been far more had it not been for an increase in pharmaceutical sales jobs in emerging markets such as China or Brazil.

CSD research found that the US had the most pharmaceutical sales representatives (73,762), despite losing 7% of roles compared to the previous year.

China followed with more than 65,000 sales roles after it continued to enjoy double-digit job growth creating an increase of 18.6% in jobs last year. Japan ranked third with 54,236 jobs, despite seeing a decline in pharma jobs of 10%.

France saw the biggest decline in sales jobs in Europe as roles notably declined by 12%. Jobs were also down in Germany by 2% and in Italy by 1.7%. But markets in Spain and the UK remained relatively stable.

The news was much better in Brazil where field force levels increased by 3.5% in 2011 and saw the country have the fifth most pharmaceutical sales jobs of any country.

The audit also found that sales reps preferred detailing to healthcare professionals as the main channel for communicating promotional and clinical messages, and that sales representatives accounted for more than 60% of global marketing investments in 2011.

A lot of noise has been made about the needed switch from a traditional pharmaceutical sales model. Apodi’s Tony Swift questions whether the complex sales models now in place are delivering and suggests a simplified alternative based on delivering value to customers.

For a number of years now it has been acknowledged that the traditional sales model needs to change. Access to GPs through the long-established sales route is increasingly difficult with more doctors closing their doors to the conventional representative detail.

Pharmaceutical companies have embraced this and reduced the number of traditional sales representatives that they employ. Furthermore, the environment in which companies are promoting products has, in recent years, become increasingly complex with the emergence of new stakeholders requiring additional market access, specialist expertise and key account management skills.

Pharma’s response
Clearly, pharma companies have responded to these dynamics in different ways depending on their individual circumstances. It is, however, possible to draw some general conclusions. The response has tended to be the establishment of complex sales structures involving a myriad of roles aimed at mirroring the complex structures of the customer: the NHS.  Most companies will have structures including some, if not all, of the following roles: business managers, regional managers, traditional representatives, key account managers, strategic account managers, market access specialists, medical liaison specialists and so on.

On paper, these structures are difficult to criticise given that they are aimed at addressing the apparent needs of ALL stakeholders within the customer environment. The real problem is that due to their complexity they are almost impossible to manage effectively. Cohesion, coordination and communication in structures of this nature are extremely difficult and companies that go down this route often find that improvement in performance – namely in the sales of product – is difficult to achieve.

Such structures can be expensive and companies find that savings made by reductions in the number of sales representatives are merely diverted into the new structure. Indeed, these are often more expensive than the old traditional structures. Although companies are also looking at less costly ways of detailing, such as e-detailing, and tele-detailing, most commentators believe there is no real substitute to face to face interactions.

Simplify, simplify, simplify
Whilst every company is different, they should all follow the principle that the simpler the sales structure, the easier it is to manage and the higher the probability of driving high performance into it. It is hoped that the much heralded simplification of the NHS, which puts money and power into the hands of the GP and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), may encourage pharmaceutical companies to simplify structures, making them more effective and less costly. So, for those companies looking to simplify ineffective and inefficient structures, what general principles should be followed?

Don’t turn the noise off
Many commentators suggest that the ‘noise’ model is dead and that companies need to look elsewhere to drive sales performance. In my view this is misleading. Creating noise is hugely important in any sales environment – the key is the content and whether or not it is effective.

The traditional representative is finding access increasingly difficult as GPs face growing patient demands and administrative burdens. GPs often see many interactions with representatives as providing little, if any, value and are simply not willing to spare the time to listen to a detail. Where GPs do perceive there to be value, they are more likely to open their doors and consequently there is more likelihood of changes in prescribing behaviour and resultant market share.

Simply put, many pharmaceutical companies should be looking at a sales structure model that encompasses the following characteristics:

NOISE + VALUE = EFFECTIVENESS.

We envisage this structure being driven by an ‘engine room’ consisting of Key Account Managers (KAMs), focused on strategic key accounts, and Customer Account Managers, driving key messages and value to the larger targeted population of healthcare professionals (HCPs). A KAM structure without Customer Account Managers in the new world of CCGs would need to rely on an effective platform of communication within the CCG from the strategic levels through to individual HCPs – this often does not exist in an effective form and much decision making will still be made at the individual HCP level.

Building the structure
In my last article, Moving on up, I noted that, ‘some observers believe that the pharmaceutical sales representative is one of the world’s most underutilised resources’. For most companies, their representatives are still the people who interact with customers far more than anybody else. These customers – the GP and CCG – appear now to be even more important in the buying process and therefore, common sense would seem to indicate that the role of the representative is more important than ever – not less so.

The only way that this can be the case though is if the role of the representative changes from delivering a detail to delivering value to customers – otherwise customers will continue to refuse access and react negatively to any interaction. Therefore, I believe that in many cases the sales representatives will, in the future, be better termed as ‘Customer Account Managers.’ This is not just changing the title of the person but involves a real change in the role which will include:

• Intelligent conversations with customers about the care pathway with, of course, the role of product within that pathway.
• Consulting to, and with, the customer about therapies and disease areas.
• Advocating improved patient outcomes and assisting GPs in delivering them.
• Providing additional value, based on the individual preference of the customer.

In existing structures this will require a transition phase as representatives increase knowledge, particularly around care pathways, therapies, diseases and improve interaction skills.

The engine room

Customer Account Managers should form the foundation for many promotional sales structures. Above them is the Key Account Manager role, and together, these represent the ‘engine room’ of the promotional sales structure. The role of the KAM is now well known to pharma, involving as it does, segmentation of the customer base, allocation of responsibilities – particularly between the KAMs and the Customer Account Managers – and promoting to key and more complex stakeholders. KAMs should also be able to assess if there is a need for more specialist help on particular accounts.

For many readers, this structure may appear as a dramatic over simplification of what is required to meet the demands of a complex customer – and perhaps it is. But it has been presented as such to be in stark contrast to the over complex and costly structures that many companies deploy. In fact, in some such structures, the role of KAMs sometimes gets lost and in some, the role of Customer Account Managers actually does not exist.

Mass customisation
A key role of the engine room is to provide value to customers, that is, value over and above that provided by competitors and so enabling the company to grow market share. Historically, much promotional activity to GPs has been based on a key fact – that all the customers are the same. This is obviously not the case.
However, marketing departments wishing to provide customised value are often unable to do so for a number of reasons:

• Representatives and others are not skilled in, or indeed tasked with, identifying individual value requirements of customers.
• Technological solutions have so far been found to be ineffective or companies have failed when attempting to execute them.
• The role of creating value propositions that can be tailored to individual needs often gets lost in the complex structures existing within pharma.

And yet the concept of mass customisation is very common in other industries. There are many examples of collaborative companies who conduct a dialogue with individual customers to help them articulate their needs and then customise the offering to them.

It could be argued that pharmaceutical companies sell a standardised product – the drug is the drug. However, it is important to realise that where companies cannot customise a product per se they can still customise what they offer and thus build learning relationships where their knowledge of the individual customer increases exponentially.

For a pharmaceutical company to do this effectively, it needs to visualise its offering in the broadest sense not simply as a product but as an object that provides a service, solves a problem or meets a need. Therefore, the total value offering includes:

• The core product: clearly this is a hugely important part of the overall value proposition, including the drug’s capabilities, safety record, treatment characteristics etc.
• To the GP there will be other enhanced value solutions which can be of enormous value – these can include: additional services, promotional and marketing communication, patient and clinical help lines, product support, access to Key Opinion Leaders, staff training, services that improve the patient experience and so on.

To provide this value in a customised way, companies needs to find out from the customer what value means to him/her, collate the information effectively and deliver the value. Many readers will be sceptical that this is deliverable – how delivery is achieved will be discussed in the next article in this series.

Conclusion
Simplified sales structures including the reinvention of the traditional sales representative role could be of real value to all stakeholders, including the representative, the GP, the patient and the pharmaceutical company. By placing the provision of value to each and every customer at the very heart of the company’s promotional activities, companies can be truly aligned to the NHS agenda and perfectly positioned to meet the needs of the turbulent market conditions that exist today.

Tony Swift is the Managing Director of Apodi. He may be reached on tony.swift@apodi.co.uk.

This month’s Pharmaceutical Field looks at some of the major issues affecting UK pharma at present; the evolution of its customer-base, an increased focus on compliance, the developing training needs of medical sales professionals and pharma companies’ ongoing challenge to attract and, crucially, retain talent.

The DH’s Innovation Health and Wealth document, published at the tail end of 2011, seeks to address the most significant challenge for UK healthcare – accelerating the adoption of innovation within the NHS. There is much that pharma can do to help enable innovative medicines reach patients more quickly.

Regulatory compliance remains a key priority for pharma as recent and impending global legislation puts pharma’s engagement with customers under increased scrutiny. In the process, the changing legislative landscape is having a significant impact on the training needs of medical sales professionals in the UK. This, in turn, is having a domino-effect on the pharmaceutical employment market, where a notable ‘skills gap’ is having a huge impact on recruitment and the quality of applicants for commercial roles.

Faced with an apparent dearth of quality candidates for sales positions, companies are needing to work hard to create the best working environment to retain their most talented employees. Pf’s annual attitudinal survey of the UK sales force reveals that, in some parts of the industry, there remains much to be done to ensure that the company culture advertised in the corporate brochure matches that experienced by employees in the workplace.

Improving regulatory compliance in the wake of global legislation around anti-corruption has emerged as one of pharma’s key challenges for 2012.

A 2011 Cap Gemini report on impending change within life sciences showed that only addressing ‘fragmented business processes’ and a ‘lack of access to business critical data’ rank higher as the most critical issues for the sector.

But despite widespread recognition of the importance of business transparency in all interactions with customers, a recent study shows that 44% of pharma companies are still using manual paper-based systems to record promotional spend with HCPs.

The survey, European Trends in Aggregate Spend, Transparency and Disclosure, conducted in December 2011 by Cegedim Relationship Management, shows that life science companies are making real progress in their attempts to become more compliant. 94% of respondents report that their company enforces corporate standards for spending on HCPs, and over half (54%) indicate that their company already has a project team in place to address compliance issues.

But, despite 64% believing that the implementation of a unique spend data reporting and disclosure solution is an ‘absolute requirement’, a high number of European companies are using traditional methodology to record activity.

“Europe is at a pivotal moment as it approaches an enforcement model increasingly similar to the US,” explained Bill Buzzeo (pictured), Vice President of Global Compliance Solutions at Cegedim Relationship Management. “Companies are making essential strides at self-enforcement, but according to the 2011 survey, most respondents are reliant on inefficient manual and Excel spreadsheet reporting mechanisms.”

Faced with managing relationships within an already complicated customer jigsaw, medical sales professionals can ill afford the administrative burden of paper-based systems in the modern era.

The increased focus on transparency and disclosure follows the global development and enforcement of regulation and guidance to counter bribery and corruption across business sectors. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the UK Bribery Act impose criminal charges on companies that breach the law, and have already led to some high-profile casualties in the life science sector. In 2011, Johnson & Johnson were fined $70 million after admitting that the company bribed doctors in Europe and paid kickbacks to win contracts and sell drugs and artificial joints. Integrated technology company Siemens paid $1.3 billion following a bribery case that scarred its medical division, following violations in its healthcare unit.

With further, hard-hitting legislation expected in other parts of Europe this year, companies are being forced to assess their ability to achieve better transparency of aggregate HCP payment data – which in turn is having major implications for the industry’s sales and marketing strategies. Companies in Europe must not only track a complex matrix of marketing and promotional spending, but also keep track of, and uphold, each country’s unique reporting standards.

The Cegedim Relationship Management survey concludes that the US model of operational compliance serves as “the handwriting on the wall”, but warns that European organisations, uncertain as to how to approach transparency in the future, must act quickly to ensure they avoid paying a much higher price.

The UK industry has worked hard in recent years to improve its reputation with customers, and the issue of building trust with HCPs remains a high priority for companies. Medical sales professionals will continue to play a prominent role in achieving this.