With jobs at a premium and the cost of living continuing to rise, job security has suddenly become a main priority for employees.

The global recession has affected each and every one of us in one way or another. Sweeping job losses throughout the medical sales sector – and in the pharmaceutical industry in particular – have seen even the most experienced personnel joining the queue at the job centre. For those lucky enough to have avoided the dreaded axe, it seems to have made us appreciate our job a whole lot more.

Last year was somewhat of a breakthrough year for as far as job security is concerned. Results from last year’s Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey highlighted how job security had gone from a passing thought to one of the main motivating factors for respondents. Ranked behind salary, relationship with manager and work-life balance in the 2009 survey, job security was suddenly thrust into the top-two motivating factors last year.

It has maintained its position this year behind salary as the second highest motivating factor after pharmaceutical companies continue to introduce ‘efficiency’ plans in an attempt to sustain profits and counter bleak pipelines. During an uncertain last twelve months it would seem that satisfaction levels in job security have also improved. Job security moved from 14th position last year to 11th in the latest set of results. Are companies doing more to reassure staff their jobs are safe, or are employees learning to live with the fact that their week at work may be their last?

Moving on
Attitudes towards job security have also affected respondents’ outlook on where they’d like to be within 12 months’ time – see Figure 1. In last year’s survey, 15% of respondents indicated they were searching for a move away from their current employers with 56% content to stay where they were. However, this year’s results show a slight increase in those figures with 13% of people within the medical sales sector looking for a new job and 59% happy where they are. 

Its men that indicated a stronger desire to change companies with 17% wishing to move organisations and a further 24% saying it was a possibility. However, female respondents were less sure about joining a new organisation with only a tenth wishing to move away from their current employers.

The importance now placed upon job security may also arise from the fact that employees are still very mindful of a turbulent few years – despite a glimpse of light at the end of a very, very dark tunnel. Dr John Philpott, Chief Economic Adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) recently told a panel of directors from Yorkshire that modest economic growth in the UK would see unemployment levels stabilise this year. He also discussed the potential of a stronger recovery resulting in a sudden, sharp fall in unemployment levels and employers again going on the hunt for talented staff to meet increasing demand.

Job security works both ways. It shouldn’t be something that only staff on the ground worry about. Stability and medium to long-term assurance ensures employees are engaged and motivated enough to be committed to company goals and objectives.

Although job security may be a state of mind, there are ways of improving one’s mindset. If a company can ensure or encourage career development and progression, an employee will feel a greater sense of loyalty and commitment. With this in place a sense of dedication allows employees to focus on their individual skills and capabilities and become a consistent performer. In turn, an employer gets a happy and productive employee in the work place.

Trust levels
However, it’s not always that easy it? Memories of colleagues and friends being made redundant can last for a very long time. Geoffrey James, argues on the website inc.com, that job security is defined by who you are, what you do and who you trust. If you’re an individual who is happy going along with your job, undertaking everyday tasks and playing second-fiddle to other staff then you’re more than likely to receive your marching orders, James says. Individuals should strive to stand out from colleagues and be different to the majority of the workforce. “If you really want job security, there must be something about you that’s different, that makes you more relevant than anybody else who does what you do. More importantly, other people must perceive that difference and see it as valuable,” he says.

Then, of course, there’s the trust issue. Do you think you can rely on your boss not to put a red cross next to your name if there are further redundancies? James – who pens one of the world’s most-visited sales-oriented blogs – suggests a novel approach to assessing trust whilst at work or in the field. People that you speak with on a daily basis – be they family, friends, colleagues or business associates – should be placed into three categories: those who trust you completely, those who moderately trust you, and those who vaguely trust you. When these have been grouped together, remove the people in the final two categories – these are the people unlikely to return sales calls, James adds – and then calculate the number of people who you believe completely trust you. If, he says, you have more than 20 people on that list, then you have a greater sense of job security. If you haven’t, it might be time to start building some bridges.

So there you have it. Job security ultimately comes down to who you can trust and who trusts you. Can you hold on to trusted colleagues at work whilst the UK tries to climb out of a double-dip recession. Or, are the people who you believe you rely on merely providing a crocodile smile during work hours? It’s probably wise to start drawing up that list...

Despite huge investments into CRM systems some pharma companies still struggle to get all of their staff to embrace and fully interact with them. Pf’s Iain Bate explores why, and what the future holds for technology in the industry.

There’s no doubt that technological developments have changed the way we live and work from year to year – maybe even from month to month in the 21st Century. But has the world of healthcare been travelling in the slow lane of the intergalactic highway?

The potential that technology offers to pharma, and the general world of healthcare, is enormous. But is the pharmaceutical industry, and its staff in particular, using it to maximise the returns of billion-dollar investments?

It would seem that technology is the ‘buzz word’ on the lips of a few of healthcare’s major players at present. The DH recently invited people to nominate their favourite health-related mobile phone ‘app’ – be it for keeping fit, to locate a hospital or chemist, or helping to manage an illness. Creative minds were also asked to design their own health app with a panel of DH judges deciding on their favourite from the most popular entries.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says it’s the Government’s intention to give people better access to information using modern technology and the exercise is a “unique opportunity for the NHS and those who develop apps to not only showcase their work, but to bring to life new ideas and realise true innovation in healthcare”.

As part of the DH’s technology revolution, patients may also soon be offered online consultations with their GPs using programmes such as Skype. Clearly the Government is embracing the convenience technology offers to patients, but are other sectors in healthcare as interested? It would seem there is still some way to go.

 

In two minds

Pf ’s 2010/11 annual Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey suggests that not all respondents are completely convinced by the power of technology in the workplace. Although the Survey – which relates to 2010 and the early part of this year – found that nearly 90% of respondents have access to a CRM system, only 43% find time to use it in the field and more than a fifth of people fail to accurately record post-call reports with important clients.

Questions have to be asked as to why, despite multimillion pound investment and training by pharma companies, there remains a percentage of staff that still ignore the power and potential of the technology at their finger tips.

Results from the Survey reveal there’s no difference in uptake by key account managers, primary and secondary care representatives, those in primary care roles only, firstline sales managers and secondline sales managers and the use of CRM technology between differing age groups – although surprisingly 10% of respondents in these positions with less than two years of experience said they did not have a CRM system, compared to just 5% more experienced colleagues.

The launch of the iPad in March 2010 promised to revolutionise the way sales representatives, and those in similar roles, use CRM systems in the field. However, nearly three-quarters (70%) of respondents from the Survey are still presently sent out with laptops containing their customer-relationship systems.

When quizzed on what they’d change about the hardware which houses their system, the majority of respondents said that their CRM was too awkward to carry, with poor running systems an issue and that batteries ran out too quickly. Apple claims its second-generation iPad now enjoys ten hours of use away from a plug socket in the field.

Yet the switch to the latest convenient tablet devices may not necessarily be about high levels of investment, it may be down to maximising value for money as Paul Shawah, Vice President, Multi Channel Strategy, Veeva Systems explains. “I would say the life cycle of devices within the industry is generally about three years, sometimes a little bit longer,” he said. “When a company invests in new technology they typically depreciate that over that period, so they don’t want to replace it in the field for that time to maximise their investment.

“However, with the introduction of game changing technology like the iPad, this has changed. We see a number of our pharmaceutical customers are justifying the business case to move to the iPad even before their tablets are fully depreciated. This speaks to the business benefit that pharma expects to achieve from the iPad and the related applications only available on that device.”

A convenient shield

Despite technology eliminating mundane process in the workplace and offering the potential to assist employees and improve their efficiency at work, it has historically been used as a shield to mask poor performance and abused as a means to waste company time – a recent online survey by AOL found that nearly half of Americans (44.7%) rank surfing the web as their primary activity during the two hours they ‘waste’ each day at work.

But it would seem that a high number of respondents do value the opportunities CRM offers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they always enter correctly the amount of customer sales they make into their CRM. But 21% admitted they fail to always report face-to-face meetings with clients. More surprisingly, over a fifth of participants said they do not always record the number of products they had sold to clients.

The lack of honest accuracy is surprising considering the amount of time spent using CRM systems each day. A third said they spend between one and two hours a day on their system with a fifth spending three hours or more on their CRM. During their time using the management system, more than half (55%) said that call reporting was the most useful feature.

Although respondents were less impressed with the KAM abilities of their software with only 19% believing it to be the most useful facility. When questioned about what they would change given the chance, 45% said they wanted an improved database, over a quarter (28%) called for their system to be overall more useful, and 18% said they would prefer their CRM to be easier to use.

 

The next level

But what of the future of CRM systems? Will they be easier to use and have improved customer databases? David Round, General Manager, UK, Cegedim Relationship Management, says the regular interaction we now have with technology means we’ve all come to expect the latest developments.

“End users are significantly more ‘technology-savvy’ than their counterparts of even five years ago,” he explained. “If anything, the challenge for companies is to ensure that they provide their end users with the types of technology that they use as consumers. It’s also important to focus on the usability of your software to ensure maximum use. Technology companies – and pharma – must work together to develop a better understanding of the interaction, to ensure it meets users’ needs in the field.”

One main reason that users have become more ‘savvy’ is down to the use and interaction with social media. Whether at home or at work, websites such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and most recently Google+ have driven an increased use of various forms of technology – especially on devices such as smartphones or tablet devices which reps are calling for in the field.

Pharma companies, both in the US and UK, have flirted with the idea of fully embracing the power social media harnesses, but at present are restricted by the PMCPA’s Code of Practice and by the FDA – who has again delayed the publication of its guidance.

The FDA says it is “difficult to provide a timeframe... due to the extensive work and review process, or ‘Good Guidance Practices’, which ensures that FDA’s stakeholders are provided well vetted guidances articulating FDA’s current thinking on a topic”.

Although the FDA may be unsure on how to direct healthcare companies, David Round believes the introduction, both professionally and personally, of social media has had an impact on staff and their expectations.

“For the modern professional person, much of their everyday life is conducted online – for example on shopping, utilities, insurance or booking a holiday – and many users then want the same level of capability from the tools they use in their job,” he added.

Dan Goldsmith, General Manager, Veeva Europe, agrees there has been a significant shift in the way we operate and interact due to our experiences online through tagged posts or hash-tagged searches. But although the 800 million users on Facebook – more than half which ‘log-on’ every day – and 175 million people on Twitter have no problem saying hello to friends, pharma finds it more difficult reaching out to people.

“Social media create a new avenue for healthcare dialogue and will only continue to pervade our lives,” said Dan. “Consequently, I believe that pharma faces two challenges. The first is to decide how to participate in the online dialogue with stakeholders and then to create those interactions through the channels we’re all familiar with, such as Facebook and Twitter.

“The second is to figure out how to leverage the model of social dialogue internally to support stronger collaboration and more focused communication among employees. Already, we see some companies taking advantage of the latest social business tools to connect employees with one another and to access and share information in real time.”

Clearly CRM solution providers understand the potential modern technology and social media platforms offer to companies. Whether pharma and its workforce get fully up to speed on the intergalactic highway sooner or later remains to be seen.

There’s a lot of talk at the moment about getting in the ‘real world’. The ambitions of the NHS reforms, which this month survived a Commons vote and are now headed for the Lords, have drawn criticism from inside and outside the health service as not being practical in the real world of patient care.

In turn, the ABPI, along with countless others, has cited the reforms’ ambitions to deliver world-class outcomes as a major driver in the need to augment the current clinical trial model to make provision for the collection of ‘real world’ data. But, say commentators, developing real world data means the industry must ask its customers real world questions, rather than simply work to its own agenda.

For medical sales professionals, this is your selling environment – and the real world you face every day is clearly in a state of flux. But out of confusion can often come clarity. The messages that you take to market need to be shaped in the round. It is no longer acceptable for sales professionals to simply inherit brand messages from their colleagues in marketing – they must help inform value propositions and commercial strategies by sharing the important information they glean from the real world dialogue they have with their customers.

And by challenging the age-old customer perception that the NHS cannot and should not work in partnership with industry. The NHS must be made to realise that it cannot deliver the required improvements in quality and patient outcomes on its own. In this regard, NHS customers too need to get in the real world. And it’s the job of the pharmaceutical sales professional to help get them there.

Chris Ross, Editor

If I were a rich man
PS. The latest results of the Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey show that, despite a median basic salary well in excess of the national average and annual total remuneration packages that make the profession among the best-rewarded in the UK, a high volume of medical sales professionals remain dissatisfied with their salary and want more. Of course, we all want more, it’s human nature. But in an era characterised by cuts, job losses and high unemployment, the Lionel Bart’s Oliver approach of requesting more seems relatively misplaced at the present time. Perhaps pharma’s sales people should consider getting in the real world too? It’s just a thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five-star model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born to lead

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

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

Tony Swift is the Managing Director of Apodi.

Keeping hold of key members of staff has always been an issue for successful organisations. To avoid head-hunters, Anton Franckeiss explains valuable measures to increase employee retention and satisfaction.

Although the pharmaceutical industry is one that consumers tend to depend on to provide instant cures or magical remedies to our all too human frailties, it actually operates to a longer timeframe. Any new treatment for our remedies may take only seconds to swallow, but will have been in development for many years, and possibly even decades. But despite its foundation in long-term projects, the industry also experiences higher than average staff turnover rates – a circumstance that the industry shares with IT and financial services. While the requirement for specialist knowledge and professional skills is a common factor across all three of these sectors that should not be ignored, human resource (HR) professionals within the industry should resist the temptation to believe that there is a single cure that can be prescribed and administered.

Although the analogy may be a simplistic one, especially in the industry context, adopting a holistic view that sees retention rates as one of the vital signs of the ‘patient’ (ie the workforce of each pharmaceutical company) may be helpful. Recent surveys, both by Pharmaceutical Field and by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, have shown a slowing of staff turnover rates in the industry. Yet the reasons may be at least partly a reflection of the broader labour market and economy.

In an era of slow economic growth after a sharp recession, employees are seeing redundancies elsewhere – or even closer to home – and may have drawn the conclusion that the metaphorical frying pan might be a happier place to be for the medium-term than the unknown quantity of the metaphorical fire. There is, however, no room for complacency here. If the factors at play are limiting turnover rather than actively encouraging retention, the ‘condition’ could flare up again at short notice depending on movements in the broader economy: a chronic condition, after all, requires monitoring and management to ensure that any chances of it becoming acute are minimised.

Road to recovery

The analogy of a chronic condition, however, should be challenged. A continuing situation of poor retention does not imply that this either must simply be lived with or will inevitably get worse. There is no reason that the prognosis should be gloomy, although a combination therapy approach will be required and the regime will need to be maintained for some time before improvements in the underlying condition are secured. The key to success lies in the depth of understanding that the doctor – in this case the HR functions of companies in the industries – can acquire about their patient.

Without research, dialogue and communication, companies can too easily assume that they understand the retention factor priorities of their workforce, while the employees actually see the outlook rather differently. A 2006 survey by Talent Drain, for example, showed that employees rank ‘cooperation’ as the second most important factor, while employers listed this in ninth place.

Employers also typically overstate the impact of pay and financial rewards, while underestimating the importance to employees of opportunities for personal growth. What appears as a mission critical role contribution through one end of the telescope looks more like one component of an on-going personal biography from the other. In an industry that embraces great diversity of roles – from sales to scientific specialists – there is likely to be a similar diversity of outlook – the intelligent response is to seek understanding rather than to assume that a single remedy can be applied in all cases. Feedback to HR from line management in different operational areas could be helpful here, so keep lines of dialogue open.

The right prescription

Employee motivation and engagement requires similar treatment; although recent surveys say suggest turnover is reduced, they also suggest what an earlier Pharmaceutical Field article, called The Fear Factor, highlighted. Pro-actively seeking to increase engagement will enhance the chances of turning a cure into a preventative approach. The highly engaged will be less easily tempted away when external economic factors change. Again, an appreciation of potential complexity will be helpful. Scientific staff may be balancing a need to supervise and manage others and commercial encouragement from the organisation to develop their leadership skills with their personal commitment to their professional discipline. Acknowledging such a potential conflict of factors will be a far more productive way of identifying motivational approaches than failing to address it.

There are also industry-specific challenges to address, one of which was highlighted in an interview between the BBC’s Evan Davis and GSK Chief Executive Andrew Witty in the former’s recent book, Made in Britain: “One of the things we say to our scientists is that you have to be comfortable with failure. [There are] great scientists in this company who will never succeed in their entire career … Of 10,000 new molecules that we might synthesise, so that we might create 10,000 possible new drugs, probably one will be a drug.”

Strategies that promote innovation – the use of multi-disciplinary project teams where each can make their own distinct contribution and gain inspiration from other – can help here in other ways. But also allow staff with specialist skills to receive peer, as well as line management, feedback on the value of their contribution. It was a point by Alistair Flaister in a People Management article, Organisational learning: The social network, when he made the important point that: “The real engine of creativity and organisational success is to be found in internal networks of friendship and collaboration.”

Line managers have other contributions to make, not least in listening acutely and in building a supportive and encouraging team culture. It’s a point underlined in the 2010 Work Foundation report, Exceeding Expectations: the principles of outstanding leadership, which identified two elements common to the approaches of outstanding leaders in creating a working environment:

The first is the need to develop an open and supportive atmosphere to create the conditions for trust and respect, and the second is to ensure the workplace enabled success and satisfaction.

Part of the latter element may require support from HR in terms of fresh thinking. Depending on the severity of the case, HR might also ponder the benefits of making a referral to a specialist consultant. Helping specialist staff to make the transition to a leadership role is not simply a progression or promotion through a series of levels of leadership. It requires them to make a fundamental transition from development of a professional discipline to that of a broader organisational and commercial role. It also requires the transfer and application of new behaviours that challenge and enhance their performance and contribution. Two other factors that The Work Foundation found as common to outstanding leaders is a willingness to be flexible in their approach to process, and a willingness to adapt roles to give individuals the maximum opportunity to achieve personal growth and job satisfaction. An organisational willingness to be similarly flexible in role definition and organisational design can support good leaders within the company to deploy this approach successfully.

Never say no

Think of a talented individual that the company should seek to retain, and then imagine how they might feel if they heard the words “I’d love to be more flexible, but I’ve spoken to HR and they said …” It’s also helpful to remain mindful that disengagement is unlikely to be a proactive personal choice – employees are more likely to become disengaged as a reaction.

Ultimately, employee retention is not so much a condition as a symptom. An indicator that employee engagement is low, that opportunities to satisfy personal motivations are too limited, that opportunities for progression are overly limited or unclear, or that employees are not receiving positive feedback on their performance and/or contribution when praise is due. The answer is not to treat the isolated symptom, but to investigate the underlying condition and develop a comprehensive talent management strategy that will systematically improve organisational health. Even in an industry where specialist skills are a key requirement in many roles, an employee value proposition and a recruitment strategy that identifies employees with a strong cultural fit are still important requirements. Any industry dependent on innovation and intellectual property should appreciate that human resources are its critical input. And most employees – who will, after all, have chosen to make an application to join the organisation and done so in good faith – are ultimately looking for something relatively straightforward: regular reminders of several good reasons to stay. That, of course, is easy to say, but there’s something positive to be said for making it easy to do.

Anton Franckeiss is the Managing Director of ASK Europe.

Finding the best employer is like playing the dating game. No-one wants to be married to their job, but tying the knot with an employer is an important commitment. The strongest relationships can last a lifetime, while playing the field may not look quite so good on your CV. So what is it that attracts us to our employers? Do we marry for money, or is long-term fulfillment enough? And is a good sense of humour essential? Pf’s Emma Campbell-Kelly outlines some of the key criteria in identifying ‘The One’.

The summer months, particularly the holiday season, are often the time when most of us pause and reflect on where we are in life. That two-week break in the Maldives, or even just the back garden, can invariably provide the catalyst for some killer questions: Am I in the right job? Does my employer appreciate me? Do I appreciate my employer? Is it time for me to move on? For many, this period of reflection provides little more than confirmation that they are happy where they are. In the current climate, where job security is king and fear of moving jobs has bred a ‘better the devil you know’ approach, many workers are staying put rather than risking change. But for some, a ‘grass is always greener’ philosophy drives them towards the pursuit of new employment. But what do you look for in a new employer? What defines the perfect job and, indeed, an employer of choice? Where do you begin in the pursuit of professional happiness?

Searching for a new job can be a daunting endeavour. Whether it’s your decision to enter the vacancy abyss or not, the task can be arduous and time-consuming. Slim pickings are expected in such a precarious economic climate, but there’s still a world of decisions to make: location, role, salary and even whether you are looking in the right industry are all key considerations.

The experience is similar to becoming newly single, in the market for a new partner. Job sites and recruitment companies could be metaphors for dating agencies in this case, or a friend who’s trying to set you up, or a speed dating session.

And you must select employers from this pool of availability in a similar way to how you would approach someone to ask them out. Like a relationship, a job is an investment, and will define you for the period you choose to stay committed to it. You want the whole package: ‘The One’. It will stay on your record, your personal history, or rather your CV. No pressure then.

What do you look for? Materialistic features (financial details) are number one priority for most. Your interest in a job or person is sparked by judging at face value. It’s not necessarily shallow, because what else can you base your judgement on in the first instance? Being objective with your search is key to obtaining a job that will tick all the boxes for you.

So once you’ve landed your first ‘date’ with the desired employer, aka job interview, first impressions are too important to disregard. You dress to impress, revise your CV, and prepare answers to every question under the sun. Both parties want to impress, without coming across as too keen. But at the end of the day, you want this job, you wouldn’t have applied otherwise. And the employer wants the best they can get (which is you, obviously). After all, as Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, said: “You’re only as good as the people you hire.” So it’s potentially a win-win situation, as long as you both get what you want.

Job satisfaction has always come top of surveys questioning motivation at work. Until now. It seems that such an insecure and volatile economy is making us tighten our belts (as if they weren’t tight enough already). Living costs are continuing to rise, a unanimous, desperate ‘Yes please’ is given in response to money. The prospect of a double-dip recession has hit us while we’re down, just as we were getting our hopes up.

With this in mind, it’s no surprise when perusing the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s (CIPD) recent quarterly Employee Outlook survey. The review showed that increased salary and benefit packages have overtaken job satisfaction as the number one reason why employees are looking to change jobs.

Out of 2,000 questioned employees, 54% rated higher salary and benefits as their top reason for wanting to change jobs, while 42% said that job satisfaction drove their career move choices. This is a sharp reversal compared to last year’s 61% voting job satisfaction over 48% monetary reasons to look for alternative employment. A shocking revelation from the survey showed that almost a fifth (18%) of employees completely run out of money before they’re paid, either always or most of the time. So the financial pressure is on, it seems.

But are finances what get us out of bed in the morning? We recall how the carrot beat the stick regarding the donkey’s motivation. But what does the carrot mean to you?

Is it salary, benefits, a fancy company car? For some people, especially those who are struggling financially at the moment, the answer would be a giant nod of the head. But what about the 42% who voted job satisfaction as their motivation to work hard?

For this group, an employer’s treatment of its workers and management skills really makes a difference. It’s the little things that contribute to their career happiness. A friend you can confide in, belief in your product, respect for your manager; the buzz of adrenaline when you know you’ve done a good job.

Company culture has always been a vital aspect of work life. Your co-workers are with you for a significant portion of the day, so team dynamics are important. Henry Ford of Ford Motor Company had the right thinking: “Our employees are like extended members of our family.” The company should run like a well-oiled machine at all levels, complementing and developing each other’s roles and responsibilities. Confidence and trust glue the team together and make everyday errands pass by effortlessly.

There’s no doubt about it, your happiness at a company is largely directed by what you do for at least 40 hours a week. And let’s face it – your working life is a long one, so it’s best to do something you enjoy. It’s been proven time after time that you’re more likely to work harder if you’re passionate about your job. Happy people are more energetic, proactive, creative and optimistic, and quicker to learn. In which case it’s in your employer’s interest to make you happy.

This is largely down to how you’re managed. Management and guidance at work largely affect your work ethic and the company’s dynamics. “Management is nothing more than motivating other people,” stated Lee Iacocca, Chairman for Chrysler Motors. Management is a crucial role to play, because your workforce implicitly relies on your motivation to work. Donald Trump once said, “Good people = good management and good management = good people.”

Money can only promise a limited amount of will-power from an individual; pride in their work will give them the edge and a hunger for success. Belief in your product, trust, loyalty and commitment to the employer are also invaluable attributes for an employee to embody, and are recognised by good employers. As Mary Kay Ash, Head of Mary Kay cosmetics, stated: “People are definitely a company’s greatest asset. A company is only as good as the people it keeps.”

So perhaps, most of all, we just need to feel loved. Being treated well, as in a committed relationship, ensures that we’re in it for the long haul.

In July, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a report on what makes Brits happy. Not money, as it turns out. Health, family and friends topped the list when around 34,000 people were asked “What is wellbeing?” and “What in life matters to you?”

The survey was commissioned by David Cameron to help him develop future policies, but ironically critics have since complained that the £2 million to conduct the survey was a waste of money as the results are quite obvious. We’re never happy, are we?

But at the end of the day, as much as money is a necessity to live, happiness in yourself and at work increases quality of life, and helps boost your company at the same time. A happy workforce is a productive workforce after all.

From an employer, you want to be pushed to your full potential, appreciated for your effort, made responsible for important decisions, making you believe in your product and employer.

Working life is most enjoyable if you’re lucky enough to be in the position of not worrying about money. To have an enthralling occupation puts a spring in your step.

And as much as looking for a new job can be tiresome and sometimes feels like a dead end, just remember, it’s all in aid of finding ‘The One’, your soulmate that offers the whole package: an invigorating role with great prospects. And if the money’s good at the same time, all the better. So make it a good one with good people.

It’s long been said that men are from Mars and women from Venus. Iain Bate explores the findings from the latest Pf survey to establish if, in pharma at least, the sexes really are worlds apart.

For decades studies have been evaluating whether men or women make the better boss or employee. Questions have also been asked time and again about who works harder or more efficiently with the resulting arguments commonplace in boardrooms, bedrooms and everywhere else in between. And, like every other industry, the world of pharma has not been immune from the debate. Now in its tenth year, Pf’s annual Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey provides a confidential way for medical sales professionals to express what they really think of working within the UK pharmaceutical industry, and provides a useful benchmark of field-force remuneration. Once again, this year’s survey shows that the difference between men and women is not as clear as the X and Y chromosomes that separate us.

In 2007, Total Work, Gender and Social Norms, a study from the US National Bureau of economic Research, by Michael Burda, Dan Hamermesh and Philippe Weil, aimed to put an end to the age-old argument of who actually works harder. Although on the surface the majority of respondents claimed that women work harder than men, the survey found that across northern Europe and America the total workload – combining activity at work and at home – is now shared almost equally.

There are reportedly just 78 genes that separate men from women. But the feedback from the Pf survey would suggest masculine and feminine thinking is far closer together. Women slightly outnumber men in the survey accounting for 53% of respondents. They also outnumber male counterparts in almost every age group as well – a surprising statistic considering it’s usually females who sacrifice, or at least put their careers on hold, when starting a family. This social norm is reflected with the only age category in the survey where men outnumber female counterparts by almost 2:1 is those aged 55 or over.

The pay gap

Pay discrimination has always been a major issue and one which campaigners have tried to balance for decades. On the 1st October 2010, the Equality Act 2010 came into force. The brainchild of Harriet Harman and one of the Labour Party’s 2005 manifesto commitments it was supposed to finally bridge the gap in salaries between men and women. Forging together nine different laws, including the Equal Pay Act, the legislation gives the Government the power to require large private sector companies with more than 250 staff to establish whether there is a pay gap and to publish their findings.

But so-called ‘gagging clauses’, which stopped people from discussing their salary with colleagues, remained and several other provisions were left out of the Act, including the gender pay audit.

The Act was supposed to finally end the years of discrimination women have faced – particularly in respect to pay. However, if anything, the survey reveals the pay gap is actually increasing. In last year’s survey, the pay difference between the combined median salaries of medical representatives, hospital specialists, NHS liaison officers and first-line managers was £1,539. But that figure has now leaped to £4,000 in the space of 12 months See figure 1).

Despite the pay gap increasing, women are again more satisfied with their salary than men with more than half (51%) of female respondents admitting to being happy with their remuneration. Needless to say the amount of men who said they were satisfied with their annual remuneration increased from 46% to 49%. But more surprisingly is that 61% of women believe they are on an appropriate salary, compared with 57% of men – maybe the Government’s ‘gagging’ clauses remained for a reason…

Experience and expectations

Although there are more men within the medical sales industry aged 55 and over than women, it is the fairer sex that has more experience within the industry in the early stages of their careers (see figure 2). More than double the amount of women (14%) have up to four years experience in the trade. Women who have worked within the sector for between four and eight years also marginally outnumber men. But more than three-quarters of male respondents said they have eight years of more total experience, compared with 67% of women.

When analysing the amount of time in a person’s current role, it would suggest that the Equality Act is bridging any divide or favouritism towards a certain sex. Exactly a quarter of men have been with their current employer for less than a year with women only one per cent behind. Results also found that employers would now seem to favour an evenly balanced workforce of men and women. In fact, more than a third of both men and women (37%;35%) have been in their current role for between two and eight years. Over that, 17% of men and 14% of women say they have been employed for nearly a decade by the same company.

Often accused by women as having commitment issues, it would seem men do have itchy feet after all with 40% admitting to wanting to move company or position within the next 12 months (see figure 3). More than a third (35%) of women also admit to considering a change of employer or role by this time next year. But a higher number of women (59%)compared to men (53%) said they were happy to stay with their employer and within their existing role.

What really matters

In the current economic state it’s no surprise that both men and women claimed that their salary was the main motivational factor whilst at work (see figure 4). With pharma companies still content on cutting budgets and wielding the axe on sales teams it’s also of little shock that job security is now the second most important factor for employees within the industry. Interesting when you consider in the 2009 survey job security just managed to make the top-twenty motivational factors. The number of redundancies has obviously taken its toll on all respondents within the last twelve months with more people than ever keen to hold on to their job.

Women put a greater emphasis on work-life balance than men who said the relationship with their immediate manager was of more importance. This opinion again may reflect a more maternal instinct and a willingness to find the right balance between time spent with the family at home and at work. Men also said that company culture was of more importance than women with females having a greater belief in products than male counterparts.

Where satisfaction within the workplace is concerned there is no separating men and women. Both sexes said that a belief in products, relationship with manager, accountability, autonomy and pension scheme were the top-five satisfying factors. As the survey suggests, men and women have never been more similar…

A lot can happen in a year – especially within the medical sales industry. The Pf Survey offers the opportunity for pharma’s workforce to have their say about what means the most to them, and give their opinion on who they perceive to be the best employers. Pf’s Iain Bate reveals some interesting results.

This year marked a decade of The Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey. For the past ten years the Survey has been providing an annual temperature check of the pharmaceutical and medical sales industry; giving respondents an opportunity to air what they believe are the good, the bad and the ugly sides of working within the sector, behind the shield of confidentiality. The Survey focuses on essential components of everyday working life for employees gauging opinion on everything from their annual remuneration, future career plans and their daily use of technology.

Results from the 2011 survey, which relates to 2010 and the early part of this year, show that although the pharmaceutical industry is recovering slowly from years of job losses, individuals still fear the axe and are becoming ever more motivated by job security and the assurance they still have a role to return to on a Monday morning.

Respondents also crowned Boehringer Ingelheim as the company they’d most like to work for as the coveted Employer of Choice – the fourth consecutive year the company has claimed the top accolade.

The workforce

There was a slight increase in the number of respondents than the year before. However, the number of primary care and primary and secondary care representatives, hospital specialists and first-line managers all dropped.

Despite this, there is an indication of continued stability in the age of employees within the industry as, for the fourth year running, those between 35 and 44 outnumbered younger and more senior counterparts.

This consistency – as shown in Figure 1 – is highlighted with 70% of respondents now having more than eight years of experience within the industry. Even more assuring is that a remarkable 93% now have more than two years’ experience within the sector, with more than half (54%) being in their current role for two years or more.

It would seem that although there have been job losses in the past, the majority of experienced professionals have retained their positions and have been joined by a batch of new recruits now forging their own careers within the industry. A fact highlighted by the number of respondents that have been in their current role for less than a year now outnumber those who have stayed with their employer for more than twelve months.

The chosen one

The Employer of Choice (EoC) section – see Figure 2 – asks respondents to rank companies – with the exception of their own – on how desirable they feel they would be to work for. Boehringer Ingelheim again took the crown as the most admired employer, closely followed by Roche. In fact, the two companies have held the top-two position since 2005. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly also cemented their places within the first four positions.

Arguably the most-improved performer in this year’s results is Leo. The company was voted a respectable ninth in last year’s EoC guide but has moved up four places and into the top-five. Lundbeck also had reason to celebrate as they were voted the seventh most desirable company to work for, alongside Bayer Healthcare and Janssen, and claimed a place in the top-ten for the first time.

Astellas enjoyed one of the biggest leaps from 2009 as it jumped ten places to 14th in the rankings, with Reckitt Benckiser also registering in the top-twenty for the first time.

Of greatest importance

Money makes the world go around and it’s no different in pharma. With the UK still gripped by the affects of the credit crunch and the recession it is of little surprise that salary remains the main motivating factor for respondents – see Figure 3. It’s the increase in an awareness of job security though that is one of the main changes in the motivational ratings. Previously ranked behind salary, relationship with manager and even work-life balance last year, respondents placed a greater emphasis on ensuring their job is safe within the last year.

Although this may reflect on the economy as a whole and a fear of not being able to find a new position if made redundant or when choosing to leave, an increased awareness in job security may be linked the batch of ‘newcomers’ to the medical sales industry who may see a prolonged career within the industry as a wise choice.

The most satisfying aspect of working within pharma is again the belief in products held by staff. Closely followed by the relationship shared with those in senior positions, the freedom to work without being shadowed by bosses has also been recognised and welcomed as autonomy has moved within the top-three positions for the first time in the history of the survey.

But at the other end of the scale, respondents voiced their lack of satisfaction with their company’s share scheme, the bonus they receive and, more worrying, their fear of being made redundant.

On a personal level, it would seem that employees are far from happy with their own personal development in their role, and the state of their worklife balance. Results from last year’s Survey placed personal progression within the top-ten satisfying factors for respondents. But this year it has fallen to the 12th most satisfying aspect. Work-life balance fares slightly worse a place behind – despite various initiative created within the last year by pharma companies to address this.

Despite the shoots of revival, it would seem that pharma still has a long way to go until it creates a harmonious workforce.

The Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey has been conducted annually by HSP, publishers of Pf, since 2002. It provides a benchmark of field force renumeration, 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 2011, but relate to 2010 and the early part of the year.

Results from the Pf survey find medical sales executives are slowly adjusting to NHS reforms and widespread company restructures. 

It’s been another eventful 12 months within the medical sales industry. As the industry continues to announce job losses the Pf survey provides sales executives with an anonymous voice to have their say on the good, bad and ugly sides of their job. 

It’s an uncertain time to be working in the medical sales industry. Pharmaceutical bosses might be making the right noises and towing the company line but the industry is fighting against a number of forces. Within the last twelve months a series of large pharmaceutical companies have been forced to use the two words no medical sales professional wants to read on an internal memo: austerity measures. 

The result of price cuts across Europe, as governments continues to tighten their belts, and pipelines continue to fail has been a formula even the most trusted research and development teams have failed to solve a way around. But where do these measures, and what they mean in the long term, leave sales executives working within the industry? The Pf Company, Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey provides an annual temperature check of those working within the pharmaceutical and medical sales industry to gauge opinions.

The survey – now in its 11th year – lets respondents have their say on the things that matter the most to them. It focuses on everyday factors which either make going to work a joy or a struggle and reflects the opinion of staff on key issues such as remuneration, motivation, satisfaction, perception and recruitment. 

Motivation and satisfaction 

The results of the 2012 survey, which relate to 2011, show that once again money makes the work go around. For the fifth year in a row, salary was chosen as the main motivating factor from the 1,215 respondents. It’s also no surprise that job security was chosen as the second highest motivating factor with the wide spread job cuts employees will have witnessed in the last year. 

In fact, there was only change in the top 18 motivating factors (see Figure 1) from last year’s survey – personal development swapping places with autonomy. Surprisingly, respondents appreciated being given the freedom to make individual decisions more than the opportunity to progress up the career ladder. 

Motivational factors may not have changed much in the last twelve months, but satisfaction factors certainly have. Belief in present products again came out on top but there were big declines in satisfaction levels in company culture and salary – which dropped four places, respectively – and in car policy which dropped from 10th last year to towards the bottom of the chart in 16th. Companies abandoning their principles to make people redundant, whilst trimming or freezing wages and taking back company cars and fuel cards did not go unnoticed by the field force. 

But it’s not all bad for organisations – they have been doing other things right. Satisfaction levels in pension schemes, work-life balance and training all improved slightly. Accountability for sales and recognition of achievements also improved. But it was in job security where respondents said they were the most satisfied. After being voted as the 14th highest satisfying factor last year, the survey found pharma companies had made improvements in assuring staff their jobs were safe in the last twelve months as it improved three places.   

Facts and figures 

The number of total respondents – see Figure 2 – totalled almost an identical number to the 2009 survey. For a third successive year, the number of primary care and primary care and secondary care sales executives fell slightly – and now accounts for a third of overall respondents. The number of hospital specialists also dropped slightly. However, numbers of first-line managers (10%) reverted back to their usual figure after falling the year before. 

Although numbers of primary care, secondary care and hospital specialists are down when compared to the turn of the millennium, the recent raft of job losses in the industry doesn’t seem to have impacted experienced and valued team members. The number of respondents with more than eight years’ experience within the industry continues to grow. Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents say they have now worked in the medical sales industry for eight years or more – nearly double the amount that could say that nine years ago. However, those with between two and eight years’ experience may have been presented with their P45, after figures dropped slightly. More worryingly, the amount of people who said they had started a new job within the industry in the last year totalled only 2.3%.  

Employer of choice 

Away from motivational and satisfaction factors, the survey also quizzes respondents on the company they would most like to work for. For the fifth year running Boehringer Ingleheim again topped the charts as the 2012 Employer of Choice. In recent years, Roche has followed closely behind but lost the runner’s up position this year to Eli Lilly – who moved up a position from third. Novo Nordisk again established its position within the top five, with Abbott Laboratories the biggest mover as it improved on last year’s 10th position to finish fifth this year. 

Napp and Bristol-Myers Squibb – which jumped seven places in the chart – both made a return to the top ten after missing out on a place last year. Astellas also had reason to celebrate as it entered the top ten for the first after respondents voted it in eighth position.  

The Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey has been conducted annually by HSP, publishers of Pf, since 2002. It provides a benchmark of field force renumeration, 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 2012, but relate to 2011 and the early part of the year.

 

 

 

The Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey gives respondents from the medical sales sector the opportunity to have their say on their roles from behind an anonymous shied.

The survey continues to benchmark opinion as it moves into its 11^th year and explores the things which matter the most to respondents from a variety of roles.

Despite a challenging and changing marketplace in the last twelve months, motivation and satisfaction factors have not changed as much as would be expected. In fact, only one of the top ten motivation factors changed when compared to the results from the 2010 survey. Salary, job security, manager relationship, work-life balance and company culture again topped the motivation charts with autonomy and personal development the only two factors to swap places.

The biggest change was found in satisfaction factors – where belief in present products again came out on top. Company culture – which for so long was a regularly voted within the top five – fell to eighth position as staff vented their frustration at widespread job losses and changing working environments. Although employees did voice their satisfaction where job security was concerned in the last twelve months after the factor increased by three places in the standings.

The survey is conducted annually by Health Sector Publishing, publishers of Pharmaceutical Field, since 2002. It provides a temperature check of sales executives’ remuneration, motivation, satisfaction, perception and recruitment. It is managed by Dr Brad Payne of Conker Statistics – a Fellow of the Royal Statistics Society – and collects responses anonymously. The latest results were gathered in early 2012, but relate to 2011.