Apodi’s Jan Cox discusses four vital stages to ensure your next job provides everything you could have wished for this Christmas. 

For the employer and employee alike, stability can be a dangerous illusion, particularly in the current economic climate. It is inevitable that markets and organisations will change and adapt in response to the economic, commercial and political pressures that exist – and this will impact on both the recruiting organisation and the candidate.

In my previous article, Stability: a dangerous illusion?, I stressed that: “For a lot of people, the pharmaceutical industry has provided a stable career over many years. For example, there are many sales representatives who have had a successful career fundamentally doing the same job in the same way and often for the same employer. Whilst there will always be a need for sales representatives within the industry, the number has fallen and will continue to fall. And for many, the role itself will change and demand the acquisition of new skills and knowledge.

Some companies are addressing the need to change rather quicker than others. Those that are slow to act may be creating a situation where some employees still feel they are operating in a relatively stable environment. This may be a dangerous illusion because it is almost guaranteed that the changing environment within the industry will impact on most employees – and probably sooner rather than later.”
From my experience I believe there are four key stages for employees to build a successful career and secure the RIGHT job in such a dynamic marketplace.

STAGE 1: Assessing what companies want
World class organisations understand the importance of the recruitment process and the need to find the right people. Jack Welch, one of the most famous business leaders of the 20th century, stated: “nothing matters more in winning than getting the right people in the field. All the clever strategies and advanced technologies are nowhere near as effective without great people to put them to work.” His company, General Electric, had an extensive recruitment process which tested for integrity, intelligence and maturity. Its hiring framework focused on finding people who had positive energy, the ability to energise others, the courage to make tough ‘yes or no decisions’, the ability to execute and get the job done and finally passion.
Conversely, McKinsey, the world renowned consulting organisation, looks for people who:

• Are of above average intelligence
• Possess a record of achievement at a good university and business school
• Show evidence of achievement in all previous jobs
• Demonstrate extraordinary analytical ability

Clearly there are different themes running through the recruitment requirements of these two companies, and naturally so, given the differing nature of the services they deliver. However, it is possible to find differences even when looking at the recruitment process for similar roles in competing companies in the same industry sector.

For example, pharmaceutical companies often look for different attributes when recruiting for sales representatives. A typical job advert may stress the need for the following from applicants:

• Experienced sales representative with at least two years’ experience in similar roles
• University degree
• Sales to be delivered through the company’s selling process/model

Interestingly, the Gallup Organisation has found in extensive studies that education has often little, if any, influence on an individual’s ability to sell; the learning curve in most sales jobs is relatively short and only rarely is there a correlation between experience and results; and that the most successful sales people sell in different ways using different strengths – following a strict sales process/model is more likely to hinder top performers than to help them.

Therefore, many companies are looking for more innovative and different assessment criteria when recruiting for sales roles. It was for this reason that my own company, Apodi, developed the recruitment model above. This model primarily focuses on a candidate’s:

• Talents/strengths
• Competencies
• Cultural fit
• Mental toughness

It is clear that companies are often looking for different things even when recruiting for similar roles. In some cases, even the most sophisticated companies will be looking for attributes that don’t, in fact, have a significant influence on a person’s ability to perform the job effectively. However, at this stage of the process, all applicants can at least find out what really is important in each company’s assessment criteria before they apply. This can be done by contacting the agency involved or the company itself. Also, in this age of networking and social media it should not be too difficult to contact people who are current employees of that company.

STAGE 2: Preparing for success
In this rapidly changing marketplace all employees should understand that planning for success and finding the best career does not start simply a month before the decision to find a new job. Building a successful sales career depends on a long-term view of career development and should include the following:

• Find out what your underlying strengths are. For long-term career success these are much more relevant than your education or experience. The Gallup Organisation identified 34 different strengths – each one of which may play an important part in a sales process depending on the role itself. The key for each individual is to understand what those strengths are and which selling roles will best suit them
• Take charge of your own personal development. Most companies now ask representatives to have a sound knowledge of the changing NHS and how that impacts commercially on the pharmaceutical industry
• Prepare a CV that stresses the following:
• Your key strengths and why this has ensured success in the past
• Your knowledge of the changing NHS
• Experience, education etc – whilst these are not necessarily predictors of success, employers often still stress the need for them
• Undertake market research. Research which companies are most suited to you. It would not be too unfair to suggest that the world of the pharmaceutical sales representative is quite incestuous and most representatives are prepared to give their opinion and information on current and past employers

STAGE 3: Sourcing the appropriate job
Most prospective applicants are well versed in the various methods of sourcing jobs. These include registering with agencies, searching through job sections in newspapers and magazines, online searches and approaching companies directly. A direct, personal approach can be very powerful. One of the greatest leaders in American sport, basketball coach, John Wooden, gave the following advice to organisations: “When hiring, be diligent in discerning what the individual’s motives are. Be alert for those who express a strong desire to join and contribute to your team and have some understanding of who and what your organisation is all about. Recruiting should be a two way street.”

STAGE 4: Choosing the right opportunity
Hopefully, the above process ensures that an applicant has a number of choices when deciding on their next career move. Typically, the final decision will involve factors such as remuneration, benefits, training and development, and promotion opportunities. There are also some other considerations that are often overlooked.

Many companies’ mission statements and credos state something along the lines of: ‘The company wishes to attract, develop, motivate and retain exceptional people.’ Despite this, the rigour companies apply to the recruitment process differs significantly from one business to the next. Consider choosing the company that takes recruitment seriously – it almost certainly reflects the fact that they really stand by the mission statement, rather than just talk about it.

Also, judge the company by the manager you are going to be working for. Managers have a huge influence on your career, your motivation and your ability to do the job – a good one will take you to the stars, a bad one will stifle you.

Finding a job is tough; but finding the right job is even tougher. If you are focused on developing a successful career you must give it the attention and energy it deserves. Judge the role on how it fits with your talents/strengths and assess the company’s ability to let you utilise these to maximum effect.

Jan Cox is the Resourcing Director at Apodi and can be reached on jan.cox@apodi.co.uk

Medical sales executives continue to lead the way in the pay stakes, but how do they continue to defy remuneration odds?

A recent Channel 4 documentary exposed just how sensitive the issue of salary is in the workplace. Employees at a leading plumbing firm in London were asked, face-to-face, to reveal their salary to their colleagues. The outcome wasn’t pleasant. Employees working alongside each discovered they were, in some instances, paid tens of thousands of pounds less than the person working only a few feet away from them. Whilst employees’ pay was eventually brought in-line with their unsuspecting workmates, the moral of the film highlighted just how much people dislike being short-changed – especially in their wage packet. 
The Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey – now in its 11th year – again highlighted the importance of salary to those working within the medical sales industry. It’s of little surprise that in an era of austerity salary came out on top as the main motivating factor for respondents. While the significance of money is there for all to see, the satisfaction respondents feel when they open their wage slips is somewhat surprising – despite being paid well above UK average. Satisfaction ratings showed salary placed as the 13th out of 18 options.

Figures from the website Payscale.com show that the average salary for men in the UK is now a slightly more than £30,000. For women it’s around six thousand pound less. Short change when compared to figures from the Pf Survey where the median salary from men is £45,000 and women £40,000. Despite nearly all pharmaceutical companies announcing plans to tightening its belts, employees in the medical sales sector are clearly still extremely well paid.

Overall figures from the survey show that annual remuneration packages range from £11,000 up to a wallet-busting £107,000. The median salary for full-time workers travelling from job to job around their territories was £43,000. Even those on part-time hours earned a medium salary of £26,702 – with the highest earner working reduced hours taking home a cool 54k.

The going rate
A career in the medical sales industry pays. The median salary for respondents who have less than six months’ experience within the sector was £23,000 - see Figure 1. One individual began their career within the industry taking home £58,000 per year! The median salaries of those with additional years of experience continued to rise with those clocking up eight years or more earning an average of £45,000. 
Age also plays an important factor.  The median salaries of those aged 25 and under continue to rise to respondents aged between 45 and 54 years old. Individuals in that age bracket reported a median salary of £45,000, yet those aged beyond their 54th birthday saw their median annual wage fall by two thousand pound. With an ageing workforce, has the medical sales industry targeted this age group to make savings?
Patients may suffer as a result of the postcode lottery but it also seems that medical sales executives do as well – see Figure 2. Median salaries ranged from £42,125 in Scotland up to £47,000 in London. The south east, south west and Wales all clock up median salaries of £45,000 with the north east and Midlands/east slightly behind.

Individual roles
Pharma’s switch in methodology away from a traditional headcount approach to a key account model is reflected in the survey with the median salary for Key Account Managers being £10,500 more than that of a Primary Care Representative (£33,000). Primary and Secondary Care representatives reported a slightly better median salary at £38,880. However, that figure is almost doubled by the median salary of second-line managers at £74k. At the other end of the pay scale, nurse advisors reported the lowest median salary at 30k – as highlighted in Figure 3.

Although public sector workers may have had to endure pay freezes, the same can’t be said of medical sales executives. For the second year running respondents have again reported hearty pay rises – one lucky individual banked a £20,000 rise! Overall, the median salary increase was slightly more than a thousand pound. Key Account Managers reported £100 on top of that figure with second-line managers again enjoying the largest slice of the pie, after receiving a median rise of £2,778.

On top of generous salary increases, respondents also enjoyed bonuses the majority of workers from other sectors – banking aside – could only dream of. In total, the survey found that sales executives received a median bonus of three thousand pounds. The maximum bonus was £50,000. Key Account Managers saw their bonuses fall in line with the average median figure, primary and secondary care representatives were rewarded a thousand pound less than everybody else, and first-line and second-line managers again enjoying generous gratuity sums.

However, very much like salary, respondents were clearly unimpressed with their bonuses. In the satisfaction stakes, only share scheme finished behind bonus in the minds of respondents. It would seem, much like pharma’s shareholders, medical sales executives are a difficult bunch to please – despite enjoying above-inflation rewards.

Medical sales professionals are well paid. But they are still not happy. Pf Editor Chris Ross wonders why the traditional ‘drug rep’ wants to shake off the stereotype, but seems happy to live it.

So it’s official, money can indeed buy happiness – at least that’s what a recent national survey by data company Mintel would like to have us believe. According to the poll, almost six in ten (58%) of those earning more than £50,000 are happy with their lives. But equally, as if to prove the cliché that there are lies, damn lies and statistics, the same survey shows that almost half of people who earn less than £15,000 are happy too. In fact, despite the current climate of job losses, pay freezes and the rising cost of living, more than half of the nation is happy with its lot, with only 20% dissatisfied with their current state of play.

All of which seems to prove that, far from being the answer to all our prayers, money is not necessarily the root of personal contentment.

So what does this say about medical sales professionals? Pf’s annual survey of satisfaction and motivation among UK pharmaceutical sales executives shows the profession to be well-rewarded. In 2010, the median salary for medical sales professionals was more than £40,000 and the top-earner in the sample picked up in excess of £72,000 a year. In both examples, these figures excluded bonuses which, in many cases, are not inconsiderable. Yet despite this, many across the industry remain dissatisfied with their remuneration. This year’s study showed that whilst respondents were mostly motivated by salary, huge numbers claimed that their employers were failing to satisfy them in this area.

The pharma industry has, for many years, been trying to shake off a poor reputation. It has long been derided for alleged profiteering at the top, and for encouraging apparent opulence amongst its collective workforce. It has been accused of over-indulgence in its promotional strategies, with sales and marketing expenditure often perceived to exceed R&D budgets. And trust in the industry among both the general public and sections of its customer-base has generally appeared to be (unfairly) low.

The image of the drug industry is, in the media and (all too often) on an average evening out, symbolised by the description of the stereotypical ‘drug rep’. For example, the blockbuster movie Love and Other Drugs painted the life of the rep as decadent, adrenalin-fuelled and materialistic – characterised by fast cars, loose women and loose morals. Fiction or otherwise, it did the image of the industry in general no favours and the reputation of the drug rep in particular no good. It pandered to a stereotype that the pharmaceutical industry is desperate to shake off, and it continues to work tremendously hard to achieve it.

So, in a global economy where jobs are falling by the wayside at an alarming rate, where job security is scarce and a pay-rise seems a pipedream, do UK medical sales professionals really need to conform to the stereotype? “Pay me more, give me more.” Medical sales is a well-paid job in a market that has demonstrated greater stability than many others. It provides the kinds of benefits many other professions would die for and, in its purest form, operates in an environment rich with reward in terms of helping enhance lives and improve patient care.

Sure, we’d all like to earn more. But with a median salary that is well in excess of the average wage in the UK, the medical sales professional, despite all the pressure that goes with selling in a competitive environment, has got it good.

Surely that’s a reason to join the majority of the UK and, amid the doom and gloom, be just a little happier?

Shareholders should protest against the pay of big pharma CEOs, says the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

AFSCME is recommending that shareholders of both Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vote against the executive compensation proposals at the annual meetings of both companies, which take place on April 28, 2011.

The Federation campaigned for the Wall Street Reform Act, which means that shareholders now have the right to vote on executive pay.

“Now shareowners can use Say on Pay at all companies to register their disapproval of CEO pay,” said President Gerald W. McEntee.

“It's up to investors to use this tool judiciously and send a clear message to boards of directors:  pay needs to be tied to performance.”

Johnson & Johnson recently paid Chairman and CEO William Weldon nearly $29 million, despite eleven recalls of JNJ drugs at a cost of $900 million.

Pfizer's retired CEO Jeffrey Kindler (pictured) received nearly $25 million, a 60% increase over his 2009 compensation. In total, he received over $72 million in compensation, at a time when the company’s stock price dropped by more than a third and lost approximately $68 billion in market value.

“Pfizer's CEO pay is indefensible,” added McEntee. “CEOs should not get massive rewards after shareholder value is destroyed on their watch. This lavish reward for failure is simply madness.”

A recent Pf Survey showed that 60% of website visitors feel big pharma CEOs are paid more than they deserve. Read more about the poll.

In a recent Pf poll, you voted ‘yes’, but are things likely to change? By Di Spencer, Pf Web Editor

The salaries and bonuses of pharma CEOs are a constant source of wonder and outrage to many in the media, and the industry too. Even at times when pharma seems to be struggling financially, laying off staff and cutting employee benefits, senior executive rarely seem to suffer their share of the austerity.

Late last year it was revealed that pharma CEOs earn more than any other industry, with the top paid earning more than $30 million a year. Many of us can only dream of earning $30 million throughout our lives, and have difficulty even conceiving of what it would be like to have that kind of sum enter our bank account on an annual basis.

But are these massive pay packets justified? Is life really ‘tough at the top’? Do they deserve this kind of remuneration? Well, according to visitors to the Pf website, the answer is no. In a recent Pf opinion poll, a vast majority of 60% voted that company CEOs get paid too much. A generous 22% said they believed the payment was in proportion to the pressure of the role (possibly CEOs or their wives?), while a humble 18% agreed that it was not their place to say.

The men at the top (as men it unfortunately often seems to be) will always be paid obscene sums, but is it fair that pharma in particular is so well paid? And, if it isn’t, what should the industry do about it?

Hay Group recently claimed that pharma incentive models and ‘fundamentally flawed’. They said: “Big Pharma’s dependence on traditional executive compensation plans threatens to work in opposition to the very ‘medicine’ of innovation that could restore the sector’s once vaunted health.”

The analysis of 2010 proxy data from 50 US pharmaceutical companies showed that revenue remains the most common measure of both short and long-term incentive programs, yet Hay Group claims these should be reformed to focus on pipeline and the development of innovative products that will benefit patients.

Hay Group suggests companies need to implement novel programs and practices to encourage executives to place innovation much higher on their list of priorities as is currently done in early biotech and emerging biopharmas.

So, the pharma’s current incentive schemes might be having a more detrimental effect that simply making us green with envy – they could be limiting the very potential of medicine discovery for the future.

Unfortunately, much like the coalition Government’s financial changes, good intentions are all very well, but until the privileged few running things are willing to take a pay cut, the rich will continue to get richer.

Contact the author:

diana.spencer@healthpublishing.co.uk

@HSPDi

GSK has outlined new plans to attract graduates from UK universities by paying their tuition fees.

Graduates will be reimbursed all of their uncapped tuition fees upon the start of full employment which will be conditional on the employee remaining at GSK for a minimum of two years.

Andrew Witty, Chief Executive (pictured), hopes the innovative move will attract the “best possible talent” to the company.

Uncapped fees, which are subject to Parliamentary approval, are expected to come into effect from September 2012 and could result in students incurring fees of £27,000 for a three-year course.

The company currently recruits between 50-100 undergraduate students from various academic disciplines into its UK Graduate Training Programmes or other roles within the company and says that successful applicants are “already offered highly competitive” salaries.

The plan is one of a series of changes that are being introduced as part of GSK’s ongoing efforts to attract, recruit and retain the best talent and reflect the changing environment in the UK for students. 

It says these measures will help ensure GSK remains a highly desirable place for graduates to consider working upon leaving university. 

“I think this actually speaks directly to people who might be most concerned about how to cover that debt,” said Andrew Witty.

By Di Spencer, Pf Web Editor

People in sales roles are traditionally associated with having a focus on monetary gain. It makes sense, I suppose, a sales bonus scheme usually works on the basis that the more money you make, the more money you earn. Bonus schemes wouldn’t work if these professionals weren’t motivated by money.

But my main question is this: Are pharma industry sales people motivated by money in the same way as other sales executives, or is there a ‘higher’ (in the sense of less self-serving) motivator driving their daily activity? Are you really thinking about patients receiving great new drugs when you go out on your territory?

The results of the Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey tell me, year on year, that the work factor most considered by pharma sales employees when choosing a new employer is.... Salary! Perhaps this is evidence that sales people are incredibly shallow, but then again, aren’t we all? Can many of us honestly say that we aren’t essentially motivated by money when it comes to our professional lives? Don’t we ‘work to live’ after all? Or are we more mature/sophisticated/romantic than that?

Do you agree? Or can you dissuade me out of my cynicism? Comment below and let me know what gets you out of bed in the morning.

Click here for more on salaries in the pharma industry, or here to find out more about the Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey (it does exactly what it says on the tin!)

Whether in the playground or the boardroom, the question of gender supremacy always causes heated debate. Using Pf’s Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey, Iain Bate highlights some interesting differences between the sexes.

The recent cases in the US against two of the pharma industry’s major players has seen the ugly issue of gender discrimination dragged through the courts once again. Since the 1970s when the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act were introduced in the UK great strides have been made towards equality. However the US court cases have clearly shown that despite all the laws in place both here and across the pond gender discrimination is still alive and kicking. 
In the pharmaceutical industry it’s clear that women are fighting back this trend. A growing number of women now hold presidential or vice-presidential positions in various capacities in many high profile organisations. In the age of equality, this should come as no surprise. However, two main issues continue to bedevil the battle for a level playing field; does sexual equality extend to company pay structures? And, the age-old debate – who makes the better boss: man or woman?

Sex(ist) Machine
A study by UK recruitment firm www.ukjobs.net showed that two-thirds of women agreed that men make better bosses. Female managers being hormonal, talking behind employees’ backs and an inability to leave personal issues at home were all main factors in the conclusion. Yet in America it’s the other way round for Carol Smith, Senior Vice President and Chief Brand Officer for the Elle Group.
“Hands down women are better. There’s no contest,” she said in an interview with the New York Times. “In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers.”     
This isn’t a view necessarily shared by Charlotte Rayner, Professor of Human Resource Management, Portsmouth Business School, who argues that both males and females boast attributes which contribute to the age-old argument.
“There’s no reason why men or women should be better bosses,” said Professor Rayner. “This is an area of ordinary human skill and competence and both genders should be able to perform just as well as each other. A man making a better boss than a woman is a matter of perception. Throughout all of history it’s often been the case that men have been profiled as the major leaders and it could be that we still perceive men as the archetype for those sorts of roles.
“This perception results very much from stereotyping which happens almost from day one where girls are dressed in pink and boys in blue. There’s very deep seated assumptions and stereotyping which goes on.”
While it may seem obvious that gender stereotyping involves males and females the reality may be that women are hindering the progress of other women in the workplace due to these long standing judgements.
“In the studies I’ve been involved in we continually look for gender differences,” Professor Raynor added. “We ask people what experiences they have had in the workplace. This includes gossip and rumour and we continually find no differences between males and females. But what might be happening, for example, is that when a woman boss talks behind somebody’s back it’s gossip, but when a man does the same thing it’s then rumour. From a male boss perceptive it could also be seen that he’s asserting his position and working through the politics. Whereas a woman might be seen to be undermining and gossiping and that all comes back to basic stereotyping. It’s exactly the same behaviour but what we do is label it differently.”

Payback
The main bone of gender contention relates to pay. The debate appears to plague every industry – and pharma is no exception. The Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey includes a detailed section on remuneration. As ever, the 2009/10 poll provides some interesting insights – not least to the gender debate. Completed by more than 1,200 employees from UK pharma sales, 53% of which were women, it revealed some interesting statistics when comparing individual (figure 1) and overall salaries (figure 2), and also motivational factors between men and women.
When the median salaries are scrutinised by gender, and combined across all the standard sales roles, the Survey reveals that the average median salaries for men in 2009/10 was £1,539 more than women. Only four years earlier the difference in median salaries was just £850. The latest Survey figure does however show an improvement of more than £1,000 from 2008/09.
Despite the existing gap Professor Raynor says salary divide could have more to do with men being more willing to ask their superiors for a wage increase rather than companies trying to scam females out of thousands of pounds each year.
“It’s quite often that men are more assertive in this area by often asking for pay rises,” she said. “But sometimes women are not pushing their own pay claims as much as they might. My advice to women in terms of pay would be to think like a man!
“Generally the pay gap is getting smaller. What has been very helpful around the country, and certainly in the private sector, is there are much better job descriptions being produced and better human resources processes. Companies are assessing what a job is worth and not what a person is. People are being much clearer that they’re paying for a job and not a person.”

Get on the good foot
The UK pharmaceutical industry remains an attractive one for women. Of the respondents in this year’s survey 70% who had less than six month’s experience in the industry were female. While this high number suggests a career in pharma is appealing to women, that fact that half of those with more than eight years of experience were also female confirms this.
In fact, despite the salary gap in certain roles, results from the Survey indicate that women are more satisfied with their annual wage than their male counterparts. More than half of women revealed they were happy with their wage packet at the end of the month compared with 46% of men. This continues an annual trend with the Pf Survey.

Papa’s got a brand new bag
Across all industries, data suggests that women still feel uneasy about stepping off the career ladder to start a family. But Professor Raynor says this unease at switching from a business woman with responsibilities to a housewife with children is not solely reserved for females. 
“We’re seeing more women deciding not to have children and taking the career route because they look around and see it’s difficult to combine career and children,” she continued. “Although I feel that men experience this as well. When children come along, their focus on why they’re at work starts to change. It’s very good to start to see paternity leave come in. In many ways what we’re talking about now could be an end to those stereotypes. Actually, males have a hard time too but we hardly ever talk about this.”
Although men might not suffer as much in the pay stakes as women do when children come along there are a number of decisions which can ease the process, especially for women. Those leaving a career to start a family are encouraged to set their priorities early; get the support needed from their family required to balance the long hours and added work load; to decide from the outset what is right for them personally and consider the implications in the long term.

I feel good
Professor Raynor says the equality divide which still exists today is still some way from being eradicated where work and pay is concerned. But the more women in positions of power the more likely it is they will break down the barriers and we’ll see the balance and fairness suggested in the soon to be implemented Equality Act 2010. 
“We are still a long way from gender equality that a lot of people would want,” she concludes. “For males it’s the balance between paternity rights and a career. For women it’s pay, maternity rights and a career. Things are changing though. Women in senior positions are seen as role models for other women working within the organisation. Other women look and say ‘if she can do it then so can I’.
“This also applies to people who take career breaks and who are still able to succeed. It would be very positive if we had more leeway for paternity leave and a positive attitude from society about a genuine openness about men and women switching the caring roles in the home.”
Although in the Survey both sexes agreed that salary was the main motivational factor (figure 3) at work, responses from women showed that work-life balance was more important than their relationship with their boss. A trend reversed in men. The link between relationship with manager and job security for men suggests that keeping the boss sweet in order to maintain in work during a period of recession is far more important than it is for women – who consider the balance between being at work and spending time with the family more important.  
Whether or not the age-old argument of who makes the better boss will ever be agreed, or whether true equality in the pay stakes will ever be resolved remains to be seen. However, as the motivational factors in the Pf Survey show, it’s still obvious that where work is concerned men come from Mars and women come from Venus.

Are the best things in life ever free? Not according to our recent survey amongst sales professionals in pharma. So who is enjoying the best remuneration package? And which roles secured the best pay increase over the last year? Diana Spencer reports.

Salary was voted the most important work motivator out of 18 factors in the Pf Company, Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey 2009. It was ranked more important than your working relationship with your manager, the culture of the company you work for, your work-life balance and job security.

Given the economic climate, it is unsurprising that the average salary for many people in the industry decreased between 2008 and 2009 and that many pharma sales professionals are less happy with their remuneration than they were a year ago.

But who has suffered most from the wage cuts? And do age and gender have an impact on the salary you receive? Let’s take a closer look.

Show me the money

The salary picture is quite varied across different roles in the industry, but the most notable feature of Figure 1 is the drop in bonus rates across all job titles. This decrease was especially significant for healthcare development managers (HCD), after quite a dramatic boost to their bonus rates in 2008. People in these roles have enjoyed a slight, but unusual, increase in their basic salary, however, this could go some way to easing the pain of lower bonus pay.

The exception to the rule is key account managers (KAM), who saw an increase in both pay and bonus in 2009, implying that these roles are increasing in significance as account management becomes the dominant sales model for the industry.

After a slight boost to remuneration in 2008, those in representative roles (either both primary and secondary care or just primary) have experienced a return to 2007 bonus and salary rates.

When asked if they feel their remuneration is appropriate, the majority have agreed that their wage is fair, though still an average of around 40% feel they are not getting just rewards for the work they do.

First line managers are one of the least happy roles, and are significantly less satisfied than they were last year, no doubt due to cuts to salary and bonus rates. HCD managers are also feeling under-appreciated, but their satisfaction with their remuneration rate is still a vast improvement on 2007. Hospital specialists remain one of the happiest roles in terms of the compensation they receive.

Mind the gap

No discussion of industry salaries would be complete without a quick look at that age-old issue: the ‘gender pay gap’. High profile cases, such as the recent Novartis trial in the US, have drawn attention to discriminatory behaviour in pharma, demonstrating that perhaps gender bias isn’t as dead as some would like to believe.

This is a complicated issue and many factors could influence pay scales for the different genders, however, analysis of responses from the Pf Survey does indicate a slightly higher average salary for men in certain key roles. For example, while the average salary for a female sales representative is £32,000, a man in a similar role is taking home £34,000. This same £2,000 disparity is also found in KAM roles and first line management.

This is an interesting finding, however, it is only with further investigation into experience levels etc that any discrimination could be proved. The survey also revealed that of those working reduced or part-time hours, 92% were women, and so it could be that these reduced salaries are impacting on the final result.

Age before beauty

Another topical area of discrimination is that based on a person’s age. Government intentions to remove the compulsory retirement age have been both welcomed and criticised, and the issue of ageism remains a pertinent one for many. The demographic of respondents to this year’s survey imply that the UK pharma sales industry is made up of a relatively young workforce with just 8% of respondents over 54 years of age.

Perhaps the more pertinent age issues within the industry are around how your level of experience within the industry impacts your salary and whether you are discriminated against for wishing to continue in a representative role throughout your career, rather than moving into sales force management.

An analysis of certain key roles by age and salary indicates that experience is certainly highly valued and rewarded within pharma. However, those wishing to stay within a representative role for eight years or more can only expect to earn an average of £36,000, while someone who has moved into first line management can expect a salary of around £56,000. Interestingly, every one of the first line managers who responded to the survey had more than four years experience in the industry, demonstrating that fast-track routes to management are extremely rare.

Figure 2: The value of experience

Figure 3: Salary in different age groups

Tough times

With ever-increasing pressures on our finances, mounting bills and the cost of living soaring, how much you earn is becoming more important a question than ever. However, many people appreciate that these pressures are felt by businesses too, even in an industry as secure as the pharmaceutical industry. The boom times, for both the industry and its sales force, came crashing to an end with the large-scale redundancies that took place at the start of this decade.

Now, as the decade draws to a close, a new model for the pharmaceutical industry is emerging. With a shift in focus to account management and partnership with the NHS, every member of the pharma field force needs to know their stuff and know it well. It is hard to predict what impact the events of the coming year will have on the industry, but for those prepared to meet this challenge, the rewards could be great.

About the survey

The Pf Company Perception, Motivation Satisfaction Survey has been conducted annually by Health Sector Publishing, publishers of Pf, since 2002. It provides a benchmark of field force remuneration, motivation, satisfaction, perception and recruitment. As the survey is managed by Dr B Payne of Conker Statistics (a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society) and respondents are anonymous, it is able to provide a unique and impartial snapshot of workforce attitudes at the time the research is conducted. These latest results were gathered in early 2010, but relate to 2009.

Recent research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has revealed that the vast majority of employers are risking money and the happiness of staff by not assessing the impact of their reward practices. Catherine Forrest, Business Incentives Manager, House of Fraser, offers some advice to ensure your incentive scheme is motivational.

Motivation is the key to any successful people management role. If people can be encouraged or developed in such ways as to improve their effectiveness, then business can and will improve. Motivated workers are more productive, and higher productivity usually means higher profits. But how many employees ever reach their full potential? Almost all of us have the opportunity to perform better, but most of us need some motivation.

Personnel incentive schemes carry a number of benefits, such as encouraging higher levels of staff performance, with rewards related to the achievement of goals or targets. Such incentive schemes can help in persuading staff to join a business, to increase motivation and loyalty, and may be a major factor in retaining existing staff. But incentive schemes can also be instrumental in boosting productivity, building teamwork and helping employees focus on achieving targets.

Any incentives offered must be relevant to the jobs to which they relate, and affordable enough to fit in with a company’s business strategy. It is also fair to say that any incentives work best when they are linked with a good pay structure, favourable working conditions and good management practices, such as regular skills training, appraisals and the tools to do the job.

Tailored and targeted

A number of incentive scheme options exist, each with different costs. Examples include:
• commission
• bonuses
• share option schemes
• vouchers
• formal awards
• lifestyle incentives such as time off for children’s school events
• company cars
• extra holidays or sabbaticals after a long period of service.

Before devising any sort of incentive scheme, companies should profile the target audience in order to ensure that a relevant and, above all, motivational reward is presented. There’s no point in offering a holiday reward to someone who hates flying, or presenting a case of champagne to someone whose religious or personal beliefs preclude them from drinking alcohol. By factoring in the participant’s age, gender, marital status, religion and interests, decisions can be made on the type of incentive that will appeal, thus ensuring a really motivational reward.

There’s no point in offering a holiday reward to someone who hates flying, or presenting a case of champagne to someone whose religious or personal beliefs preclude them from drinking alcohol

Before embarking on the scheme, it’s important to identify the programme’s objectives, which can then be set out and measured through careful research. Such objectives might include recruiting, or retaining staff; it may be that the structure of the organisation needs to change, or simply that new financial targets are to be set. Involvement of senior personnel is instrumental in driving forward any scheme – this will help to ensure that the scheme is workable from an operational point of view and will aid in deciding on the most suitable incentives and any training that is required.

The scheme should be linked to a company’s financial targets and remuneration. This will help determine whether the incentive offered should be financial or nonfinancial, and also how the scheme might be administered. The scheme also needs to be competitive in terms of tax implications – it’s a turn off for staff if their reward incurs a large tax bill.

Communicated clearly

An incentive programme must be easy to understand, and good communication using posters, newsletters etc will help facilitate this. A lack of good communication can cause complaints from participants, so anyone involved in the scheme will need to know what’s required, how they do it, and what the rewards are. But there are other considerations when actually setting up an incentive scheme:
• Brief personnel at the beginning, and document how the scheme will work so that misunderstandings can be avoided.
• Personnel will need regular updates on their progress, and this is where communication comes into its own in conveying every detail and avoiding misunderstandings.
• Invest some of the budget in communication materials.
• Create a buzz around the programme and launch the scheme with as much ceremony as budgets permit.
• Consider devising a theme for the scheme to make it fun.
• Communicate regularly using more than one medium – perhaps a special newsletter, regular email updates, communicating via the company’s intranet, monthly meetings etc.
• Ensure that part of the communication strategy highlights just what the incentive entails – whether that is a holiday, gift vouchers or an experience adventure. Also, convey what the incentive doesn’t include – for example, if it’s a holiday, then the recipient may need to factor in some spending money.

Planned to perfection

• Decide on measures for staff such as performance targets or quality of work. Measure performance via sales and revenue reports, output record sheets and customer service feedback forms.
• Run a pilot scheme and evaluate the results.
• Top achievers should be recognised, as this helps build the scheme’s momentum, and participants’ enthusiasm – and we all love a public pat on the back. Recognition for a job well done, and being rewarded above basic pay for an extra effort is what can make employees give their best.
• Try and have lots of winners, as this will in itself help motivation – people will feel that they have a better chance of being one of 25 winners than of winning just one prize.
• Make awards frequently and regularly in order to sustain the momentum. Present these awards with style and enthusiasm.
• Consider having a ‘most improved’ reward, as well as an ‘employee of the month’. Then, at the year end, put all the monthly winners together, and award an ‘employee of the year’ who will be given a major prize. This will also help to encourage sustained effort.
• Hold regular reviews, and obtain feedback. Document all comments, and if something isn’t working, change it.
• Be flexible, but don’t make false promises and start something that can’t be finished.
• Elect a project leader to coordinate activity and to answer queries.
• Finally, align your incentive scheme to your business plan in terms of possible improvements in customer service, increase in production etc.

Reviewed regularly

Having set up the incentive programme, it’s important to check that the scheme is working, and this can be achieved by setting up a system that records objectives and goals. Regular meetings and dialogue with personnel will maintain an ongoing review of the incentive(s) offered, and will provide feedback on whether these incentives are valued by participants in the scheme.

Achieving motivation among the workforce is about understanding how employees think and feel, giving them belief in themselves, boosting their confidence and improving their work/life balance. A good incentive scheme can and does help employees achieve their best.